Trump's higher tariffs kick in worldwide
The US Customs and Border Protection agency began collecting the higher tariffs of 10% to 50% at 12:01am EDT (0401 GMT) after weeks of suspense over Trump's final tariff rates and frantic negotiations with countries seeking to lower them.
The leaders of Brazil and India vowed not to be cowed by Trump's hardline bargaining position, even while their negotiators sought a reprieve from the highest tariff levels. The new rates will test Trump's strategy for shrinking US trade deficits without causing massive disruptions to global supply chains or provoking higher inflation and stiff retaliation from trading partners.
'Billions' in tariff revenue
After unveiling his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April, Trump has frequently modified his plans, slapping much higher rates on
imports from some countries, including 50% for goods from Brazil, 39% from Switzerland, 35% from Canada and 25% from India.
He announced on Wednesday a further 25% tariff on Indian goods, to be implemented in 21 days over India's purchases of Russian oil, on top of the 25% already imposed.
"BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, LARGELY FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MANY YEARS, LAUGHING ALL THE WAY, WILL START FLOWING INTO THE USA," Trump said on Truth Social just ahead of the tariff deadline.
Tariffs are ultimately paid by companies importing the goods, and passed on in full or in part to consumers of end products.
Eight major trading partners accounting for about 40% of US trade flows have reached framework deals for trade and investment concessions to Trump, including the European Union, Japan and South Korea, reducing their base tariff rates to 15%.
Britain won a 10% rate, while Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines secured rate reductions to 19% or 20%.
Meanwhile, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Reuters on Wednesday he would not humiliate himself by seeking a phone call with Trump even as he said his government would continue cabinet-level talks to lower a 50% tariff rate.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was similarly defiant, saying he would not compromise the interests of the country's farmers. The pressure has also strengthened India's commitment to a "strategic partnership" with Russia, with Russian President Vladimir Putin set to visit by the end of the year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Terror spectre
Listen to article Security situation in Balochistan is getting precarious with each passing day. The uptick in terror attacks, especially on the armed forces, by the militant proxies at large is becoming a real challenge. The brave manner in which the army is taking on the faceless enemy is laudable. Over the last two days in Zhob, our soldiers have been able to exterminate as many as 47 terrorists trying to infiltrate the border from Afghanistan. The pitched battles led to recovery of modern weapons from the non-state actors, testifying the meddling of Indian intelligence agencies and local abettors in this war of attrition. Moreover, the attack on the Quetta-bound Jaffar Express is apparently meant to deter the locals from commuting, and this is the second attack on the train after a day-long hijacking standoff months ago. The passenger coaches, however, luckily survived the planted bomb near Sibi station. The authorities have already suspended the internet service in the province till the end of the month as mopping operations are underway. This marks a shift in kinetic strategy wherein the military brass is exhibiting zero-tolerance towards the terror nuisance, with a plan to take on the khawarij upfront. It is, however, some consolation that the BLA that operates in cahoots with Indian proxies has been declared a terror outfit by the US State Department the other day. This should drive the attention of regional countries in buckling up Pakistan in fighting this menace, which has destabilised the restive provinces of Balochistan and K-P, impacting peace beyond the region. A comprehensive counter-terrorism operation coordinated by regional states, especially Iran and Afghanistan, is indispensable and the US input should serve as a catalyst to it. Balochistan's terror mosaic, nonetheless, invites some introspection. The situation warrants chalking out a multipronged strategy with intelligentsia, political forces and local population on board. That would come to legitimise the spirit of fighting the unscrupulous elements, and talk it out with those who are receptive to logic and coexistence.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
A world of blocs: where Pakistan stands
Listen to article During the Cold War, the world was divided between capitalist and communist blocs. Today, the world is again divided, with the new division referred to as the new Cold War. The two great powers around which this geopolitical division is centred are the United States and China. The interesting aspect of the new Cold War division is that countries that prefer to side with one bloc or another not only typically pick a side but also, by doing so, demonstrate their preference for a global order. Both China and Russia advocate a world structured around a multipolar order, with institutions such as SCO, BRICS and AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) being pushed forward as alternative institutions to lead this order. The global promotion of BRI by China is also reflective of the transition of the order towards multipolarity. Which bloc does Pakistan belong to? This is the most frequent question that is asked whenever Pakistan's relations with great powers come under discussion. It may be fair to assume that if this question is asked of the people on the streets, a majority will vote for Pakistan being part of the Chinese bloc. But seen objectively, and seen from the perspective of the dominant interactions that determine which bloc a country belongs to, we might get a different answer. Of late, Pakistan's foreign policy seems to be following the concept of strategic balancing and non-alignment. To be fair, Pakistan has enjoyed an unquestionable relationship of deep-rooted state-to-state friendship with China. China never attached the 'you are with us or against us' string to its relationship with Pakistan. While the US relationship with Pakistan has been 'issue-based', the fundamental determinant of China's relationship with Pakistan has been geography. Some of the dominant interactions that determine which bloc a country belongs to are in the field of politics/diplomacy, economy, military/security and cultural and state signaling. State signaling is immediate in the context, more fluid, and nevertheless an important determining factor. Take the case of the visit to the US of Pakistan's army chief. The general had a meeting with President Trump in June this year. This was unprecedented as President Trump met the army chief without having met either the President or the Prime Minister of Pakistan. This was unprecedented, and there are reports that the army chief might be undertaking another visit to the United States very soon. If state signaling is a determining factor, then the two states in the immediate context are giving a clear signal. From the American point of view, it needs security partnerships in the region and with the US imposing 50% tariffs on Indian imports, and India in return accusing the US of hypocrisy, it might just be the right time for Uncle Sam to play ball with Pakistan. Economically, Pakistan provides access to a market not as large as the Indian market, but still access to the market of an influential player in the region. More than the economy, the military/security drives the current Pak-US relations. The Iran-Israel and Russia-Ukraine wars tell us how the form of warfare has changed. Both Germany and Japan used new technology, which at that time was aircraft, tanks, submarines and aircraft carriers, to pursue outright conquests during World War II. Drones, missiles of all kinds, including hypersonic missiles, and fifth-generation aircraft are the new offensive weapons. If great powers can position such lethal military capabilities at strategic locations, would they need boots on the ground as many as the world needed before the introduction of these lethal military capabilities to generate military influence in a region? What is meant when it is said that a country that joins a bloc indicates its preference for a given world order? The US and its allies have built a liberal order at home, but the order abroad is illiberal. Interestingly, the people of the global south, and particularly the people out on the streets, believe that they have also played an active role in the promotion of this illiberalism abroad. Are China and Russia promoting illiberalism abroad? China has proved to the world that development does not require democracy, that liberalism is not history's natural endpoint. There is no Russo-centric or Sino-centric global order that these two great powers pursue. All that these great powers are doing is resisting an international system that slaps sanctions, imposes arbitrary tariffs, executes military interventions disregarding international law, violates human rights and turns a blind eye towards genocide. When President Putin demands that NATO roll back to the Cold War frontiers or President Xi expects the US and its allies to stay away from its sphere of influence in the South China Sea and the Eastern Pacific, they reassert their great power status within the system. A global order that practices freedom and liberty at home and overlooks democratic abuses abroad cannot be termed a global order of liberal internationalism. That is why this international system faces opposition and contestation, and that is why there are two distinct blocs in the world. The one that promotes this international system and the one that contests it. As long as the system remains immoral and hypocritical, both China and Russia will continue to lead the fight to weaken this system. As far as Pakistan is concerned, our foreign policy decisions must fundamentally be based on pragmatism, but our policy must never draw away from the gravitational pull of geography. Today, a three-dimensional premise defines our security dilemma. American premise: the more the US engages with Pakistan, the more Pakistan will draw away from China and Russia. Pakistan's premise: the more India deals with Afghanistan, the more it will draw away from Pakistan. And the Chinese premise: the more Pakistan engages with the US, the more it will draw away from China. It's not bad to understand premises; it gets bad only when states start formulating the wrong questions and end up making wrong assumptions that eventually drive their policies. The US remains far and away, and its obsession with Pakistan is driven by issues in which Pakistan is expected to play a role to serve primarily the US interests. With the US, we can push our relationship, but we must never ignore or avoid the geopolitical and strategic pull towards China.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Iran threatens planned Trump corridor envisaged by Azerbaijan-Armenia peace deal
