Category News

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva asked United States President Donald Trump to lift the 40 percent additional trade tariff imposed by the US government on Brazilian imports, in a phone call on Monday.

The leaders spoke for 30 minutes. During the call, they exchanged phone numbers in order to maintain a direct line of contact, and President Lula reiterated his invitation for Trump to attend the upcoming climate summit in Belem, according to a statement from Lula’s office.

The apparently friendly call may signal a turnaround in relations between the two, which have been strained in recent months, experts say. It also follows Trump’s comment that he had “excellent chemistry” with his Brazilian counterpart after the two had a brief, unscheduled meeting and even exchanged a hug on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York last Tuesday.

“I was surprised indeed,” Lula said about embracing the US president. “I was going to get my papers and leave, then Trump came to my side. A very friendly face, very nice, you know? I think there was some chemistry indeed.”

Since then, both sides have suggested that a formal, in-person meeting between the two could happen later this month.

Trump and Lula have been at loggerheads since July, when the US leader imposed tariffs totalling 50 percent on Brazilian exports (the 40 percent tariff plus a 10 percent standard tariff imposed by the current administration in Washington on all nations). In announcing those tariffs on Brazil, Trump cited what he described as a “fraudulent” prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who was recently sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempting to overturn the 2022 presidential election which he lost to Lula.

Why have tensions been building between Trump and Lula?

Although the US has a trading surplus with Brazil – meaning it exports more to Brazil than it imports – Trump nevertheless imposed a total 50 percent tariff on a number of Brazilian exports in July. In general, Trump has said that tariffs imposed on other countries’ exports are designed to redress the balance of a US trading deficit. That is not the case here.

Known as the “Trump of the Tropics”, Bolsonaro, a former army captain, led Brazil for a single term, from 2019 to 2023. Last month, Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison for orchestrating an attempted military coup, following his 2022 electoral defeat to Lula.

Trump, who said he had many “shared values” with Bolsonaro, similarly claimed to have lost a “fraudulent” election to Joe Biden in 2020. There is no evidence to support this claim.

In his letter to Brazil to announce the new tariffs in July, Trump wrote: “The way that Brazil has treated…  Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace.

“This trial should not be taking place,” he added. “It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!”

In addition to sky-high tariffs, Trump tried to further pressure Lula to drop the case by hitting supreme court justices with visa bans and slapping financial sanctions on the judge overseeing the case – Alexandre de Moraes.

He also revealed in his tariff letter to Brazil that he had directed US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to investigate Brazil for unfair practices under the Trade Act of 1974.

Ultimately, however, Brazil went ahead with Bolsonaro’s prosecution, and the former president was convicted.

And even though Trump voiced surprise at Bolsonaro’s verdict – describing him as a “good man” on the day he was sentenced – the US president has since then not escalated further tariffs or other penalties against Brazil.

In mid-September, Lula described Trump’s tariffs in an interview with the BBC as “eminently political”, and told US consumers they would face higher prices for Brazilian goods as a result.

Why might Trump be softening his stance towards Lula now?

In an unplanned exchange on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York last Tuesday, the two presidents spoke in person for the first time. “At least for 39 seconds, we had excellent chemistry,” Trump said after their encounter.

“He seemed like a very nice man, actually,” Trump told reporters. “He liked me, I liked him.” His comments have been interpreted by some analysts as a potential thawing in recent US-Brazil relations.

However, Trump’s softer tone may have been prompted by hard economic realities, according to Pantheon Macroeconomics’ chief Latin America economist, Andres Abadia. The US depends heavily on Brazil for its coffee and meat imports, and both have taken a hit amid the tariff war. The result: Prices have shot up.

Brazil is the largest source of imported coffee for the US – responsible for $1.33bn out of the $7.85bn total coffee imports by the US in 2023, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). But since the 50 percent tariffs kicked in, Cecafe, Brazil’s council of coffee exporters, said exports to the US fell by 46 percent in August and had dropped 20 percent more by September 19.

Amid that supply crunch, coffee prices in the US rose 21 percent in August compared with a year earlier, even as overall food price inflation hovered at about 3 percent, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

“The prospect of higher coffee prices,” Abadia said, “would be bad for Trump.”

Brazil is also the US’s third-largest source of imported meat, behind Australia and Canada, according to the US Department of Agriculture. “As with coffee, higher beef prices would hit Trump,” Abadia told Al Jazeera.

Beef and veal prices rose by almost 14 percent in August compared with a year earlier, according to the BLS.

