After the EU, it is now Switzerland’s turn to bemoan humiliation and surrender at the hands of the Trump administration. Politicians and companies are reeling from the shock of a new tariff of 39 percent, well above the EU’s 15 percent, which could cost the country 1 percent of GDP. For Swiss drugmakers such as Novartis AG, the stay of execution granted to the sector feels temporary, with a possible 25 percent pharmaceutical tariff to come if no deal is done. Local media have compared it to the Swiss defeat at Marignano at the hands of the French in 1515.
This is obviously not an emerging-market-style crisis moment: Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world, and Rolex watches are somewhat less price-sensitive than Volkswagen AG cars. The Swiss stock market, which quickly recovered early losses, is taking solace in the fact that 39 percent feels like a blustery prelude to more concessions and a handshake. Already, the Alpine country is scrambling to offer more goodies to an irate US administration. One might imagine more EU-style pledges are coming, such as buying more US energy.
Yet there are deep geopolitical doubts rocking the land of 9 million, which has had its fair share of recent crises, including the collapse of Credit Suisse in 2023. The shock stems from the abundance of confidence that Swiss leaders had in their ability to sweet-talk Trump, shying away from retaliation and making all sorts of positive noises, from buying US jets to encouraging more Swiss investment across the Atlantic (Roche Holding AG has said it would invest US$50 billion).
Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter even claimed some credit for Trump’s initial tariff climb-down in April. Her Midas touch, if it was ever there, has gone; some parties are using this as a chance to call for a more pro-EU political direction.
The humbling reality is that maybe this is not a negotiation after all, but a test of strength as US economic policy goes full-on mercantilist — a test that Bern could never really win. The Trump administration sees Switzerland as a currency manipulator (the Swiss National Bank disagrees) that is ripping off Americans via a US$38 billion trade surplus in goods, even if a huge chunk of this is gold bullion refining. Switzerland seems to have played up its small size, happy neutrality and dependence on the US as plus points in trade talks — failing to realize that playing nice with a bully can also have costs.
Making matters worse is the collective action problem that seems to be plaguing the entire European continent, if not the world. Last month, the Kiel Institute published a proposal to counter the misguided economics of Trump’s tariffs with a coalition of countries representing 50 percent of goods exports to the US, including the EU, Canada and South Korea. The proposed retaliation would be concentrated and powerful enough to get the US to blink.
Yet we seem to be getting further away from such a scenario, with Switzerland the latest example of a country that could only have made a difference as part of a larger bloc including the EU. Even knowing the likelihood that collective action would work better than every market going its own way, the urge would always be to negotiate separately in the hope of getting a better deal than your neighbor.
Whatever happens next, the message cannot be just business as usual. Pharmaceutical industry consultant Lawrence Lynch said that one silver lining of a lose-lose tariff fight for drugmakers would be a stronger and more integrated European market and more diversification away from the US to make up for higher barriers.
As for the politicians now preparing for subsequent rounds of arm-twisting over trade, there should be a recognition that the turmoil is just getting started. Dodging a bullet today does not mean escaping another tomorrow.
Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist writing about the future of money and the future of Europe. Previously, he was a reporter for Reuters and Forbes. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS