玉渊谭天丨美国国际贸易协议的“明枪”与“暗箭”

Core Points - The recent trade agreements announced by the U.S. government with various countries reveal numerous "unequal" demands that may harm these nations further [2][10] - The agreements emphasize a narrative of "winning" for the U.S., often framing concessions as rewards rather than negotiations [3][6] - The U.S. is expanding its development space at the expense of other countries' autonomy [10][24] Group 1: Unfair Development Rights - The U.S. agreements often highlight the narrative of victory, with statements emphasizing what the U.S. has gained [3][4] - The agreements impose higher tariffs on other countries compared to the concessions they receive, creating a disparity in tax rates [7] - Additional conditions, such as "transshipment" restrictions, further complicate the agreements, impacting countries like Vietnam that rely heavily on foreign investment [7][9] Group 2: Unfair Market Access - The agreements require countries to open their markets to U.S. goods, particularly focusing on expanding U.S. agricultural exports [10][11] - The U.S. is facing a food trade deficit for the third consecutive year, with imports exceeding exports by nearly $50 billion [12] - The agreements with countries like Japan require significant increases in U.S. agricultural imports, which may disrupt local markets and regional trade [15][18] Group 3: Unfair Political Constraints - The recent trade agreement with the EU requires significant investments and energy purchases from the U.S., leading to internal dissent within the EU [20][21] - The EU is expected to invest $600 billion and purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy over three years, raising concerns about loss of energy sovereignty [22][24] - The energy purchasing requirement is seen as unrealistic and may disrupt global energy trade dynamics [23][24]