Falklands surprised to be on Trump's 'worst offenders' list
The Falkland Islands was surprised to be hit by one of the most punishing tariff rates on US President Donald Trump's "worst offenders" list, a member of the Falklands parliament has told the BBC.
The British overseas territory is facing a 42% tax on the goods it exports to the US under Trump's shake-up of international trade.
Teslyn Barkman, who oversees trade in the parliament, said the taxes would impact the economy, which is heavily dependent on the sale of fish to the EU and the US.
But Barkmam said the Falklands government would not respond with retaliatory tariffs and wanted a "warm" relationship with the US.
Only eight other countries or territories dubbed the "worst offenders" for trade imbalances were given higher rates on Trump's list of tariffs, which are due to come into effect on Wednesday.
"It was a surprise," Barkman told the BBC. "The fact a global superpower such as the US was paying attention to us at all caught us off guard."
With a population of about 3,600 people, the Falkland Islands is an archipelago located in the South Atlantic Ocean.
The territory has a government and sets its own trade policy, while the UK takes responsibility for its defence and foreign affairs.
In 2023, the Falklands government reported a national income of £280m, with fishing accounting for 60% of gross domestic product (GDP).
"We're a village running a country," said Barkman, who holds responsibility for trade and economic development in the Legislative Assembly.
"So the sum of our trade exports is massive in terms of GDP."
In 2023, the Falklands exported $27.4m (£21.2m) of goods to the US, mostly non-fillet frozen fish, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).
In contrast, the OEC said the US exported $329,000 (£255,000) of goods to the Falklands.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to urgently meet Falklands Governor Alison Blake to discuss the impact of the tariffs.
Sir Ed said the UK must include the interests of the Falkland Islands in its trade negotiations with the US.
"Trump's trade war could be the biggest threat facing Falklanders since Argentina's invasion," Sir Ed said.
"The UK government has a responsibility to step up and defend British citizens everywhere – including in the Falklands.
"President Trump has arbitrarily decided to hit Falklanders with some of his highest tariffs in an outrageous act of aggression that cannot be allowed to stand."
Barkman said the Falklands was still trying to figure out why Trump decided to levy a 42% tariff on its goods. The US imposed a 10% tariff on UK products.
As analysis by BBC Verify showed, the tariffs are based on a calculation that factors in the difference in goods traded between the US and other countries.
"We're certainly not looking at any anything retaliatory at all," Barkman said.
"We need to understand how that figure was arrived at because certainly the Falkland Islands approach has been that we're here to support the UK and her Western allies.
She added: "We want a warm relationship with the US as well."
She said tourism was also a big contributor to the territory's economy, with large numbers of Amercians coming to see the renowned penguins living on the Falklands.
"Maybe that's an opportunity for us to build a closer relationship," Barkman said.
She said the Falklands was working with the UK government to understand how the US tariff could be reduced or removed.
EU tariffs on fish from the Falklands is a similarly pressing issue, given that's where the vast majority of those exports go.
"We're very aware that the EU and the UK are approaching reset talks and there might be an opportunity there to support our economy, as well and the removal of EU tariffs against Falkland Islands products," Barkman said.
The BBC understands Foreign Office Minister Stephen Doughty spoke with a member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly on Thursday and will be engaging with affected overseas territories over the coming weeks.
See the Trump tariffs list by country
Trump to charge high tariffs on 'worst offenders' globally
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Will Venezuela, Mexico benefit from Iran war oil price surge? Yes, but no
The conflict in Iran has triggered speculation that soaring global oil prices could deliver a windfall for Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia and other Latin American oil producers. But surprisingly, most oil experts say that's not likely to happen. Analysts from Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and other financial institutions say oil prices could surge beyond $100 a barrel if Iran were to interrupt oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles about 25% of world oil shipments. But most are quick to add that the impact of such disruption would probably be limited and short-lived. First, there is an oversupply of oil in world markets, partly because the global economy is growing more slowly than expected due to President Trump's tariff wars. Five days after Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, world oil prices remained below their 2024 average of $80 per barrel, according to a Deutsche Bank analysis. Second, Iran is a relatively small oil exporter, producing about 3% of the world's output. And due to U.S. and European sanctions, Iran sells 90% of its oil to a single country — China. If Iran's oil production stopped, it would affect mainly China, although it currently has high oil inventories. Third, in the most catastrophic scenario — if Iran were to block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for U.S. or European actions in support of Israel — Washington would most likely intervene militarily to reopen that vital trade passage. And China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states — rhetoric aside — would probably welcome a reopening of their oil supply lanes, analysts say. Francisco J. Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University's Baker Institute, told me that in the worst-case scenario — an extended disruption of the Strait of Hormuz that dramatically drives up world oil prices — there would be a 'net gain' for Latin American oil exporters. 'Guyana, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and even Brazil and Argentina, to some extent, would see a positive impact on their balance sheets,' Monaldi told me. 'Mexico has become a net oil importer, but higher prices would also benefit Pemex's [state-owned oil company's] revenues.' He added, 'Of course, such gains could be somewhat offset by negative secondary effects, like a global recession. But the net outcome for these countries would be an important surge in their revenues and exports.' However, when I asked Monaldi about the chances of a prolonged disruption of oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, he said that it's unlikely to happen. The U.S. Navy would re-open that shipping lane immediately, and oil prices would soon return to normal, he added. 'We could see a temporary spike in oil prices, but there shouldn't be a long-term impact,' he concluded. By the same token, oil importers such as Chile, Cuba and other Caribbean countries would have to spend more money in the short run to make their purchases, but their pain may not last too long. Interestingly, the World Bank, which earlier this month issued a report forecasting a major slowdown in the U.S. and global economy — partly due to Trump's tariffs — is not anticipating changes in its economic projection as a result of the Iran war. Valerie Mercer-Backman, the lead author of the Latin American section of the World Bank's forecast, told me that despite the latest Iran conflict, the general trend was toward a 'slight decline' in world oil prices. The war may produce a temporary spike, 'but we don't see that the latest geopolitical events will have a major impact on our forecast,' she said. This brings me back to the conclusion that the Venezuelan dictatorship — perhaps Latin America's biggest potential winner of a global oil price hike — along with Colombia and Mexico may get, at best, a brief respite if the Iran war disrupts world oil shipping lanes. But it's not likely to be enough to help Venezuela emerge from its severe economic crisis or to solve the current troubles of Mexico and Colombia. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Abandoning our Afghan allies is a moral and strategic mistake
It is a bad time for thousands of Afghans who risked their lives helping the U.S. over the past two decades. On June 2, it was announced that the office that helps with relocation of Afghans who helped America will close on July 1. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security formally ended Temporary Protected Status for roughly 10,000 Afghans who fled their country after the Taliban's return to power in 2021. Under the new directive, Afghan nationals currently residing in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status have just under six weeks to leave, setting a deadline of July 14. Most of these Afghans are waiting for the backlog to clear to get the Special Immigrant Visa that was promised to them because of the help they provided the U.S. since its 2001 invasion. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated that 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.' Yet, only days later, the State Department included Afghan citizens on a new 'travel ban' list due to deteriorating security situation and threat of terrorism from that country, contradicting what Noem and her department had claimed. Anyone paying attention to Afghanistan since the Taliban's return knows that it is not safe. The country has collapsed into an economic and humanitarian crisis. Al Qaeda has reestablished its position, operating training camps and safe houses across the country. According to a recent U.N. report, Afghanistan is now a 'permissive environment' for al Qaeda consolidation. Meanwhile, the Afghan branch of the so-called Islamic State has never been stronger. Girls cannot attend school beyond grade six. Women cannot work or even leave their homes without permission from a male relative. Ethnic and religious minorities continue to face persecution. The Taliban are hunting down Afghans who worked with the U.S. and its allies — often with deadly consequences. The claim that Afghanistan is now 'safe' is false. This issue is tricky for the Trump administration. In February 2020, President Trump reached a deal with the Taliban that planted the seed for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by May 2021. That agreement set in motion the Taliban's return to power. When President Joe Biden took office in 2021, he had the chance to cancel the deal, but he did not. By July, most U.S. and allied troops had left. On August 15, the Taliban seized Kabul. By Sept. 11, 2021 — the 20th anniversary of 9/11 — they controlled more of Afghanistan than they had on that tragic day in 2001. Both presidents share the blame. In the chaotic withdrawal, the U.S. left behind an estimated $7 billion in military equipment — most of which is now in Taliban hands or circulating on the regional black market. But the greater cost has been moral: the abandonment of tens of thousands of Afghans who served alongside American forces. Many of these men and women risked their lives for U.S. forces as interpreters, engineers, medics and contractors. For them, the Taliban's return is not just a change of government — it's a death sentence. Given the chaos the Biden administration allowed at America's southern border, it might be tempting to fold the Afghan resettlement issue into the broader immigration debate. But that approach would be both lazy and strategically short-sighted. Afghanistan and the broader regions of Central and South Asia will remain central to U.S. counterterrorism and foreign policy for the foreseeable future, and pretending otherwise is naive. There are four clear strategic reasons why helping Afghans who aided the U.S. is not only just but smart. First, honoring our commitment to Afghan partners sends a powerful message to future allies. In every modern conflict, American forces have relied on local partners for on-the-ground support. That pattern will almost certainly continue. If local partners believe the U.S. won't protect them when the fight is over, they will be far less willing to take that risk, which would weaken America's global reach and credibility. Second, Afghans already in the U.S. represent a critical talent