es.euronews.com
UNCTAD Urges U.S. to Exempt Poor Nations from Devastating Tariffs
The UNCTAD urges the U.S. to exempt small, poor nations from reciprocal tariffs, warning of devastating economic consequences and minimal revenue gains for the U.S., highlighting examples like Laos (48% tariff), Myanmar (45%), and Mauritius (40%), and the unique agricultural exports from these countries.
- How do the potential U.S. tariff revenues from these small nations compare to overall U.S. tariff revenues?
- The UNCTAD report highlights that 28 of the 57 affected countries face high tariffs despite each accounting for less than 0.1% of the U.S. trade deficit. Examples include Laos (48%), Myanmar (45%), and Mauritius (40%). The report projects decreased demand for many U.S. imports if tariffs resume due to price increases.
- What are the immediate economic consequences of the U.S. reciprocal tariffs on small and vulnerable economies?
- The UNCTAD urges the U.S. to exempt small, poor nations from reciprocal tariffs, warning that these tariffs could devastate vulnerable economies while yielding minimal revenue for the U.S. The initial tariffs ranged from 11% (Cameroon) to 50% (Lesotho), but a 90-day pause is in effect, except for China. A 10% tariff currently applies to almost all countries.
- What are the long-term implications of these tariffs on global trade relationships and the economies of the affected countries?
- The UNCTAD emphasizes that for 36 of the 57 countries, the tariffs would generate less than 1% of current U.S. tariff revenue. The agency points out that these nations are small, structurally weak, and offer limited export opportunities to the U.S., making the tariffs economically damaging with little benefit to the U.S. The report also highlights the unique agricultural exports from these countries, such as Madagascar's vanilla ($150 million in 2024 U.S. imports) and cocoa from Ivory Coast and Ghana (nearly $800 million and $200 million respectively).
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue from the perspective of the potential negative consequences for smaller nations. The headline (if there were one) and introduction would likely emphasize the UNCTAD's warning and the potential devastation of vulnerable economies. This framing, while understandable given the UNCTAD's position, could inadvertently downplay any potential benefits or justifications for the US tariffs.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but phrases like "devastate" and "grave economic damage" carry negative connotations. While accurately reflecting the UNCTAD's concern, they lean towards stronger emotional language than strictly objective reporting. More neutral alternatives could include "significant negative impact" or "substantial economic disruption.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the UNCTAD's perspective and the potential negative impacts on smaller nations. While it mentions the US administration's rationale for the tariffs implicitly, it doesn't delve into specific details or arguments supporting the US policy. Alternative perspectives from US trade officials or economists arguing in favor of the tariffs are absent. This omission could limit the reader's ability to form a fully informed opinion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy: the potential harm to smaller nations versus minimal US financial gain. It doesn't fully explore the potential benefits the US might perceive from the tariffs, such as protecting domestic industries or negotiating leverage. The complexity of trade relations and the potential for unintended consequences on both sides are underrepresented.
Sustainable Development Goals
The US tariffs disproportionately affect small and vulnerable economies, exacerbating existing inequalities and hindering their economic development. The tariffs offer minimal benefit to the US while causing significant harm to these nations, thus increasing the global economic divide.