Donald Trump, who resumed the role of U.S. president in 2025, has reiterated threats to impose 100% tariffs on all BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and new members such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Indonesia) if these countries attempt to replace the U.S. dollar in international trade or create a shared currency.
This threat is part of a broader strategy by Trump to maintain the dollar’s global dominance and suppress dedollarization efforts, which BRICS has actively debated since the imposition of Western sanctions against Russia over the war in Ukraine.
Why does BRICS want an alternative to the dollar?
Weaponization of the Dollar: After Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it lost access to Western financial systems like SWIFT, spurring alternatives (e.g., the multilateral "BRICS Bridge" payment platform).
Economic Uncertainty: BRICS nations, representing 45% of the world’s population and 35% of global GDP (by purchasing power parity), seek to reduce dollar dependency due to the risks of unilateral U.S. sanctions.
Reforming the Global Order: BRICS aims to increase its influence in institutions like the UN and IMF, where Western dominance persists.
Consequences of Trump’s 100% Tariffs
1. Shock to the U.S. Economy
Higher Consumer Costs: Tariffs would raise prices on imported goods (e.g., electronics, cars, rare earth minerals), disproportionately affecting lower- and middle-class Americans. Analysts estimate 100% tariffs on China alone could increase U.S. import costs by $640 billion.
Retaliatory Measures: BRICS nations might restrict exports of critical resources (e.g., Russian energy, Chinese rare earths), destabilizing global supply chains.
Accelerated Dedollarization
Trump’s threats could motivate BRICS to expand use of national currencies in trade. China already conducts 60% of its trade in yuan, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE explore oil sales in non-dollar currencies.
Geopolitical Divergence
India’s Dilemma: India, balancing ties with the U.S. and BRICS, could tilt toward China, undermining U.S. efforts to divide the bloc.
Rising Global South Power: Closer BRICS-ASEAN integration (e.g., with Indonesia) would diminish U.S. influence in the region.
Unrealistic Economic Logic
Inflation: tariffs would fuel U.S. inflation and trigger trade wars without addressing structural economic issues.
Contradiction with dollar dominance: Maintaining the dollar’s status requires deep global trade integration, which clashes with protectionism.
Strategic Errors
U.S. Deindustrialization: The U.S. lacks infrastructure to replace BRICS imports, especially in high-tech supply chains (e.g., semiconductors).
Eroded Global South Influence: Tariffs would cost the U.S. partnerships with nations like Indonesia, key to countering China.
Biden’s Sanctions Policy
While Trump’s approach is broad, the Biden administration targeted specific industries (e.g., 100% tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles) to protect U.S. manufacturers like Tesla. Trump’s blanket tariffs ignore the complexity of global supply chains and risk chaotic trade disruptions.
Though Trump’s “America First” rhetoric resonates with his base, his tariff policy is counterproductive. Rather than strengthening the U.S. economy, tariffs would accelerate dedollarization, empower alternative trade blocs, and worsen living standards for American consumers. As Michael Pettis (Carnegie Endowment) notes, the U.S. faces a choice between “maintaining dollar dominance” and “reducing trade deficits"—both cannot coexist.
Trump’s threats fail to address core challenges and instead deepen global economic fragmentation.
コメント