Last week saw leaders around the world trying to remember whether they were meant to take US President Donald Trump seriously, but not literally, or literally, but not seriously, and also wondering if they have a Greg Norman somewhere they could use.
When Trump announced early in the week he was going to levy a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 15 percent tariff on aluminum imports, he suggested it was to protect national security.
As with most Trump utterances, it left everyone trying to decipher just what he meant, because the US imports nearly half its steel from four nations — Canada, Brazil, South Korea and Mexico — which are hardly enemies of the US.
Was he doing this to attack China?
He did write a series of tweets that suggested trade with China is in his sights, but while China is the biggest producer of steel, it only exports a small percentage of it to the US.
Some of his other tweets suggested that Trump was instead targeting Europe, but again, hitting steel imports was an odd way to go about it — given Europe made it quickly obvious that it would retaliate with tariffs of its own — and the EU is one of the few economies with enough grunt not to get pushed around by the US.
Then came the suggestion that Trump was using this to negotiate with Canada and Mexico over the North American Free Trade Agreement — but that was also odd because that shot down his national security reasoning and opened the US up to retaliation under WTO rules (which would be likely anyway, given his national security reasoning was clearly bogus).
Using the threat of increasing tariffs in free-trade negotiations is a weird way to go about things.
The tariffs do hurt the nations that export steel and aluminum to the US, because they force them to charge more for their product, thereby giving US steel companies an advantage, but they also hurt the US.
Tariffs are effectively consumption taxes designed to give local industries an advantage (or at least an equal footing with international competitors) and they work by raising the price of imports.
Now that is great for the owners and possibly workers of those industries, but not so good for anyone else who wants to buy those goods, because now they have to pay more.
A tariff on steel and aluminum imports might help create a few extra jobs in the steel industry, but it also increases the price of all things made with steel and aluminum.
That leads to job losses in those industries and also reduces the living standards for everyone because suddenly they have to pay more for things such as canned goods, beer and cars.
One study suggested that for every job gained in the steel and aluminum industries, five would be lost elsewhere.
That does not mean all free trade is a win for everyone — and international trade does not occur in a textbook, but rather in the real world where governments subsidize and assist industries.
However, the general rule is that the costs to the economy increase with the size of the tariff and the number of industries affected (and similarly the benefits of lowering them reduce as the tariff gets closer to zero).
A 25 percent tariff on steel is therefore a rather hefty whack.
Trump is in effect going to the negotiating table with a massive weapon — a bit like taking a gun to a knife fight. The only problem is he has the gun aimed at his own foot.
So it was not a total surprise to see Trump back down and exempt Canada and Mexico, and then later give one to Australia.
As Australian Minister for Trade and Investment Steve Ciobo noted this week, Australian steel exports to the US amount to about 0.8 percent of the US market and aluminum exports account for about 1.5 percent — so exempting Australia makes little difference.
To that end, reports that Australia has engaged golfer and entrepreneur Greg Norman to do some lobbying on the nation’s behalf seem eminently sensible.
Not because Norman is some master trade negotiator, but because when dealing with Trump, nations always need to realize he is an insecure, ego-driven fool who needs praise for doing the most ordinary of activities, and who sees every discussion and issue through the prism of how it makes him look.
Norman is probably the only Australian Trump has heard of, and the fact that Norman is famous and successful and would be seeking a favor from Trump would appeal to Trump’s vanity.
Australia could bemoan the fact that the US electoral college system has selected this vainglorious ignoramus, or it can suck it up and use it to its advantage.
For now it appears his bluster of leveling tariffs for everyone is weakening.
Trump clearly believes this is the best way to negotiate trade deals — like any good swindler he will ignore the costs and talk only of the benefits.
The danger for Australia has always been not from a direct US tariff, but should retaliation come from Europe and China.
The last thing a small, open economy needs is for the large economies of the world to start playing like it is 1930.
For now everyone is trying to work out just what Trump is after — mostly he is after things that he can call a win (even if they are really not).
So nations will be thinking of things they can give Trump that do not matter so that he can claim victory in the negotiation, or they can see if Greg Norman is available for hire.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations