Switzerland could revise offer on Trump tariffs, business minister says
The country's Cabinet will hold a special meeting on Aug 4 to discuss its next steps.
ZURICH - The Swiss government is open to revising its offer to the United States in response to planned heavy tariffs, Business Minister Guy Parmelin said, as experts warned the 39 per cent import duties announced by President Donald Trump could trigger a recession in Switzerland.
Switzerland was left stunned on Aug 1 after Mr Trump hit the country with
one of the highest tariffs in his global trade reset , with industry associations warning of tens of thousands of jobs being put at risk.
The country's Cabinet will hold a special meeting on Aug 4 to discuss its next steps, with Mr Parmelin telling broadcaster RTS that the government would move quickly before the US tariffs are imposed on Aug 7.
'We need to fully understand what happened, why the US president made this decision. Once we have that on the table, we can decide how to proceed,' he said.
'The timeline is tight, it may be hard to achieve something by the 7th, but we'll do everything we can to show goodwill and revise our offer,' he added.
Mr Parmelin said Mr Trump was focused on the US trade deficit with Switzerland, which stood at 38.5 billion Swiss francs (S$61.7 billion) in 2024, with Switzerland buying US-liquefied natural gas (LNG) among the options under consideration.
Another option could be further investments by Swiss companies in the United States, Switzerland's biggest export market for its pharmaceuticals, watches and machinery.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore No plans to fully liberalise cross-border ride-hailing services between Singapore and Johor: LTA
Singapore LTA, Singapore bus operators reviewing Malaysia's request to start services from JB at 4am
Singapore The past and future of Choa Bungalow, a 'last reminder' of Marine Parade's former shoreline
Multimedia How Singapore is rethinking nature in the city
Business Are Gen Z-ers in Singapore worried about generative AI coming for their jobs?
World Trump is winning his trade war, but Americans will pay the price
Singapore Ong Beng Seng to plead guilty on Aug 4, more than 2 years after trip to Qatar with Iswaran
World Hamas says it will allow aid for hostages if Israel halts airstrikes, opens humanitarian corridors
'Look at the European Union, they promised to buy LNG. Switzerland imports LNG too – maybe that's one path,' Mr Parmelin said.
'Maybe more investments. But to be sure it's a strong enough basis for continuing talks, we have to fully understand what the US expects.'
Both Mr Parmelin and Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter were also ready to travel to Washington to pursue talks if necessary, he added.
Swiss officials rejected reports that the higher than expected tariffs were imposed after a bad-tempered telephone call between Ms Keller-Sutter and Mr Trump late on July 31.
'The call was not a success, there was not a good outcome for Switzerland,' a government source told Reuters. 'But there was not a quarrel. Trump made it clear from the very beginning that he had a completely different point of view, that 10 per cent tariffs were not enough.
'We are working hard to find a solution and are in contact with the American side,' the source added. 'We hope we can find a solution before August 7.'
Tariffs would have a huge impact on Switzerland's export-orientated economy and raised the risk of a recession, said Prof Hans Gersbach, an economist at ETH, a university in Zurich.
Swiss economic output would be reduced by 0.3 per cent to 0.6 per cent if the 39 per cent tariff was imposed, a figure which could rise to above 0.7 per cent if pharmaceuticals - which are currently not covered by the US import duties - were included. Prolonged disruptions could shrink Swiss GDP by more 1 per cent, he said.
'There would be a risk of a recession,' he said.
Swiss shares are expected to be hit by the tariffs news when the stock market reopens on Aug 4 after being closed during the Swiss National Day holiday on Aug 1.
The tariffs could also see the Swiss National Bank cut interest rates in September, said Nomura.
'We expect one more 25bp policy rate cut from the SNB in September, which would take the rate to -0.25 per cent,' the bank said.
'A hit to growth from US tariffs on exports would likely weaken economic growth and cause further deflation pressures, adding to the likelihood of easing to a negative policy rate.' REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
9 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
AsiaOne
9 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
Trump again threatens India with harsh tariffs over Russian oil purchases, World News
WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump again threatened on Monday (Aug 4) to raise tariffs on goods from India over its Russian oil purchases, while New Delhi called his attack "unjustified" and vowed to protect its economic interests, deepening the trade rift between the two countries. In a social media post, Trump wrote, "India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine." "Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA," he added. A spokesperson for India's foreign ministry said in response that India will "take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security." "The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable," the spokesperson added. Trump has said that from Friday he will impose new sanctions on Russia as well as on countries that buy its energy exports, unless Moscow takes steps to end its 3-1/2 year war with Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no public sign of altering his stance despite the deadline. Over the weekend, two Indian government sources told Reuters that India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite Trump's threats. India has faced pressure from the West to distance itself from Moscow since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. New Delhi has resisted, citing its longstanding ties with Russia and economic needs. Trump had already in July announced 25 per cent tariffs on Indian imports, and US officials have cited a range of geopolitical issues standing in the way of a US-India trade accord. Trump has also cast the wider BRICS group of developing nations as hostile to the United States. Those nations have dismissed his accusation, saying the group promotes the interests of its members and of developing countries at large. Crude buyer India is the biggest buyer of seaborne crude from Russia, importing about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1 per cent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by trade sources. [[nid:720925]] India began importing oil from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, the Indian spokesperson said, calling it a "necessity compelled by global market situation." The spokesperson also noted the West's, particularly the European Union's, bilateral trade with Russia: "It is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia." Despite the Indian government's defiance, the country's main refiners paused buying Russian oil last week, sources told Reuters. Discounts to other suppliers narrowed after Trump threatened hefty tariffs on countries that make any such purchases. Indian government officials denied any policy change. The country's largest refiner, Indian Oil Corp, has bought seven million barrels of crude from the United States, Canada and the Middle East, four trade sources told Reuters on Monday. India also has been frustrated by Trump repeatedly taking credit for an India-Pakistan ceasefire that he announced on social media in May, which halted days of hostilities between the nuclear-armed neighbours. The unpredictability of the Trump administration creates a challenge for Delhi, said Richard Rossow, head of the India programme at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "India's continued energy and defence purchases from Russia presents a larger challenge, where India does not feel it can predict how the Trump administration will approach Russia from month to month," he said. [[nid:720581]]
Business Times
9 minutes ago
- Business Times
Indonesia's eFishery founder Gibran Huzaifah detained as financial manipulation probe deepens
[JAKARTA] Gibran Huzaifah, founder and former chief executive of the troubled Indonesian startup eFishery, has been detained by Indonesian police over suspected manipulation of the aquatech firm's financial reports. The Special Economic Crimes Directorate of Indonesia's National Police announced late Monday (Aug 4) that it had arrested Gibran on suspicion of embezzlement. 'Mr G has been in custody since Thursday, Jul 31,' said Helfi Assegaf, director of the National Police's Special Economic Crimes Directorate. Two former eFishery vice-presidents, Angga Hadrian Raditya and Andri Yadi, were also detained. Authorities alleged that the three inflated the company's revenues over several years to make eFishery appear more promising and attract investors. The Business Times has reached out to FTI Consulting – which has taken over the management of eFishery – for comment. eFishery, an Indonesian aquatech unicorn previously valued at US$1 billion, has been accused of financial report manipulation. Reports indicated the company allegedly inflated its revenue by as much as US$600 million as at September 2024. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 8.30 am Asean Business Business insights centering on South-east Asia's fast-growing economies. Sign Up Sign Up In mid-December 2024, two top executives at eFishery – Gibran as well as chief product officer Chrisna Aditya – stepped down from their positions following the launch of an internal investigation into allegations of financial fraud, led by FTI Consulting. The scandal has sent shockwaves through South-east Asia's startup ecosystem as eFishery had attracted major investors, including SoftBank and Temasek. Since the case surfaced, the Bandung-based company has ceased operations and laid off more than a dozen employees. In early February, FTI Consulting announced that it had taken over interim management of the company with the approval of eFishery's shareholders.
