For decades, the international commercial system has worked, although imperfectly, as the backbone of global economic integration. Based on an American leadership base and multilateral cooperation, it helped boost a remarkable era of growth and development. But today, that system is under increasing tension.
A wave of new tariffs, initiated by President Trump, is restructuring the global trade panorama. While the immediate impact on growth seems modest, at least on paper, the broader implications suggest a more worrying change: a departure from predictability and openness towards fragmentation and uncertainty.
In its last global economic perspective, the International Monetary Fund has captured this concern with a quiet clarity. At first glance, the headline numbers seem miscarriage and benign: the global growth trimmed to 2.8 percent by 2025 and 3 percent by 2026. But below the thesis, the decimal points are a volatile mixture of ascending and anraves rates.
The IMF reference forecast includes the burst of tariff actions taken between February and early April of this year, with the United States leading the position. What began with strategic salvages aimed at key economic rivals such as China, Mexico and Canada has metastasis in a full -fledged commercial war redula.
In particular, the Round of April 2 of the American taxes pushes effective rates beyond the levels, not from the great depression. This is not a simple skirmish. It is a break. Predictible, the effects are broad. The IMF indicates that the combined impact of the new tariffs and their reprisals is already visible in the global growth reduction, almost a complete percentage of spoke points from January estimates. If the April rate had not been imposed, the economic aboller would have a much less deep leg. But economic rationality seems to be a victim of political theater.
In a particular movement, the United States momentarily stopped some rates after April 4, while initiating rear door commitments. The symbolic gesture of the “reciprocal tariffs” promoted by Donald Trump, who claims to level the playing field, in practice points to others with surgical precision.
The result is not a more equitable negotiation system, but a thickness of uncertainty that weighs a lot for investors, companies and governments equally. In fact, the concept of “epistemic uncertainty” – uncertainty about the same rules of commitment – permeates the IMF analysis. The cautious prose institutions barely hides the magnitude of concern: sustained unpredictability in commercial policy, they warn, can undermine productivity, frozen investment and innovation of acrobatics. That fear is not theoretical; It is already materializing.
In the United States, the effects are palpable. The IMF reduces its US growth forecast for this year to 1.8 percent, almost a complete percentage point since January. Rates alone represent 0.4 points of that reduction, while inflation is now expected to rise through an additional percentage point. Far from isolating US workers or reliving manufacturing, tariffs run the risk of inducing stagflation: slow growth, price increase and decreased competitiveness.
The disparity in economic trajectories is revealing. American economic nationalism, once fired as a populist diversion, is now the driver of systemic transformation. And yet it is far from being clear that the United States can win. A realignment induced by the supply chains rate, the legendary “decoupling” of China, is more complex in practice than in rhetoric. The global supply chain is not a straight line but a tangled website. The interruption in a node has cascade effects, a reality companies are rediscovering with each hypo Logistics.
This complexity is aggravated by the sensitivity of the financial sector to volatility induced by trade. The IMF observes an adjustment of the financial conditions, the decrease in oil prices and an investment setback by the companies that are prepared for more commotions. When the uncertainty was armed, the market withdraws. The change rates are also trapped in the crossfire: while the past episodes of rates led to an appreciation of the dollar, the most murky growth perspective of today can see the green spill.
Through the Atlantic, Europe is marginally better, but only in relative terms. With less direct blows of tariffs, its growth is checked at 0.2 percentage points, to a miserable 0.8 percent. That figure speaks less to resilience and more to stagnation. Without a decisive change in infrastructure spending or reforms that improve productivity, the Eurozone runs the risk of fading in irrelevance in this remodeled order.
Emerging economies, meanwhile, are trapped in a movement of tweezers, vulnerable to both external demand clashes and growing capital costs. The IMF reduces its collective growth forecast by 0.5 points, to 3.7 percent. The fragile act of development equilibrium amid debt and decreased help is increasingly unsustainable. The structural implications of this moment cannot be exaggerated.
The tariffs, the IMF reminds us, are not just taxes. They are distortions. They request resources, they underpin the inefficiencies and the behavior of brief rental. Approximately time, save innovation and productivity. As protectionism disguises the strategy, the global economy wobbles towards a slower and fragmented future.
And what about politics that drives thesis decisions? Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs are expressed in the language of equity, but equity, in this context, is little more than a nationalist slogan. The deepest complaint is in a sense of displacement, a perception, not entirely unfounded, that globalization rewards have been distributed unequally.
The prescription of the IMF is, predictable, a call to calm: restore commercial stability, rekindle cooperation, resist the charm of the zero sum logic. But such appeals to multilatery fall more and more in deaf ears. The global commercial system, once signed by American leadership, now moves without a rudder when Washington turns in and the rivals rushed to adjust.
However, there is a slight hope. Growth could recover if current policies are invested, if pragmatic trade agreements replace punitive tariffs, if public investment compensates for private reduction. But that would require a degree of vision and coordination that, until now, has a remarkably absent leg.
Meanwhile, the world must handle an era of turbulence fed with tariffs, where the line between economic policy and political position becomes thinner. We are entering a not only phase or a cyclical recession, but also to the structural transition. The old order has been unbelievable, and the new one has not yet taken shape. What emerges will defend less in the mechanics of commercial models than in the elections of the policy formulators, and the convictions they contribute to the table.
Bets are not simply economical. The international system wobbles at a fundamental crossroads. It is being re-written by economists, but by politicians who exercise tariffs such as Cudels and offer illusions such as Anwers. Whether we staggered a more fragmented and confrontation world, or if a new cooperation pact can still be forged, it is still the most important and unanswered question of our time.
Dear reader,
The opinions expressed in the opinion section are only those of the individual author and do not represent the official position of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that can challenge or differ from ours. We remain committed to providing our readers with a journalism of high quality, fair and balanced. Thanks for your continuous support.
