Canada, EU retaliate US metal tariffs
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), US President Donald Trump and Irish Taoiseach Micheal Martin leave the US Capitol in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP
President Donald Trump's increased tariffs on all US steel and aluminum imports took effect on Wednesday, ratcheting up a global trade war and drawing swift retaliation from Canada and Europe.
Trump's action to bulk up protections for American steel and aluminum producers restores effective tariffs of 25% on all imports of the metals and extends the duties to hundreds of downstream products, from nuts and bolts to bulldozer blades and soda cans.
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said nothing could stop the tariffs and Trump would impose trade protections on copper as well.
Canada, the biggest foreign supplier of steel and aluminum to the United States, announced 25% retaliatory tariffs on those metals along with computers, sports equipment and other products worth C$29.8 billion in total.
Canada's central bank also cut interest rates to prepare the country's economy for the damage. Trump's hyper-focus on tariffs since taking office in January has rattled investor, consumer and business confidence in ways that economists worry could cause a US recession and slow the global economy.
The European Commission said it would impose counter tariffs on up to 26 billion euros ($28 billion) worth of US goods next month. Nevertheless, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters she had tasked Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic to resume talks with US officials on the matter. "It is not in our common interest to burden our economies with such tariffs," she said.
China's foreign ministry said Beijing would safeguard its interests, while Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said the move could have a major impact on US-Japan economic ties.
Close US allies Britain and Australia criticised the blanket tariffs, with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the move was "against the spirit of our two nations' enduring friendship".
However, both countries ruled out immediate tit-for-tat duties. Brazil, the No. 2 provider of steel to the United States, said it would not immediately retaliate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
20 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Jaishankar's ‘terroristan' remark overlooks India's own role in regional instability, aggression
Listen to article Amid a long history of rouge acts of aggression, terrorism and preemptive assaults on Pakistan. Now India's Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar committed another verbal attack on Pakistan as calling it 'terroristan'. Speaking at a joint press conference in New Delhi on Tuesday alongside European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, Jaishankar said, 'I'd like you to understand this is not a conflict between two states per se,' Jaishankar said. 'This is actually a response to the threat and the practice of terrorism. So, I would urge you to make it. Don't think of it as India or Pakistan; think of it as India–Terroristan. You will then appreciate it,' he added. The remarks are among the strongest in recent months by a senior Indian official and come amid heightened diplomatic tensions. However, India has a long history of intervention, igniting armed conflict and even producing a shadow army during 1971 war. India's current Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has openly acknowledged the country's policy of targeting peoples beyond its borders, reinforcing long-suspected claims of cross-border operations. In a TV interview, Singh stated, 'If any terrorist tries to disturb India… and escapes to Pakistan, we will go there to kill him,' describing the strategy as approved by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The statement comes in the wake of a recent Guardian report about India's involvement in up to 20 extrajudicial killings in Pakistan since 2020. While India's Ministry of External Affairs has dismissed the report as 'false and malicious propaganda,' Singh's remarks appear to contradict that denial, casting new light on India's covert terror doctrine. On the other hand, The Indian agency RAW, was finally drawn out of shadows last year when it assassinated pro-Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil. Delhi was in denial – but not for long. The US ambassador in Ottawa was quick to confirm there was shared intelligence among the 'Five Eyes' partners that helped Canada unravel Nijjar's murder mystery. This was followed by another explosive revelation. The FBI thwarted an Indian plot to assassinate another pro-freedom Sikh leader on American soil. It was learnt that the US informed some allies about the plot following Nijjar's murder. Both former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Ex-president Joe Biden took up the blatant violation of sovereignty by Indian agents with Delhi at the top level. Hate speech, minorities and Islamophobia In March 2024, more than 20 UN experts signed a joint statement urging India to "end attacks against minorities" in the run-up to national elections. Since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014, India has seen numerous outbreaks of violence between majority Hindus and its 200-million-strong Muslim minority. Instances of hate speech against minorities in India such as Muslims increased 74% in 2024, a Washington-based research group said reported in 2025, with incidents ballooning around last year's national elections. In 2022, a study by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) found that Twitter users in India are responsible for 55.12% of anti-Muslim content on the platform. The report highlights a strong link between surges in online Islamophobia and major global events involving Muslims, such as protests, terror attacks, and regional conflicts. Pakistan's irrefutable evidence During a press conference last month in Rawalpindi, Director General ISPR Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry revealed that Indian army officers are sponsoring terror operations in Pakistan, supplying explosives, IEDs, and funds to militants targeting civilians and security forces. 'This irrefutable evidence is just one small part of India's state-sponsored terrorism,' Chaudhry said. Citing the arrest of a Pakistani suspect on April 25 near the Jhelum bus stand, DG ISPR informed the individual was trained and funded by Indian handlers. Authorities recovered an IED, Indian-origin drone, and large sums of cash. 'Forensic analysis of the retrieved materials confirmed irrefutable evidence, verifiable by any credible independent agency,' he added. Chaudhry named several Indian army personnel — including Major Sandeep Verma and Subedar Sukhwinder — as handlers, claiming they provided instructions for assembling and planting explosives, including a deadly attack in Jalalpur Jattan that killed four Pakistani soldiers. He also called out Indian media for spreading 'blatant propaganda' following incidents involving explosives and dismissed allegations against Pakistan over the recent Pahalgam attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. 'Seven days have passed since the Pahalgam incident, and so far, India has not presented any evidence for its baseless allegations,' he said. Kulbhushan Jadhav case On March 3, 2016, Pakistani intelligence agencies achieved a monumental success by arresting Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, marking a significant milestone in the fight against terrorism and exposing India's involvement in state-sponsored terrorism. Following his arrest, Pakistani intelligence agencies uncovered Jadhav's extensive terrorist network, which was responsible for targeting innocent Pakistani lives. During interrogation, Jadhav confessed to carrying out operations in Pakistan under the direct orders of the Indian government and RAW. In conclusion, Jaishankar's recent remark, labelling Pakistan as 'terroristan,' exposes a glaring irony, given India's own extensive history of covert operations, cross-border violence, and state-sponsored terrorism. While India continues to deflect accusations and blame Pakistan, the undeniable evidence of Indian involvement in extrajudicial killings, support for militant activities, and assassination plots against its own citizens abroad paints a starkly different picture. The remarks by Indian officials only serve to highlight the hypocrisy at play, with India's foreign policy and actions contradicting its rhetoric. As the global community becomes increasingly aware of these covert operations, India's attempts to project itself as the moral high ground in the region ring hollow.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Newer world order in Trump era — and Pakistan
Listen to article After President Donald Trump's second coming to the Oval Office, the US ways, means and ends of foreign policy are witnessing a transformation. The evolving 'Newer World Order', though dynamic and transitory, needs to be understood. Deciphering President Trump's speeches, announcements, presidential orders, tweets and utterances of last five months, it can be concluded that "trade and tariffs" are the principle means of his interstate relations philosophy. He is well focused at realising his electioneering slogan 'Make America Great Again', for which he is trying to rejuvenate the US economy, bring FDI, reinvigorate the industrial sector, create more jobs, secure US homeland against crimes and illegal immigration, save on extra expenditure made overseas, shift responsibility of defence to self-help by partners and collect more tariffs on imports to reduce taxes on American citizens. His major worry appears to be the back-breaking US debt of trillions of dollars. This approach has been well reflected in his visit to the Middle East where he was successful in securing trillions of dollars of investments and billions of dollars of sales in defence, technology and aviation sectors. Trump portrays himself as anti-war, but perhaps he is for short military showdowns, trade wars and employment of economic coercion to attain his policy ends. Manifestation of this approach was also seen during the last month's Indian aggression against Pakistan, and Pakistan's effective and successful counter offensive. He has reiterated multiple times the role played by him and the US secretary of state in brokering the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. It is inferred that, during his presidency, US interstate relations shall be increasingly woven around trade and economy, rather than security. Trump desires to go down in the