热点思考 | 贸易冲突的“终局”？——关税“压力测试”系列之七

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article is that the recent US-UK trade agreement, termed the "Economic Prosperity Agreement," represents a strategic move by the US to maintain tariffs while adjusting its trade negotiation tactics, focusing on political gains for the Trump administration [1][2][57]. - The US retains a 10% baseline tariff on the UK while reducing tariffs on automotive and steel products, and the UK has agreed to increase agricultural imports from the US and purchase Boeing aircraft worth $10 billion [1][6][57]. - The agreement is seen as a framework document without legal binding, reflecting the special ally status of the UK and the relatively limited economic significance of the trade relationship [1][12][57]. Group 2 - The US trade negotiation strategy has shifted to prioritize political achievements for Trump, with a focus on increasing tariff revenues, as evidenced by Trump's declining approval ratings [2][15][57]. - The US has softened its hawkish stance in trade negotiations, avoiding complex issues like digital service taxes and drug trade, and instead focusing on agriculture and automotive sectors [2][15][58]. - The US is actively pursuing trade negotiations with 17 economies, including India, Japan, and Vietnam, with a particular emphasis on smaller economies to quickly secure agreements [3][21][59]. Group 3 - Key contradictions in trade negotiations with the EU center around digital service taxes and automotive import barriers, with the EU maintaining a significant trade surplus with the US [3][24][59]. - The US-Japan negotiations face challenges primarily in the automotive and agricultural sectors, with Japan's agricultural policies being a significant barrier to concessions [3][30][59]. - The article suggests that future trade conflicts may evolve through issue segmentation, leading to localized agreements rather than comprehensive ones, especially with smaller economies [4][37][60]. Group 4 - The likelihood of achieving comprehensive agreements with core economies in the short term is low, and a phased approach focusing on localized agreements is deemed more realistic [4][60]. - Historical precedents indicate that US trade conflicts often end in political backlash or through WTO rulings, suggesting a cautious approach to future negotiations [4][49][60].