lexpress.fr
Trump's Selective Tariffs: Geopolitical Strategy or Oversight?
President Trump's new tariffs exclude Russia, Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea due to pre-existing sanctions and minimal trade, despite impacting sparsely populated territories; however, a bipartisan bill proposes steep tariffs on nations buying Russian oil and gas.
- How do existing sanctions and the drastic reduction in US-Russia trade impact the decision to exempt Russia from the new tariffs?
- The exclusion of Russia, Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea from new US tariffs is a politically motivated decision, seemingly linked to ongoing negotiations and existing sanctions. Trade between the US and Russia has plummeted over 90% since 2021 due to sanctions imposed after the invasion of Ukraine, reaching its lowest point since 1992. Only essential goods like fertilizers and rare metals continue to be traded.
- What are the immediate implications of excluding major countries like Russia and Belarus from new US tariffs while including sparsely populated territories?
- On April 2nd, Donald Trump announced new tariffs impacting various territories, notably excluding Russia, Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea. The White House cited pre-existing sanctions as the reason, claiming these nations already face high tariffs and minimal trade with the US. This decision contrasts with tariffs imposed on sparsely populated territories like Svalbard and the Falkland Islands.
- What are the potential future economic and geopolitical ramifications of using tariffs as a tool for negotiation and the proposed bipartisan bill's impact on Russian trade?
- The selective application of tariffs suggests a geopolitical strategy by President Trump, using economic tools to influence international relations. While seemingly exempting Russia currently, a bipartisan bill proposes significant tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil and gas, indicating potential future escalation. This approach contrasts with lower tariffs on Iran, further highlighting the strategic use of trade policies.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately highlight the seemingly paradoxical exemption of Russia and other sanctioned countries, framing the situation as questionable and potentially politically motivated. This framing guides the reader towards skepticism about Trump's actions before presenting any potential justification. The use of quotes from political opponents further reinforces this narrative.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "étrangement" (strangely) and phrases like "ménager la Russie" (to spare Russia) to describe Trump's decision. These imply criticism and lack neutrality. Alternatives could include "unexpectedly" and "to not impose further tariffs on Russia". The use of "absurdity" in a quote also adds to the biased tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the exemption of Russia, Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea from new tariffs, but omits discussion of the potential economic or political motivations behind including other countries on the list. It also doesn't explore the broader context of US trade relations beyond these specific examples, potentially leaving out relevant information. While acknowledging the reduced trade volume with Russia due to sanctions, it doesn't quantify the trade volume with other countries included in the tariffs, hindering a complete comparison.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by implying that the only explanation for the exemptions is either an oversight or a deliberate political maneuver. It doesn't consider other possibilities such as technical issues, or other strategic trade considerations.
Gender Bias
The article features several male political figures (Trump, Schumer, Bessent) but only one female expert (Prokopenko). While not inherently biased, a more balanced representation of genders in expert opinions would improve the piece.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the US administration exempting Russia and Belarus from new tariffs despite ongoing trade, suggesting a prioritization of geopolitical considerations over economic sanctions and undermining efforts towards accountability for Russia's actions in Ukraine. This weakens international norms around sanctions and justice for war crimes, hindering progress toward SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The selective application of tariffs reveals a potential bias towards geopolitical maneuvering rather than upholding international law and justice.