By contrast, Brazil appears to have weathered Trump’s tariffs better than the US might have expected: Its overall exports grew in September, compared with a year earlier, as it expanded its offerings to other markets, including China and Argentina.

According to a new survey published on September 29 by The New York Times and Siena University, Trump’s approval ratings have fallen recently, with 58 percent of respondents saying they think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

“Inflation is definitely biting in the US,” says Abadia. “And anything that can be done to ease the pain, especially as we approach the holiday season, would be seen as positive.”

What’s in it for Lula?

Even though Brazil’s exports, on the whole, have not fallen, its declining access to the US – a critical market – could hurt the interests of its export-oriented industries.

Lula, experts say, may at least seek additions from Trump to a long list of Brazilian goods already exempt from tariffs – including civilian aircraft and orange juice. At the moment, meat and coffee are both tariffed at 50 percent.

But the Brazilian president may not be willing to offer the same sorts of one-sided concessions that Japan and the European Union agreed to – such as tariff reductions and investment pledges – to get their own trade deals through, say analysts.

Indeed, for his part, Lula’s feud with Trump has boosted his popularity, and Washington’s interventions in Brazilian politics have put the country’s conservatives on the back foot. Before next year’s presidential election, Lula is currently polling ahead of his top opponents, though the 79-year-old has not formally announced his bid. Lula was also the country’s president from 2003 to 2011.

Still, Abadia believes an opportunity for rapprochement is there. The most fertile area for compromise may lie in rare earth minerals. Brazil has the world’s second-largest reserves behind China. And for now, they remain largely untapped.

“Critical minerals are one area where bilateral interests align,” he said. “The US wants to diversify away from China and play an important role in the Brazilian market.”

Trump has shown a clear interest in rare earths, placing them at the heart of his deal with Ukraine, for instance. Brazil, on its part, wants to emerge as an exporter and supplier of these minerals.

Heavy rains have resulted in severe flooding and landslides in Nepal and India’s eastern Himalayan city of Darjeeling in the past few days.

Dozens of people have been killed in landslides in Nepal’s eastern hilly district of Ilam, which borders India. Local media reported that 41 families have been displaced in Nepal.

However, the government of Nepal’s interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki was praised for its response to the floods. Experts credited it with keeping deaths and destruction to a minimum.

Here is what we know.

How much rain has Nepal had?

Heavy downpours began on October 3, and data from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) show that some parts of Nepal experienced heavy rainfall. While the overall rainfall was slightly lower than last year, the destruction has still been bad because of “ultra-localised” heavy rains.

Pawan Bhattarai, an assistant professor at the civil engineering department of Kathmandu-based Tribhuvan University, told Al Jazeera that several districts in the central-eastern Terai plains and eastern hills bore the brunt of the storm, with weather stations in Rautahat and Ilam recording more than 330mm and 300mm of rain, respectively, on Saturday and Sunday.

Rainfall is normally considered extremely heavy if there is more than 150mm in 24 hours.

In the capital, Kathmandu, some districts received slightly more than 145mm of rain on Sunday compared with roughly 240mm in late September last year, when Kathmandu Valley experienced its heaviest deluge since 2002. Some parts of Kathmandu recorded as much as 322.2mm of rain last year, when the floods killed more than 200 people.

What caused the floods and landslides this year?

Various factors triggered the devastating floods this year.

Monsoon winds

Bhattarai explained that the flooding and landslides were an outcome of “an exceptionally intense and concentrated monsoon downpour”, which was caused by moisture-laden monsoon winds entering Nepal from the Bay of Bengal through the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

As a result, very high amounts of rain fell in a short period of time in ultra-localised areas. Some areas received a lot of rainfall over a short duration, while other parts remained largely dry.

Topography

Compounding this, the topography of some regions in the country is not suited to heavy downpours, Bhattarai said. “The massive volume of water overwhelmed the flat plains of districts like Rautahat, Bara and Parsa, causing widespread flooding.”

These three districts are in the Madhesh province in the mid-south of Nepal, bordering India. They are situated on the Terai plains – a flat, arable area – making it vulnerable to flooding because they have little to no elevation to redirect floodwater.

“Simultaneously, the same intense rainfall destabilised the steep slopes of hilly districts like Ilam, triggering the fatal landslides. In contrast, other areas like Kathmandu received significantly less rain, highlighting the localised nature of this extreme weather event,” he added.

Poor infrastructure

“Unscientific infrastructure development – such as road expansions that destabilise slopes – and encroachment on natural landscapes have amplified the damage,” Bhattarai said.

He explained that the recurring landslides on the Narayangadh-Mugling highway have been exacerbated by inadequate planning, poorly designed roadwork and a lack of proper safeguards.