history as an American President who helped stop major conflicts in the world, and took his country out of colossal debt and deficit. Trump is likely to help bring peace in the Middle East and work for 'two-state solution' to realise his dream of 'Abraham Accords'. KSA and Turkey are also playing a role in his peace efforts. Lifting of sanctions on Syria, meeting with the Syrian president and expression of hope that a deal could be reached with Iran are positive indicators. Iran is expected to be pragmatic as well. President Trump is ardently working for a ceasefire in Ukraine, and get closer to Russia — perhaps to forestall Russia and China getting into an unmanageable alliance. Though a priority, containment of China may retake shape of 'Congagemnent' during his tenure. China making great strides in high-end technology would wish to maintain pace of its comprehensive rise by avoiding conflicts and developing a good working relationship with the US. However, to protect its interests, China is expected to remain assertive in all domains. The US is likely to continue trade with China, but on more favourable terms. Important fact is that finding an alternative to high quality Chinese products on cost effective rates for US consumers in short term may not be possible. China has been a trusted ally of Pakistan. The China-Pakistan friendship bond has gained newer heights during the May 2025 Pak-India War. Pakistan's grit and tenacity and its courageous, swift, skilful, comprehensive and lethal response to the Indian aggression must have impressed the friends and foes alike. At this point in time, Pakistan and China, their people and militaries are closer than ever before. China will continue to support Pakistan unequivocally. This relationship is likely to experience stress due to the enduring US-China competition. It is important that an understanding is developed in the western capitals that for Pakistan, in the absence of any alternative, the only choice for realising ends of its comprehensive 'National Security Policy' that is predicated on geo-economics, remains the People's Republic of China. The recent China-Pakistan-Afghanistan tripartite meeting and PM Shehbaz Sharif's visit to Turkiye, Iran and Azerbaijan — aimed at conveying gratitude for their support during the Indian aggression, reaffirming the closer relation and expanding the ties to make the mutually beneficial friendship even stronger — is a step in right direction. The warm welcome and pleasant exchanges reflect mutual desires to strengthen the exiting bonds. The second tripartite meeting held between Pakistan, Turkiye and Azerbaijan at Lachin in Azerbaijan further manifests the growing understanding between Pakistan and the regional countries. The PM and his delegation also visited Tajikistan to strengthen the bilateral cooperation in multifaceted areas. Russia and Pakistan are getting closer too, which is being seen as a very positive development. Pakistan has sent delegations to various countries of the world to forge an understanding in the comity of nations to communicate Pakistan's position on perpetuating Indian arrogance and aggressiveness as against Pakistan's desire for enduring peace and stability in the region. Pakistan has been making efforts to develop good relations with all the neighbours, including India. Unfortunately, Indian intransigence remained a hurdle. The impasse seems to have been broken by the short but intense May 2025 War, imposed on Pakistan by the rash Indian leadership, and the ceasefire sought by India through the US. President Trump has expressed his willingness to help resolve the Kashmir dispute by convening a Pakistan-India meeting in some third country — something that is being considered a silver lining. The global milieu engenders quest to forge peace and enhance trade instead of war. Pakistan should continue trying to avoid conflicts and have good relations with all the countries, including India. The US president's promise of mediation must be pursued for resolution of the Kashmir dispute, reversal of Indian announcement of holding IWT in abeyance and restoration of special status of IIOJK. Very good relations with China, the US, the UK, EU, Gulf states, Turkiye, Afghanistan and Iran warrant added focus by Pakistan. Connectivity is the way forward for mutually beneficial socio-economic development and societal emancipation.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Relevance of 'The Responsibility of Intellectuals' by Chomsky
Listen to article In a 1962 article Chomsky wrote that those with knowledge and influence must use their intellect to challenge falsehoods and reveal the truth. Intellectuals, whether scholars, journalists or thinkers, have a duty to question power structures and educate the public. Silence in the face of deception allows misinformation to spread. Intellectuals are in a position to expose lies of governments: in the western world intellectuals have the power coming from political liberty, access to information and freedom of expression. They can unravel the truth from the veil of falsehood, deception and class under which the present is depicted. The responsibility of the intellectual is far greater than the common man lacking the facilities and leisure to delve into questions of truth and lies. We can hardly ask ourselves to what extent the American people bear responsibility