100%关税又不加了？美国有事急求中国，中方开始掌握谈判主动

Core Viewpoint - The news highlights the contrasting strategic considerations of the U.S. and China in the context of their economic negotiations, with the U.S. focusing on short-term gains while China aims for long-term development [2][21]. Group 1: U.S. Strategic Interests - U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin emphasized the favorable aspects of the agreement for the U.S., particularly regarding tariffs, which were initially set to increase by 100% on Chinese goods but are now temporarily shelved due to domestic economic pressures [4][18]. - The U.S. is heavily reliant on Chinese rare earth materials for its high-tech and military industries, necessitating negotiations for a delay in export controls imposed by China [6][18]. - The U.S. agricultural sector, particularly soybean farmers, is under pressure due to a significant drop in Chinese purchases, prompting the U.S. to seek increased soybean exports to stabilize domestic support [6][10]. Group 2: China's Strategic Interests - China is focused on reducing tariffs, aiming to lower the average tariff rate to below 25%, which is essential for the survival and growth of its export enterprises [10][21]. - China seeks the removal of sanctions on over 700 Chinese companies, advocating for a verification process instead of outright bans to facilitate international business expansion [12][21]. - In the high-tech sector, China aims to secure the continued operation of existing equipment, such as lithography machines, while it develops domestic alternatives, indicating a long-term vision for self-sufficiency [12][21]. Group 3: Negotiation Dynamics - The negotiations represent a time-based game, with China demonstrating greater resilience and a long-term strategy compared to the U.S.'s short-term focus, which is increasingly leading to domestic pressures [16][19]. - The U.S. is facing rising inflation, supply chain instability, and dissatisfaction among agricultural states, which could hinder its ability to engage in prolonged negotiations [18][21]. - China's approach appears more methodical, allowing it to maintain strategic stability while the U.S. may make hasty decisions driven by immediate concerns [19][21].