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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS