dw.com
US Tariffs on Kazakh Exports: Limited Impact Due to Raw Material Dominance
Kazakhstan's President Tokayev responded calmly to Donald Trump's letter regarding 25% tariffs on Kazakh exports to the US, effective August 1st, as only 4.8% of total exports (\$95.2 million) will be affected, mainly processed goods, while 95.2% are raw materials largely exempt.
- What is the significance of the limited impact of the 25% US tariffs on Kazakhstan's exports to the US?
- President Tokayev's calm response to Trump's letter regarding 25% tariffs on Kazakh exports stems from the fact that only 4.8% of Kazakh exports to the US, totaling \$95.2 million, will be affected. This is primarily comprised of non-raw materials.
- What explains President Tokayev's measured response to the imposition of tariffs and the overall low impact on bilateral trade?
- The low impact of the tariffs is due to the nature of Kazakhstan's exports to the US, which are largely raw materials and primary processed goods (95.2%) such as oil, uranium, and ferroalloys, largely exempt from the tariffs. The remaining 4.8% consists of processed goods like phosphorus, ferrosilicon, and wheat gluten.
- To what extent do geopolitical factors, specifically Kazakhstan's relations with China, influence the US's decision to impose tariffs on Kazakh exports?
- Experts suggest the tariffs may be a geopolitical tactic rather than purely economic, potentially aimed at curbing Kazakhstan's growing economic ties with China, particularly concerning rare earth elements crucial for new technologies. This strategy may involve pressuring Kazakhstan to limit its role in alternative land-based trade routes for China.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article subtly favors the Kazakhstani perspective. The headline and introductory paragraphs emphasize Kazakhstan's calm response and the minimal impact of the tariffs, creating a narrative of relative indifference. This downplays the potential negative consequences of the tariff increase and might leave readers with an incomplete understanding of the situation's severity.
Language Bias
The language used is mostly neutral, but the inclusion of phrases such as "very big mystery" and "unpredictable and difficult to predict" reveals a slightly negative bias against the US administration. While these may reflect genuine opinions, their inclusion contributes to a less neutral tone. Suggesting alternatives like "unusual" or "unclear" would improve neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The analysis lacks information on the US perspective regarding the tariffs. The article focuses heavily on the Kazakhstani reaction and expert opinions, omitting potential justifications or explanations from the US side. While acknowledging space constraints is valid, the absence of the US viewpoint creates an incomplete picture and may lead to a biased understanding of the situation. Further, details about the specific concerns driving the tariff increase are absent, limiting a full comprehension of the trade dispute's root causes.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by implying that Kazakhstan's response is solely driven by either economic pragmatism or geopolitical pressure from the US and China. The reality is likely more nuanced and involves a complex interplay of factors. The experts' opinions lean heavily towards a geopolitical interpretation, neglecting other possible motivations behind Kazakhstan's measured response.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the imposition of 25% tariffs by the US on certain Kazakhstani exports. This negatively impacts Kazakhstan's economy, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities within the country. The tariffs disproportionately affect smaller exporters and those reliant on specific goods, leading to potential job losses and economic hardship for certain segments of the population. While the overall impact on trade is relatively small due to the nature of exports, the principle of unequal trade practices undermines fair economic participation.