According to media reports, American President Donald Trump seems to have announced that he could soon impose duties against the European Union. If this were to be the case, it should be deduced that since Italy is an integral part and Founding Country of the European Union, potentially but also in practice, the so-called possible American duties aimed at the Old Continent could not fail to also concern our country.
Donald Trump, moreover, announced that he signed the order for extraordinary duties against Mexico, China and Canada: precisely, it would seem that the duties will be in the percentage amount of 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico and in the percentage amount of 10% on goods coming from China. The reaction from the two major trading partners of the United States, Mexico and Canada, seems to have been very harsh, which in fact, as noted by several parties, could call into question a long-standing trade relationship and that could well induce counter-reactions from these two nations.
It is difficult to find a logical explanation. That this would be America's golden age, Donald Trump had announced during his inauguration speech, and probably, his vision in terms of the macroeconomics of the world, could well represent, rightly or wrongly, the ideological basis of his program. Granted that such a vision could be fully implemented considering the consequences of what could, perhaps, present itself as a "boomerang" effect. Whether it could then be a strategic move aimed at obtaining advantages on the political level but destined to weaken with the passage of time, or a mechanism aimed at pure and simple protectionism, time will probably tell. But if we think about it carefully, it would perhaps not be useful to be too surprised, given that, already during his first experience as President of the United States of America, between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021, Donald Trump had in fact distinguished himself by adopting stringent trade policies precisely through the measure of the old-fashioned “duty”, if it can be defined as such, commonly understood as a direct tax on consumption, of mediated collection, which affects the circulation of goods from one state to another. But, saying it differently, and leading the discussion to the level of consequences, a trade policy of a self-referential nature and imprint, such as that announced by Donald Trump, could only lead to that further policy that would appear to be the most logical of consequences. That (pardon the pun), in essence, in the event that all countries, forced by the need to deal with the contingency of the moment (which could well - the use of the conditional seems appropriate - be defined in terms of a trade war by the United States of America) employed the same economic vision of the world as the law of retaliation and resolved to counterbalance Trump's tariff through the adoption of similar policies, a condition of general and widespread crisis could almost emerge.
Translated into cash, and to be clear: who should ultimately pay the cost of the duty? The final consumer of the products? Probably, with the consequence, perhaps, of undermining the relationship of trust between Donald Trump and his own electorate. With all the consequences on the political level. And if that were the case, who, in the medium and long term, could benefit from an economic policy of this kind?
With the second Presidency of Donald Trump, a brand new phase seems to have opened for international trade relations in which instability and the absence of certainties seem to reign supreme. Past schematisms, the crystallization of relations and the certainty of and in trade, appear as paradigms that are if not outdated, at least rapidly being outdated. The diversification of trade partners beyond alliances could perhaps constitute a first response in the medium term, especially for the European Union of Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, and Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro
