Multilateralism between Brazil and India as a model to counter Trump

 As part of the reactions to Trump's disastrous tariff policies, India and Brazil are moving closer to boosting trade between the two countries, aiming to exceed €17 billion by 2030. These developments are believed to be the result of telephone conversations between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Brazilian President Lula, thus involving contacts between the two countries' highest officials. It's worth noting that the US intends to impose a 50% tax on incoming Indian goods due to purchases of Russian oil, while the 30% tax the White House intends to impose on Brazil stems from the indictment of former President Bolsonaro. The concrete means to reach the €17 billion trade target is to have agreed to expand the Mercosur-India agreement, following the agreement between the two countries at the recent BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro. The challenge for Brazil and India is to overcome the current and upcoming economic phases, which promise to be challenging for all global economies, through the revitalization of multilateralism and greater integration, not only between the two countries, but also as a model to be extended as widely as possible in opposition to Trump's isolationism. This approach must represent the alternative to be pursued as a global example to those who wish to oppose what Trump seeks to impose: a populist hegemony, which governs on deliberately distorted and often false data, to indoctrinate a public opinion lacking the tools to properly discern counterfeit news. To challenge Trump's model, action must be pursued simultaneously in two ways: from the grassroots, raising awareness among citizens through the action of social bodies, and from the top down, with concrete actions by governments and institutions. In this context, strengthening democracy is crucial, because instances of centralized power do not favor the role of the opposition and respect for minorities. Unfortunately, the idea that a majority legitimized by the popular vote can impose its views unconditionally, regardless of those who voted differently, is increasingly gaining traction. The next step is to seek to reduce inequality, as a means of combating the ignorance that fosters people's manipulation. Naturally, without regulation of technological resources and new technologies, achieving these goals appears extremely difficult, as these resources are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, often too close to the powers that be. Trump's distorted will has imposed tariffs on over ninety countries, distorting free trade and compromising the development of global economies. Creating a coalition of all the countries targeted by Trump seems impossible, as many of them are deeply conflicted. For others, the problem is servility toward the United States, mistaken for an opportunity for privileged relations. However, broad agreements, such as the one between Brazil and India, capable of creating alternative markets to US dominance, seem possible. It should also be considered that, for now, the effects of these tariffs have not yet been felt in the US, but authoritative estimates predict an average increase in prices for US citizens due to the tariffs of over 18%, creating a situation not seen since 1934. This threatens to cause negative surprises for the American president, as the one affected will be precisely a segment of his own electorate, a segment of which will be impossible to fool with false propaganda. This will be a test that threatens to be very severe in terms of approval and appreciation for the White House's current policies and could represent a destabilizing factor that should not be underestimated. This will facilitate the success of any policies aimed at uniting several countries against the tariffs and Trump's entire way of understanding the world. Conversely, without unity of purpose at the state level, Trump's path will be more difficult to navigate.