dw.com
Trump Threatens Tariffs on BRICS-Supporting Nations
US President Trump is threatening 10 percent tariffs on nations supporting the BRICS group's challenge to the US dollar, as the BRICS summit concludes in Rio de Janeiro; the 90-day pause on higher tariffs expires July 25th, impacting dozens of countries.
- How are BRICS nations attempting to lessen their reliance on the US dollar, and what are the challenges they face?
- Trump's actions stem from concerns about BRICS's efforts to reduce dollar dependence through local currency trade. While BRICS aims to create a gold-backed common currency, internal divisions hinder progress. Despite BRICS's rapid growth and expanding membership, intra-BRICS trade only accounts for 3 percent of global trade ($1 trillion out of $33 trillion in 2024).
- What are the immediate consequences of President Trump's latest tariff threat against countries supporting the BRICS group?
- President Trump is escalating his conflict with the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), threatening a 10 percent tariff on nations supporting BRICS's challenge to the US dollar's dominance. This follows a January threat of 100 percent tariffs and comes as the BRICS summit concludes in Rio de Janeiro. The 90-day pause on higher tariffs expires July 25th, impacting dozens of countries.
- What are the long-term implications of BRICS's expansion and its efforts to create an alternative to the US dollar-dominated global financial system?
- The BRICS bloc's growing influence, despite internal divisions, poses a long-term challenge to the US dollar's global hegemony. While a full-scale shift away from the dollar remains distant, the increasing use of local currencies by BRICS members, particularly in energy transactions, represents a significant step toward a multipolar financial system. This trend will likely accelerate as more nations join BRICS, seeking alternatives to Western-dominated institutions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the story primarily from the perspective of Trump's actions and concerns regarding BRICS's potential challenge to US economic dominance. The headline and introduction emphasize Trump's threats and the potential impact on the US, setting a tone that prioritizes the US perspective. This framing could lead readers to focus on the potential threat from BRICS rather than a balanced consideration of the group's goals, motivations, and the broader global economic implications.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although some terms like "redoubling his offensive" and "anti-American policies" could be perceived as slightly loaded. The article uses more neutral alternatives like "intensifying its efforts to reduce dependence on the dollar." Overall, the language maintains a relatively objective tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Trump's perspective and actions, giving less weight to the internal dynamics and potential challenges within the BRICS group itself. While mentioning internal divisions, it doesn't delve deeply into the complexities of these disagreements or the potential limitations they impose on BRICS's goals. The article also omits discussion of potential economic benefits or drawbacks for countries joining BRICS, focusing primarily on the geopolitical implications.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the situation, framing it largely as a direct confrontation between Trump and BRICS. It doesn't fully explore the nuances of global economic relations or the possibility of alternative scenarios beyond a simple 'dollar dominance versus BRICS challenge' dichotomy. The idea of a 'desdollarization' is presented as an eitheor scenario, neglecting the gradual and multifaceted nature of such a shift.
Sustainable Development Goals
The imposition of tariffs by the US on countries supporting BRICS policies negatively impacts global trade and could exacerbate economic inequalities between nations. This is because tariffs disproportionately affect developing countries and smaller economies, hindering their economic growth and development. The actions of the US, a dominant economic power, further entrench existing inequalities.