吉隆坡谈判结束，贝森特：美方不再对华加税，中方将采购美国大豆

Core Viewpoint - The recent negotiations between China and the U.S. in Kuala Lumpur have concluded with significant implications for trade relations, particularly regarding tariffs and agricultural purchases, indicating a complex interplay of mutual interests and pressures from both sides [1][3]. Group 1: China's Position - China's stance during the negotiations was characterized by clear "bottom line signals," emphasizing that while they are open to discussions, they will not compromise on core interests for short-term agreements [3]. - Vice Premier He Lifeng highlighted that the essence of Sino-U.S. economic relations is mutual benefit, indicating a willingness to negotiate but with firm boundaries [3]. - The discussions revealed specific contentious issues, such as U.S. maritime logistics fees and fentanyl-related tariffs, showcasing the complexity of the negotiations [3][9]. Group 2: U.S. Position - U.S. Treasury Secretary Becerra's announcement of not imposing additional tariffs should be viewed in context, as it reflects a pause in escalating tensions rather than a complete removal of existing high tariffs [5]. - The urgency for the U.S. to secure soybean purchases from China is driven by inventory pressures in major soybean-producing states, which have been exacerbated by previous tariff policies [7]. - U.S. Trade Representative Greer mentioned that both sides are working on finalizing the details of their agreement, indicating that critical terms are still pending and require further high-level discussions [9]. Group 3: Negotiation Dynamics - The negotiations are marked by a rational compromise under pressure from both sides, with the U.S. needing to address agricultural state concerns and China aiming to stabilize its trade environment [11]. - There are significant hurdles to achieving a lasting consensus, including the need for internal approvals and the outcomes of future high-level meetings on key issues like rare earth elements and tariff measures [11]. - The discussions have shifted the focus from broad disagreements to specific issues, indicating a more structured approach to resolving trade tensions, although fundamental differences remain unresolved [9].