EU defends Trump trade deal facing backlash
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM (AFP)The European Union on Monday vehemently defended its trade deal with President Donald Trump, with EU capitals and businesses sharply divided on an outcome some branded a "capitulation"."I'm 100 percent sure that this deal is better than a trade war with the United States," top EU trade negotiator Maros Sefcovic told journalists.European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clinched the framework accord with Trump Sunday after dashing to Scotland as the August 1 deadline loomed for steep levies that threatened to cripple Europe's economy.EU exports are now set to face across-the-board tariffs of 15 percent -- higher than customs duties before Trump returned to the White House, but much lower than his threatened 30 percent.The 27-nation bloc also promised its companies would purchase energy worth $750 billion from the United States and make $600 billion in additional investments -- although it was not clear how binding those pledges would be."This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances," Sefcovic said.Full details of the agreement — and crucially, which sectors could be exempt from the 15-per cent levy — will be announced in the coming days, although the EU states it has avoided steeper tariffs on key exports, including cars and medicines.But the reaction from European capitals -- which gave von der Leyen the mandate to negotiate -- ranged from muted to outright hostile.French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said it was a "dark day" for Europe and said the accord was tantamount to "submission".Speaking for Europe's biggest economy, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz gave a warmer welcome to a deal he said had avoided "needless escalation".Industry groups in both countries made plain their disappointment however, with Germany's main auto sector body saying the 15-percent levy "burdens" carmakers while its VCI chemical trade association said the rates were "too high".Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban attacked the deal in blunt terms, saying "Trump ate Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast".
'Not only about trade' "It looks a bit like a capitulation," said Alberto Rizzi of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)."The EU accepted a fairly unbalanced deal," he added, saying it delivered a "political victory for Trump".Von der Leyen had faced intense pressure from EU states to strike a deal quickly with the bloc's biggest partner and protect a $1.9-trillion trading relationship.Defending Brussels' approach, Sefcovic warned that a no-deal scenario -- meaning a 30-percent tariff and the prospect of further escalation -- would have risked up to five million jobs in Europe.Throughout the months-long talks, Brussels prioritised stability and maintaining good relations with Washington over escalation.That line of thinking has support: Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a Trump ally, said the deal had avoided "potentially devastating" consequences.Markets in Asia and Europe welcomed the certainty and rose following the announcement -- reflecting the 4.4 billion euros ($5.1 billion) worth of daily transatlantic goods and services trade that were at stake.Hanging over the negotiations was the risk to other areas of cooperation -- like Ukraine -- if the EU descended into a trade war with its closest security partner."It's not only about the trade -- it's about security, it's about Ukraine," Sefcovic told reporters Monday.Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics acknowledged it was "clearly an imbalanced deal" if judged purely on trade terms."But if you're trying to avoid worse national security outcomes, well then maybe the deal is not so bad," he said.
Cautious approach The EU had sought to ramp up the pressure in the final stretch of talks, fearing a bad deal and higher levies, with countries approving a $109-billion package of counter-tariffs at the last minute.And states led by France were pushing for a more robust response, including the option to deploy the trade "bazooka" known as the anti-coercion instrument.But the threat of retaliation was consistently framed by Brussels as a last resort should talks fail, and experts suggested the hardening stance may have come too late to make a real difference.
"If the EU had played hardball at the very beginning, it probably could have got a better deal," ECFR's Rizzi told AFP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Trump tariffs: Gulf countries among others in limbo as deadline approaches
Gulf Co-operation Council members were among dozens of countries waiting to find out whether the new tariff rate President Donald Trump was expected to enact on Friday would indeed go into effect. 'The trade team has been working around the clock to try to be in correspondence with as many countries as possible, but if they haven't heard from us yet, they will in the form of a letter or an executive order by midnight tonight,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday. Mr Trump had previously maintained that his 'reciprocal tariffs' – originally announced on April 2 – would be enacted on Friday after he previously delayed them. The UAE and Saudi Arabia were both hit with a 10 per cent tariff in April, which represented lower tier of the levies set by the President. Earlier this month, Mr Trump suggested he could send a letter to more than a 150 countries informing them of the tariff that they would be charged. 'They're not big countries, and they don't do that much business. Not like the ones we've agreed with, like China, like Japan,' he told reporters during a recent meeting with Bahrain's Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa at the White House. But he also said he was considering a baseline tariff rate of 15 to 20 per cent. Mr Trump's negotiations have primarily focused on the largest US trading partners. Total trade with the European Union, for example, was an estimated $975.9 billion last year, according to the Office of the US Trade Representative. US total trade goods with the UAE in 2024 was estimated at $34.4 billion. How will the Gulf Co-operation Council be affected? Economists have said the reciprocal tariffs will have a limited direct impact on Gulf economies because their trade with the US is relatively small. They have instead pointed to the indirect impact that tariffs will have on the region through global growth and its impact on oil demand. Tariffs are expected to have some inflationary effects while also dampening growth. Such prospects led the International Monetary Fund to project the global economy to slow from 3.3 per cent growth in 2024 to 3.0 per cent this year. The latest figure is an upwards revision from its April forecast owing to some easing in trade tension and tariff front-loading, the fund said. 