The Narayangadh-Mugling highway in central Nepal experiences landslides fairly frequently, with the last one reported on September 23, causing regular traffic disruptions.

Climate change

While the amount of rain that fell in Nepal was not unusually high this year, the increased frequency of intense weather in the country is most likely linked to climate change, Bhattarai said.

“Such extreme monsoon events are highly unusual and a major concern. This pattern of back-to-back intense flooding – last September and again this year – is consistent with the effects of climate change, which is intensifying the hydrological cycle and making severe weather events more frequent.”

How has the government responded to the flooding?

Nepal has been contending with a difficult political situation in recent weeks.

On September 8, protests erupted in Kathmandu and other cities against corruption and nepotism. These “Gen Z” protests led by young people resulted in violence, numerous deaths and, ultimately, the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. The army was deployed, and former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, 73, was chosen as interim PM.

She has been praised for the interim government’s preemptive response to the floods. Experts say the government responded promptly to weather forecasts from the meteorological department, issuing early warnings, ordering road closures and halting traffic on main roads and highways in advance of the flooding.

The actions that won appreciation in particular included:

• Police in Kathmandu announced on loudspeakers that areas outside the city were vulnerable to flooding and landslides, and urged people not to leave the city.
• Energy Minister Kulman Ghising, who oversees the Ministry of Urban Development, inspected the highways that were badly damaged by the floods last year. Ghising issued a directive to restrict vehicular movement across these routes.
• The government stationed technical personnel and excavators in advance in vulnerable areas.
• A two-day national holiday was declared on Sunday and Monday as a precautionary measure.
• Army personnel were dispatched to help people move their belongings to other areas.

Damage was still extensive, however, said Bhattarai. “These efforts continue to face significant logistical challenges. Widespread damage to critical infrastructure has inherently hindered rebuilding and relief operations. While the political will for a coordinated response was present, the sheer scale of the physical destruction remains a major obstacle to recovery,” he said.

How could the disaster response be improved?

“While timely warnings and evacuation systems can significantly reduce human casualties from floods, this event highlights a critical gap in mitigating landslide fatalities, which are far more sudden and deadly,” Bhattarai said.

“To prevent future disasters, a major shift in policy and practice is urgently needed. This must prioritise comprehensive watershed management, focusing on stabilising slopes and managing water run-off, which has been a persistently neglected area in our current approach to disaster risk reduction.”

How does this compare with the government’s response last year?

The interim government’s response has been praised by many, including Sumana Shrestha, a minister in the previous government. She said the interim government performed much better than the Oli government’s response last year, The Kathmandu Post reported.

When the floods hit Nepal last year, Oli was in New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). He was criticised for not returning home to deal with the flooding.

When he returned, he said it was pointless to criticise the government for any delays in rescue operations, arguing that even weather forecasters could not precisely predict the locations of landslides.

However, Shanti Mahat, a spokesperson for the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA), cautioned against drawing quick conclusions about the previous year’s response as rainfall had been higher. She added that a smaller amount of rain might have prevented flooding altogether.

Furthermore, Anil Pokhrel, the former executive director of NDRRMA, said while some precautions were taken last year, government orders to close roads and halt traffic were not fully enforced.

“Last year, too, we had decided to close roads to reduce risk, but because those decisions were not enforced, the country suffered heavy human losses,” Pokhrel told The Kathmandu Post.

This year, the public had memories of last year’s floods and took government orders seriously. “The fresh experiences from last year made it easier for the government this time to make quick decisions, which helped keep the damage lower,” Pokhrel said.

“This time, people seem to have learned from last year’s experience, which made the situation somewhat easier to handle,” Mahat told The Kathmandu Post.

What is the current situation in Nepal?

The amount of rain in Nepal had reduced significantly by Tuesday.

Districts in Kathmandu have received less than 5mm of rain in the 24 hours since Monday. The highest amount of rain recorded on Tuesday was more than 84mm in the Marin Khola station at Kusuntar in the Sindhuli district in the southeastern hills of Bagmati province.

What happened in India?

The downpours also resulted in deaths and destruction across the border in northeastern India.

Officials said 28 people were killed in storms. The city of Darjeeling in West Bengal was hit the hardest.

“Landslides have been reported from 35 locations in the hills of Darjeeling and more than 100 houses have been destroyed,” Praween Prakash, a West Bengal state police official, told the AFP news agency.

After the final death toll was reached at 67, the search for the remains of those who died in an Indonesian school collapse has been postponed as families continue to search for bodies.