for the savage assault on a rural Vietnamese people and the Israel inflictions upon the hapless, unarmed population of Gaza. Not only is the Israel assault overwhelming but indiscriminate and genocidal. The realpotick viewpoint of US intellectuals is reflected in the suggestion of Yale University's Prof Rowe that with a view to quell communist threat in Vietnam and other South Asian countries, all the surplus wheat of Canada and the US be buried in order to cause starvation in China not as a weapon of extermination of people, which it will result in, but as a weapon against government, as the internal stability of the country cannot be maintained in the face of general starvation. Rowe has no qualms of moralism, leading one to the conclusion that this policy is the same as Ostpolitick of Nazi Germany. It is easy for the American intellectual to deliver homilies on the virtues of liberty and freedom but if he is really concerned about, say Chinese totalitarianism or the burdens imposed on the peasantry in forced industrialisation, he should undertake a task that is infinitely more significant and challenging — the task of creating, in the US, the intellectual and moral climate, as well as the social and economic conditions that would permit the US to participate in modernisation and development in poor countries in a way commensurate with its material wealth and technical capacity. Massive capital gifts to Cuba and China (in 1950s) might not succeed in alleviating the authoritarianism and terror that tend to accompany early stages of capital accumulation, but they are far more likely to have this effect than lectures on democratic values. Discourses on the two-party system or other democratic values that have been realised in the west are a monstrous irrelevance in the face of the effort that is required to raise the level of culture in western society to the point where it can provide a "social lever" for both economic development and development of true democratic institutions in the Third World. An arch example of a western intellectual is symbolised by how Churchill said to Stalin in Tehran in 1934: "The government of the world must be entrusted to satisfied nations who wished nothing more for themselves than what they had. If the world-government were in the hands of hungry nations they would always be in danger." It was not military aid funnelled from the North to South Vietnam up to 1964. Most of the aid was in the form of "doctrinal material" and "political leadership" rather than in military assistance. All of this is of course reasonable, so long as we accept the fundamental political axiom that the US, with its traditional concern for the weak and downtrodden, and with its unique insight into the proper mode of development for backward countries, must have the courage and persistence "to impose its will by force" until such time as other nations are prepared to accept these truths or to simply abandon hope. It is also the responsibility of the intellectual to view events in their historical perspective. As Munich showed, a powerful and aggressive nation with a fanatic belief in its manifest destiny will regard each victory as a prelude to the next one. Herein lies the danger of appeasement as the Chinese tirelessly point out to the Russians, which they claim is playing Chamberlain to our Hitler in Vietnam. Of course the aggressiveness of liberal imperialism is not the same as that of Nazi Germany: we do not want to occupy Asia. The west merely wants "to help the Asian countries progress towards economic modernization as relatively 'open' and 'stable' societies to which western access is free and comfortable." Chomsky says, "Recent history shows that it makes little difference to us as to what form of government a country has as long as it remains an open society a society which remains open to American economic penetrative or political control. If it is necessary the west will approach genocide in Vietnam [Iraq, Syria, Gaza] and this is the price we must pay in defense of freedom and the rights of man." Meagher and Hobart said before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "If it was possible, India would probably prefer to import technicians and know how rather than foreign corporations. Since this is not possible therefore India accepts foreign capital as a necessary evil." During the early period, US entrepreneurs insisted upon importing all equipment and machinery where India had a tested capacity to meet some of their requirements. By adopting strict import and price restrictions, America has helped India and other developing countries to become open societies. "Based upon a proper understanding of the core of American ideology, namely the sanctity of the individual in relation to the state in this way the US refutes the simple minded belief of the Asians that the West has been driven and then to cling on to its imperial holdings by the inevitable workings of capitalist economics."( Eugene Rostow). In pursuing the aim of helping other countries to progress towards open societies, with no thought or desire of territorial aggrandizement, we don't see any new ground being broken. This was the policy used by Britain in India during the 18th and 19th centuries of no conquest but in a conceited fashion shortly after the initial economic steps, actually conquest was in full swing.