'Despite these welcome developments, tariffs remain historically high, and global policy remains highly uncertain,' chief economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas told reporters. Who has Trump announced deals with? Among the major US partners Mr Trump has signed trade agreements with are Vietnam, South Korea and Japan. He also announced a trade deal on Sunday with the EU, in which the US would charge a 15 per cent tariff on European imports. Mr Trump placed the same levy on Japanese and South Korean goods. The UK, Pakistan and Indonesia have also reached trade deals. However, Mr Trump has yet to come to an agreement with three of the four largest US trading partners: China, Mexico and Canada. Mr Trump on Thursday said he and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum had agreed to extend a period in which Mexico would pay tariffs on fentanyl, cars, steel, aluminium and copper for 90 days as the two sides continue discussions on a trade agreement. Separately, he said Canada's plan to recognise the state of Palestine at an upcoming UN meeting would not be a deal-breaker in talks between Washington and Ottawa. He had previously said Canada's plan to recognise the state of Palestine would jeopardise discussions. Meanwhile, China is on a separate deadline of August 12 after Beijing and Washington previously agreed to reduce their escalatory tit-for-tat tariffs. China Vice Premier He Lifeng said the two sides had agreed to work on extending that deadline by 90 days after two days of talks in Stockholm this week, Reuters reported, citing a statement from China's Ministry of Commerce. Which countries have received trade letters? For those who have not struck a trade deal with the US, Mr Trump has sent their leaders letters outlining their tariff rate. Iraq and Tunisia were among roughly two dozen countries to have received a letter from Mr Trump. The letters, which were nearly identical except for the new tariff rate, had warned each country not to announce retaliatory measures. South Korea, which had also received a letter, later agreed to a deal that would lower the new US tariff rate to 15 per cent from 25 per cent. Mr Trump separately threatened to slap a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods, accusing the government of enabling the war in Ukraine through its purchases from Russia.
Arabian Post
3 hours ago
- Arabian Post
After Trump's 25 Per Cent Tariff On Indian Exports, There Is No Cause For Panic
By Dr. Nilanjan Banik Before the August 1 deadline, the U.S. President Donald Trump decided to impose a 25% tariff on Indian exports. He also talked about an additional penalty on Indian exports, which could go up to100% as a surcharge, targeting countries that continue trading oil with Russia. Trump seems to care less about 'friend' India, as trade with India accounts for a much smaller share compared to U.S. trade with China. Because of U.S. interests, China is likely to get a better trade deal than India, for instance removal of restrictions of U.S. chip-design software exports to China. This is not the first time Trump has taken a hard line on India. During his earlier stint at the President not only did Trump label India as the 'tariff king', but he also removed the country from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). Under the GSP, established by the Trade Act of 1974, US policymakers allowed imports of around 3,500 products from designated beneficiary countries—primarily low-income nations—at a preferential duty-free (zero-tariff) rate. The aim was to help these countries increase and diversify their trade with the US. According to the World Bank, a 'low-income' country is one with a per capita income of less than $1,045 per year in 2024. As U.S. remains India's largest export destination, it is only natural to feel the pressure with increasingly restrictive trade measures in place. Around 18% of India's total exports are directed to the US, with a value of $77 billion in 2023, and $78 billion in 2024. However, if previous restrictive trade measures, including the withdrawal of GSP, are any indication, then the impact has been relatively modest. A quick review of the items qualified under the GSP reveals that they primarily fall under categories such as textiles and apparel, watches, footwear, work gloves, automotive components, and leather apparel. Among these key export categories, some items within textiles and apparel and automotive components were included in the GSP list. Additionally, exports of organic chemicals, steel, and certain engineering goods—such as nuclear boilers, machinery, and mechanical appliances—were also impacted by the withdrawal of GSP benefits. However, the value of these items as a proportion of total Indian exports to the US is relatively small. India's exports to the US are mainly comprised of diamonds (19%), packaged medicaments (14%), refined petroleum products (8.9%), automotive components (2.1%), and textiles and apparel (3.7%). The percentages in parentheses represent the share of India's exports to the U.S. as a percentage of India's total exports. The recent signing of the India-UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is expected to help offset some of the negative effects of excessive tariffs in the long run. Indian policymakers had anticipated a tariff around 20%, but Trump ultimately imposed a 25% rate. Thanks to the India-UK Free Trade Agreement, India stands to benefit from zero tariffs on 99% of its exports, particularly in sectors like textiles, jewellery, pharmaceuticals, automotive parts, and information technology services – areas that commentators fear could be negatively impacted by higher U.S. tariffs. Indian exports to the U.S. are also likely to be less affected in relative terms, since Trump has unilaterally imposed tariffs on countries whose exports compete with India in the U.S. market. For example, Bangladesh (35%), Thailand (36%), Vietnam (20%), Indonesia (19%), Malaysia (25%), and the Philippines (19%) – some of India's competitors in leather, textiles, and machinery – are equally impacted, with the numbers in parentheses indicating their respective tariff levels. To better withstand external shocks — whether from protectionist tariffs or even war — India should focus on making its manufacturing sector/exports more competitive and focus on its domestic economy. The Indian economy benefits from a strong domestic sector, with domestic consumption, government spending, and private investment together accounting for nearly 80% of the country's GDP. However, the contribution of manufacturing value added to GDP remains stagnant at 17%, indicating no significant improvement in manufacturing competitiveness. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), a key driver of technology transfer and manufacturing competitiveness, is declining, with gross FDI flows dropping to just 1% and net FDI falling to 0.6% in the first half of the 2023-24 financial year—levels not seen since 2005-06. Rigidities in the business environment, the inverted duty structure (IDS), and India's decision to terminate bilateral treaties are to be blamed for discouraging flow of FDI. A study by CUTS International of 1,464 tariff lines across textiles, electronics, chemicals, and metals reveals how the IDS is hurting competitiveness, with 136 items from textiles, 179 from electronics, 64 from chemicals, and 191 from metals most affected. For example, apparel items priced below $14 (Rs 1,000) are subject to a GST of 5%, while those exceeding $14 are taxed at 12%. For textile manufacturers, there are also significant investments required in value-added services such as marketing, warehouse rentals, logistics, courier services, and other fulfilment costs. However, these additional services are subject to a higher GST rate of 18%, making the products less competitive in the international market. The India budget 2025 has addressed the issue of IDS; for example, the government has increased tariffs on Interactive Flat Panel Displays from 10% to 20%, while reducing tariffs on Open Cells and related components to 5%. This trend needs to continue, and policymakers must implement further reforms to enhance the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. While tariff negotiations is an ongoing process, India could consider strengthening its position by increasing purchases of U.S. oil and defense equipment. During his last tenure, Trump positioned himself more as a major arms dealer, focusing on selling more weapons and oil. India has contracted for nearly $20 billion worth of US origin defense items since 2008. This trend is likely to continue in a potential Trump 2.0. India, for its part, should focus less on tariffs and more on addressing domestic distortions. (IPA Service) (The author is Professor, Mahindra University).
Arabian Post
4 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Hidden Burn Bags at FBI HQ Reveal Alleged Russia Collusion Plot
FBI Director Kash Patel has uncovered thousands of documents stored in burn bags within a previously undisclosed room at FBI headquarters. The materials, related to the 2016 Trump–Russia investigation and including a classified annex to the Durham report, are now undergoing declassification and have been submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Chuck Grassley. Patel asserts that the files were deliberately concealed by former FBI leadership and ignored by previous administrations. The classified annex reportedly contains intelligence suggesting government officials inside the FBI played a role in shaping the narrative that President Trump colluded with Russia before the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was formally launched. President Trump, responding to questions from reporters, described the original Russia probe narrative as a 'scam' orchestrated for political gain. When asked about the discovery, he expressed uncertainty and declined to elaborate. ADVERTISEMENT Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Patel, and Intelligence Community leaders, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, jointly facilitated the document transmission to the Senate. The DOJ press brief notes the move aligns with directives for transparency. Intelligence files recently released by Gabbard include a whistleblower memorandum describing alleged pressure placed on an analyst to endorse the ICA's findings regarding Trump and Russia. The analyst's initial independent conclusions reportedly conflicted with the wider community's narrative, prompting claims of internal coercion within the Obama administration. Declassified intelligence memos dating from 2016 reveal that senior figures from Hillary Clinton's campaign, including foreign policy adviser Julianne Smith, reportedly initiated efforts to link Trump to Russia as a diversion from Clinton's email scandal. Open Society Foundations operatives Leonard Benardo and Jeffrey Goldstein held confidential meetings with the Democratic National Committee where this strategy was discussed. Special Counsel John Durham's investigation determined that some of these communications were likely authentic and should have been examined by federal agencies at the time—though the FBI did not properly investigate them, according to Durham's findings. Supporters of the disclosure argue the documents expose what they describe as a politically motivated conspiracy to craft the false narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford suggested the information is the 'final nail in the coffin of the Russia hoax,' calling it among the greatest political frauds in US history. Critics of the newly aired narrative highlight that multiple US intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, concluded that Russia engaged in sweeping interference efforts targeting the 2016 election—campaign disruption via cyberattacks and social media manipulation. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report affirmed that Russian interference occurred and rejected theories suggesting the dossier triggered the probe. Former CIA Director John Brennan and other intelligence community leaders have repudiated the idea that the collusion narrative was fabricated. Susan Miller, ex-head of the CIA Russia interference assessment team, maintains the investigation relied on credible intelligence, not political pressure. As the declassification process continues, congressional committees are reviewing the documents to determine whether misconduct occurred. Senator Grassley emphasised that this information has been 'buried for years' and that its release is essential to restoring public trust. The story is evolving rapidly. Those involved in the probe, as well as critics, are watching closely as new evidence surfaces, national security implications emerge and accountability debates intensify.