pool. Many are trained linguists and cultural experts. During the two-decade U.S. mission in Afghanistan, they filled roles that no one else could. Yet in November 2023, Defense Language Institute ceased instruction in Pashto, one of Afghanistan's national languages. Should the U.S. again need Pashto speakers or regional experts, the Afghan American community will be indispensable. Third, these Afghans could help shape a post-Taliban Afghanistan. After 2001, the Afghan American diaspora was key to rebuilding the country. The current Taliban regime is fractured and unlikely to maintain control indefinitely. Offering refuge to educated, professionally trained Afghans bolsters U.S. capacity now and supports future stabilization efforts. Fourth, Afghan immigrants provide indirect humanitarian aid via remittances. In 2019, remittances made up 4.4 percent of Afghanistan's GDP. Since late 2021, the U.S. Treasury has allowed Afghans here to send money home despite sanctions. These remittances reduce the burden on American taxpayers and support Afghan families in crisis. Beyond these strategic benefits, there is the moral argument. Doing right by those who stood with America is a matter of national honor. The way a nation treats its allies — especially when they are vulnerable — says everything about its values. These Afghans risked everything for us. Abandoning them now is a betrayal. Trump began the withdrawal process. Biden finished it. Now, Trump has a rare second chance to do the right thing. His administration can correct a serious moral and strategic failure by reversing the decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Afghan nationals and instead prioritizing their protection. Rather than forcing them to leave, the U.S. should expedite visa processing and safe relocation for Afghan allies. This isn't just about compassion — it's about keeping our word, protecting our interests and preparing for the future. Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump is turning the US into an electric vehicle laggard
President Donald Trump's efforts to unravel policies supporting electric vehicles threatens to turn the US into a laggard for years to come, according to a new report. BloombergNEF reduced both its near- and long-term EV outlook for the first time, cutting 14 million battery-powered cars from its sales projections through 2030 due to the US rollback. The researcher now sees the country trailing not only China and Europe, but also the global average adoption rate until 2040. 'Global EV sales are growing, but the national picture is more varied than ever,' BNEF analysts write in the report released Wednesday. Whereas China is expected to account for nearly two-thirds of the almost 22 million plug-in vehicles sold globally this year, in part thanks to government incentives, 'all major EV policies in the US are under fire.' Trump ordered the elimination of subsidies and other measures boosting electric vehicles during his first day back in the White House in January. His administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are heeding his directive by moving to ease national fuel-economy standards, phase out EV tax credits and strip California's ability to set its own emissions limits. BNEF's outlook assumes national gas-mileage and tailpipe regulations will revert back to where they were during Trump's first term, and that the up-to-$7,500 consumer tax credit will end for most EVs after this year. There's potential for further downside to the researcher's outlook for EV sales in the US, depending on the ultimate fate of waivers allowing states to impose more stringent clean-air rules. A coalition of states led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued last week to challenge the administration's move to scrap state-level policies. 'If this attempt at revoking the waiver is successful, it would have dire consequences for EV sales in California, and because of the state's oversized influence on the EV market in the country, in whole of the US,' BNEF says. 'Removing all of the supply-side mandates in the country, at the same time as demand incentives, would push down EV sales in the US sharply.' China, by contrast, is expected to keep up its momentum in transitioning to plug-in vehicles, largely due to simple economics: It's the only large market where EVs are cheaper, on average, than comparable combustion cars. Demand also is getting a boost from the government extending subsidies that encourage consumers to trade in older cars for new EVs and hybrids. BNEF predicts the country's electric vehicle market will be larger than the total US car market within the next year. 'China is emerging as a major electric vehicle manufacturing powerhouse,' BNEF says in its report, estimating that the country accounted for just shy of 70% of worldwide EV production last year. China's dominance of EV manufacturing and the battery supply chain contributed to rising trade tensions and increased tariffs since BNEF last published its annual outlook. The European Union imposed duties on imports of battery-electric vehicles from China for five years starting in October, with added tariffs ranging from 35% for MG maker SAIC Motor Corp. to 7.8% for Tesla Inc. 'Policymakers face growing tension between environmental targets and other competing policy priorities, and as a result many automakers have reduced previously announced EV goals or quietly shelved them,' BNEF says in its report, citing walk-backs by manufacturers including Toyota, Ford, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo. In addition to taking measures to protect domestic manufacturers from cheaper EVs imported from China, the EU relaxed its CO2 emissions standards by sparing manufacturers from likely fines this year and allowing companies to meet tougher targets more gradually. As a result of the change, BNEF cut its forecast for electric vehicle sales in affected markets from this year through 2027 by about 19%, or roughly 2.6 million cars. The UK — which left the EU in 2020 and has maintained relative openness to Chinese imports — has emerged as the leading major market for electric vehicles after China. BNEF expects plug-in cars to reach 40% share of the UK market by next year. Trudell writes for Bloomberg News.
