-
@ Simon KRAMER
2025-04-26 18:37:15
#Tariffs (additional costs) attack the (natural) comparative advantages (in production costs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) of (economic) competitors in the face of potential (military) adversaries (possibly but not necessarily including the former as the latter).
Hence, they are collateral damage (friendly negotiation fire) and intended damage (economic warfare) on so-called friends and foes, respectively.
So-called friends can react (to the caused disequilibrium) either (1) as doves by decreasing their tariffs (if possible at all), hoping for a cease-friendly-fire, thus weakening their (war-time) resilience (thus increasing the likelihood of war, thus in turn undermining any neutrality); or (2) as hawks by dislocating their own production to the tariff imposer, which (further) feudalises them to the imposer in any coming war (and thus also undermines any neutrality); or (3) as hawks by increasing their own tariffs, and thus turning from friend into foe (thus again also undermining any neutrality).
Foes can (only?) react by lowering their tariffs towards their foe's so-called friends, thus turning them into (economic and thus military) allies; and by increasing their own tariffs towards the foe.
Hence in any case, any uncooperative (motivated by hostility rather than resilience) increase of tariffs (nomen est omen) escalates economic competition towards military conflict (i.e., war) and undermines neutrality, and thus should be illegal under international law.