I would like to start with brief philosophical and political reflections on the background of the topic of US tariff policy and its foreign policy implications. The historical significance of Donald Trump's categorical electoral victory is measured first and foremost by the heavy blow dealt to neoliberal ideology and practice. By the same logic, his second term would be successful if his policy convincingly consolidated this success in practice and truly introduced "common sense" into US domestic and foreign policy. During the first months of his term, however, some serious risks emerged that this would not happen, or would not happen to the desired extent. In recent weeks, this has particularly concerned the trade and economic sphere, which, in turn, undermines the constructiveness of American foreign policy and negatively affects international cooperation.
In my article „President Trump and the System of International Relations“ (Fakti.bg, 22. 01. 2025), just two days after Donald Trump took office as President of the United States, I emphasized the above-mentioned danger: “If President Trump and his team perceive his categorical election victory as a carte blanche for forceful actions, experimentation and improvisations…, possible complacent and arrogant actions of his administration could breathe new life into the aforementioned fundamentally failed (neoliberal) philosophical currents and political practices. They have not disappeared… and in time they will appear on the political scene with some modified, relatively more acceptable positions for American citizens, but preserving the basic neoliberal postulates and seeking revenge.“
For the above reason, at the beginning of this text I would like to appeal that the fight against the aggressive unilateral approaches of President Trump's administration in the field of foreign policy and economy should not be led by neoliberal and globalist positions.
It would be good to use expert and other common sense arguments.
Neoliberalism is a systematically flawed ideology and value system, while a number of analysts at least hope for some correction of President Trump's foreign policy line in time in the direction of more respect and equality between countries, even if this is caused only by the operation of the trial & error mechanism. Without the US's compliance with the principle of sovereign equality, its foreign and foreign economic policy could rightly be qualified as “aggressive unilateralism“, to put it mildly.
With his tariff moves, Trump has restored the role of political economy, which indeed better explains the complex realities of public life, but which, brought to selfish absurdity, becomes a tool or even a weapon only for the powerful of the day. In this sense, it is incomprehensible why European leaders do not reflect President Trump's propaganda attacks (“the EU was created to screw us“, “the EU treated us very badly“, etc.) from a political economic point of view. For example, that the US hegemony in the hitherto unipolar world, including the maintenance of the role of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, became possible and was maintained with the cooperation of the EU and its member states. By the way, this role of the dollar is directly related to the really large foreign debt and trade deficit of the US. However, neither the Europeans nor anyone else are to blame for this.
On the other hand, I would define as a move of vulgar political economy the direct connection of the first announced increase in tariffs (for Canada and Mexico) with the US trade deficit, but also with the drug trafficking of fentanyl in the US (!?), as well as the lightning-fast high tariffs imposed on Colombia due to its negative reaction to the method of deporting Colombian citizens illegally residing in the US. (!?) These moves by the current US administration are simply other forms of using economic advantages as a weapon. Of course, history is familiar with the practice of the hegemon to shift the blame or a significant part of it onto its partners, but there should be some logic and moral limits here.
Looking ahead a bit, I would like to point out the connection between Trump and his team's rejection of the concept of a "system of international relations", relying respectively mainly on power, and their demonstrated inability to foresee in a more comprehensive way all the possible consequences of the large size and this method of introducing the new US tariffs. After the bombastic announcement of this policy and the first negative reactions of trading partners, it turned out that individual US tariffs on the goods of one or another country will be determined after bilateral negotiations (if the partner countries request them), for the preparation of which the introduction of these tariffs is postponed by 90 days (initially such a possibility may have been assumed, but was not announced!). But, as they say, the genie has already been let out of the bottle, and China's understandably tough reaction has brought additional complications for the Americans, and in the rest of the world there is already talk of a possible global recession. It is possible, on the other hand, that depending on how the bilateral negotiations on US tariffs proceed, the degree of tension in international trade may decrease slightly and the crisis may not reach extremely destructive levels, and even then the episode will be indicative of the key role of the principle of sovereign equality in the constructive development of international relations.
I do not want to give the impression that I do not fully accept the foreign policy of the current US administration.
Throughout the entire period of the US election campaign, I followed Donald Trump's cause against globalism with sympathy, and on 20.03.2025. (Fakti.bg) I published an article: “A look at the efforts to end the war in Ukraine and Bulgaria's position“, in which I welcome President Trump's active efforts to end the bloody war, and I call on Bulgarian diplomacy to support them. At that time, many European countries still did not have clear positions on this issue.
In conclusion of this rather philosophical and political part of the text, I would like to reiterate my thesis that it would be a real pity if Donald Trump's categorical victory over American neoliberals and globalists faded ingloriously into the annals of history along with his second term. The way out of the difficult situation in foreign policy and economics in which he has placed himself is called sovereign equality. Only adherence to this principle can improve the international image of President Trump and his administration and constructively correct their foreign policy actions. And if they do not want to accept the term “system of international relations”, no problem - it is quite enough for them to consistently respect the principles of sovereignty and sovereign equality. Showing such respect in the upcoming bilateral tariff negotiations would be a step forward in this regard.
The factology of the announcement and entry into force of the new US tariffs is widely known. In short, it is as follows:
--On April 2, President Trump announced his plan to sharply and substantially increase import duties on 185 countries and territories, whose imports will be taxed at a single percentage - 10%, which will come into effect on April 5 this year, and, in addition, additional individual tariffs, different in each case, will be introduced for a significant number of the US's partner countries, which will come into effect on April 9 this year;
--A 25% tariff was announced for the EU on aluminum, steel and cars and 20% - for almost all other goods. For its part, the EU announced retaliatory tariffs on American imports of grain (corn, wheat, barley and rice), poultry, clothing and motorcycles. The treatment of the services sector, where the EU has a large deficit with the US, has apparently been postponed until later;
--The issue of individual tariffs on Chinese goods has developed in a special way, since China responded practically reciprocally to each subsequent increase in tariffs by the US. The latest figures (so far?) are 145% for imports of Chinese goods into the US and 125% for imports of American goods into China;
--US tariffs have also been significantly increased for many other countries such as Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, India, etc.;
--On April 9, Trump announced a 90-day postponement of the entry into force of individually determined tariffs for all countries that requested negotiations, while the general tariff of 10% for all takes effect immediately. After this announcement, the EU also postponed its retaliatory measures for 90 days, explaining that it wanted to give negotiations a chance. The big question mark is how the tariff dispute with China will end, as the results of any negotiations, or especially the absence of such, are expected to have a global effect.
The first foreign policy problem is precisely the possible complications or even the suspension of most trade between the US and China, although neither side is interested in this and will incur large losses. At the same time, as already mentioned, the effect on the world economy would be very negative not only in volume terms, but also in structural terms, including disrupting supply chains. According to Xi Jinping, China defends the rules in international trade: “it is necessary to firmly safeguard the multilateral trading system, maintain the stability of global industrial supply chains, and maintain an open and cooperative international environment“, the Chinese leader emphasized in an article published in the Vietnamese newspaper “Nhan Dang“. Accordingly, China seeks to unite all countries adhering to the above goals and not accepting the dictate-based approaches of President Trump's tariff policy. These actions by China could lead to significant geopolitical shifts in the world in its favor, if not immediately, then certainly in the somewhat more distant future.
Regardless of the current sharp Sino-American confrontation on the topic, however, the prevailing opinion among analysts is that ultimately the two countries with the largest economies in the world will find a compromise solution and some modus vivendi, albeit with reduced bilateral trade.
Another foreign policy consequence of the introduction of the new American tariffs comes in terms of relations with the Atlantic and other allies of the United States.
The disputes are not about the formal right of the United States to change its tariff policy in accordance with its interests.
This is a sovereign right of the United States, especially given its real problems with the large foreign trade deficit and excessive national debt. As in many other cases, however, the crux of the matter is not so much what he is doing, but how he is doing it: the unexpectedly large size of the new tariffs and the way in which they were announced and implemented with almost complete disregard for the interests of partner countries. Not to mention the demonstrative disrespect and grandiose contempt for unnamed heads of sovereign states (Who can call the President of the United States?), reaching an incredibly arrogant climax with Trump's "joke" that many of them were ready to "kiss his ass" in order to negotiate relatively better tariffs for them. Members of Trump's team and other high-ranking state figures are following their boss's example. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, for example, said that if the EU sided with China in the confrontation with the United States, he (the EU) "would cut its own throat". Well, why not... Are you watching the work? Mr. Minister knows very well that this is not a geopolitical, much less an ideological confrontation, but the sovereign right of each country to defend its interests in the trade and economic sphere. Unfortunately, I have again not seen an appropriate European response to such unacceptable rifts.
The power factor always exists, but in conversations or negotiations between allies it should play the smallest possible role. Alliances should not be abused by either strong or weak allies. I do not think that the toothless and appeasing policy line of the EU on the issue of tariffs will yield good results, given the circumstances. We will see. The truth is that American threats are primarily political in nature - possible repression in other areas, such as - weaker US commitment to European security. My opinion is that, no matter how difficult they may be, the tariff negotiations between the US and the EU will ultimately end with a positive result, including due to global geopolitical and general democratic considerations. However, achieving such a result will require some convergence of principled positions and consideration of the interests of both parties.
Meanwhile, if the US uses all forms of propaganda and pressure against other countries,
in this case - European ones, then the EU could also use common geopolitical and political-economic arguments. In his article (Social/Europe, 11.04.2025) under the significant title “America is committing suicide“, Joschka Fischer points out that “by alienating its allies, they (the US) are destroying one of the main pillars of their superpower status“, adding that “Trump has destroyed trust in the US for at least a generation.“ Of course, the neoliberal-minded Joschka Fischer is prone to over-dramatization, but I think that in essence his thesis is credible.
Another analyst, Paul Mason, points out in his article (Social/Europe, 04.04.2025) two strategic goals of President Trump's tariff policy: to try to restructure the entire global economy around US interests, destroying the previously successful export-based development models (China, Germany, Japan, etc.), or, if this proves impossible, at least to achieve a second main goal - to squeeze concessions regarding the domestic economic policy of competing countries. In fact, as goals, one does not interfere with the other, and intermediate achievements, the higher they are from the second to the first goal, would be accepted by the American side with greater satisfaction.
The issue of concessions from the main competing countries, as well as countries with emerging markets, is directly related to the slogan “America First!“ (“America First!). It can now be viewed in two directions: “America First“ not only as the protection and implementation of its interests first, but also as the result of strikes against its main competitors and the inhibition of their development. And this already affects the core of the foreign and domestic policies of the countries, where slogans and ideologies play second fiddle, if they play at all.
Theoretically, the negotiations of the United States with other countries on which it wants to impose individual tariffs (both developed and developing countries) could be held on a respectful and equal basis, compromising the interests of all participants. Given the previous history, however, this will be a very difficult exercise. In my opinion, the countries of the Global South, whose international weight is constantly growing, are gaining particular importance. That is why the term “Global South“ appeared, because these countries in their totality are actually a global factor. Their commitment to sovereignty and sovereign equality would not allow history to return to the spheres of influence typical of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, and, if necessary, they will find an appropriate form for uniting efforts in defense of their interests. This applies both to important global issues and, in particular, to US tariffs, especially since, according to UNCTAD experts, developing countries are likely to be most affected in global trade wars.
It is very important that both on the issue of sovereign equality and on the issues of international trade and economic cooperation, the EU and the countries of the Global South have similar positions. Therefore, the leaders of the union and its member states must overcome the general underestimation of these relations without delay. Among other things, a consistent further rapprochement between the EU and the Global South would support the EU's global ambitions.
With his tariff policy, President Trump has caused chaos in international trade and economic relations.
At the same time, as can be seen above, not only the trade and economic complications and contradictions, but also the foreign policy implications of the new American tariff policy are becoming increasingly obvious. Some analysts assume that if the world enters a global recession or, God forbid, a depression, the aforementioned contradictions could also be transferred to the military-political sphere and international security, as has happened in the past. But even if it does not come to that, geopolitical tensions are already too high to arise with the “tariff surcharge“ even more serious conflict situations.
The strategic outcome, in my view, is the revival and development of international law and especially - respect for the principle of sovereign equality. Is the world morally and politically ripe for this? The state and trends in the development of current international life hardly give grounds for a positive answer. But even the longest journey begins with the first step. Perhaps the crisis with American tariffs, according to the logic of an old wisdom, will create new opportunities for this. Perhaps such opportunities would also be created as a result of the possible end of the war in Ukraine and the establishment of lasting peace in the Middle East. Such opportunities must be used immediately so as not to feed the completely erroneous, and most likely self-serving, perceptions linking the revival of international law with neoliberalism and globalism.
A dangerous development of the international crisis caused by President Trump's tariff policy is its increasingly direct and pronounced connection with the strategic rivalry between the United States and China. In this regard, with regard to current and future global powers, I would like to reiterate the understanding that ambitions for global leadership can be successful if they are accompanied by respect for the principle of sovereign equality between states. Economic and military-political power alone will not be enough. And no amount of pressure for various geopolitical or civilizational "zonings" in the world or other clever formulas for a new hierarchical world order can and will not change this. A number of arguments can be cited in support of the above statement, the most important of which, in my opinion, is the basic immutable characteristic of expression and identity - human and national dignity.
I understand that to get from the current state of international affairs, subject to a significant degree of brute force, to the ever-fuller application of the principle of sovereign equality in international relations would mean a historical trend that will sound like unscientific fiction to many people. What, if anything, we all know that adversity teaches.
Sofia, April 22, 2025
Atanas Budev