US tariffs target systemic forced labour in global supply chains, revealing neoliberal trade contradictions
Original framing: “US proposes tariffs of at least 10% over forced labour practices” — Financial Times
Economic research shows that tariffs rarely eliminate forced labor but often redirect it to less-regulated regions, a phenomenon known as 'regulatory arbitrage.' Studies on global supply chains (e.g., ILO reports) demonstrate that coercive labor practices persist due to structural factors like poverty wages and lack of unionization. The US proposal lacks empirical grounding in how tariffs interact with labor market dynamics in target countries. Scientific consensus suggests that multi-stakeholder governance, not unilateral tariffs, is more effective in addressing forced labor.
The US tariff proposal on forced labor is a performative act that obscures deeper systemic contradictions in global capitalism, where 'free trade' and coercive labor are two sides of the same coin.
Historically, unilateral tariffs have served corporate interests while failing to address root causes, as seen in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and NAFTA's labor displacement. Cross-culturally, indigenous and Global South models offer alternatives rooted in reciprocity and collective welfare, challenging the US's punitive approach. A systemic solution requires dismantling neoliberal trade structures and centering marginalized voices in governance, as demonstrated by models like the Fair Wear Foundation and Kerala's cooperative economies. The trickster's lens reveals how this 'moral crusade' ultimately reinforces the very systems it claims to fight, highlighting the need for radical reimagining of labor and trade.