Iran threatened on Saturday to block a corridor planned in the Caucasus under a regional deal sponsored by US President Donald Trump, Iranian media reported, raising a new question mark over a peace plan hailed as a strategically important shift. A top Azerbaijani diplomat said earlier that the plan, announced by Trump on Friday, was just one step from a final peace deal between his country and Armenia, which reiterated its support for the plan. "This corridor will not become a passage owned by Trump, but rather a graveyard for Trump's mercenaries," Velayati said. Iran's foreign ministry earlier welcomed the agreement "as an important step toward lasting regional peace", but warned against any foreign intervention near its borders that could "undermine the region's security and lasting stability". Read More: Azerbaijan, Armenia sign US-brokered peace deal Analysts and insiders say that Iran, under mounting US pressure over its disputed nuclear programme and the aftermath of a 12-day war with Israel in June, lacks the military power to block the corridor. Moscow says West should steer clear Trump welcomed Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in the White House on Friday and witnessed their signing of a joint declaration aimed at drawing a line under their decades-long on-off conflict. Russia, a traditional broker and ally of Armenia in the strategically important South Caucasus region which is crisscrossed with oil and gas pipelines, was not included, despite its border guards being stationed on the border between Armenia and Iran. While Moscow said it supported the summit, it proposed "implementing solutions developed by the countries of the region themselves with the support of their immediate neighbours – Russia, Iran and Turkey" to avoid what it called the "sad experience" of Western efforts to mediate in the Middle East. Azerbaijan's close ally, NATO member Turkey, welcomed the accord. Baku and Yerevan have been at odds since the late 1980s when Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous Azerbaijani region mostly populated by ethnic Armenians, broke away from Azerbaijan with support from Armenia. Azerbaijan took back full control of the region in 2023, prompting almost all of the territory's 100,000 ethnic Armenians to flee to Armenia. "The chapter of enmity is closed and now we're moving towards lasting peace," said Elin Suleymanov, Azerbaijan's ambassador to Britain, predicting that the wider region's prosperity and transport links would be transformed for the better. "This is a paradigm shift," said Suleymanov, who as a former envoy to Washington who used to work in President Aliyev's office, is one of his country's most senior diplomats. Suleymanov declined to speculate on when a final peace deal would be signed however, noting that Aliyev had said he wanted it to happen soon. There remained only one obstacle, said Suleymanov, which was for Armenia to amend its constitution to remove a reference to Nagorno-Karabakh. "Azerbaijan is ready to sign any time once Armenia fulfils the very basic commitment of removing its territorial claim against Azerbaijan in its constitution," he said. Many questions unanswered Pashinyan this year called for a referendum to change the constitution, but no date for it has been set yet. Armenia is to hold parliamentary elections in June 2026, and the new constitution is expected to be drafted before the vote. Also Read: Iran arrests 20 suspected Mossad operatives, vows harsh punishment The Armenian leader said on X that the Washington summit had paved the way to end the decades of conflict and open transport connections that would unlock strategic economic opportunities. Asked when the transit rail route would start running, Suleymanov said that would depend on cooperation between the US and Armenia whom he said were already in talks. Joshua Kucera, Senior South Caucasus analyst at International Crisis Group, said Trump may not have got the easy win he had hoped for as the agreements left many questions unanswered. The issue of Armenia's constitution continued to threaten to derail the process, and it was not clear how the new transport corridor would work in practice. "Key details are missing, including about how customs checks and security will work and the nature of Armenia's reciprocal access to Azerbaijani territory. These could be serious stumbling blocks," said Kucera. Suleymanov played down suggestions that Russia, which still has extensive security and economic interests in Armenia, was being disadvantaged. "Anybody and everybody can benefit from this if they choose to," he said.
