新华社记者许嘉桐 杨骏 新华社内罗毕/北京9月8日电 题：关税风暴下非洲贸易的突围与新生 美国针对数十个贸易伙伴的所谓"对等关税"上月生效。其中，多数非洲经济体面临15%的关税，南 非输美商品更面临高达30%的关税。 非洲大陆自由贸易区：强化区域一体化 非洲大陆自由贸易区正成为应对外部市场波动的重要缓冲。非洲进出口银行报告显示，2024年非洲 商品贸易额反弹13.9%，达1.5万亿美元，显著扭转2023年下跌5.4%的局面；非洲内部贸易增长12.4%， 总额达2203亿美元。随着非洲大陆自贸区建设深入推进，这一强劲复苏势头有望延续。 面对关税带来的压力，非洲国家并未完全被动承受，而是展现出适应与调整能力。中非贸易基础坚 实、非洲大陆自由贸易区建设加速推进、与欧洲等传统伙伴的持续合作，以及印度和海湾国家等新兴市 场的积极补位，共同构成非洲应对外部挑战的多元防线。非洲正通过加强区域整合和拓展多元市场等措 施维护其在全球贸易中的地位。 多元市场结构缓解外部冲击 国际观察人士认为，最新关税显著改变了非美贸易合作框架，从基于发展合作的优惠机制转向所谓 的"对等贸易"和惩罚性关税。尽管如此，关税对非洲整体影响仍属可控。 ...

8月29号这天，美国联邦巡回上诉法院给了特朗普的"对等关税"一记结结实实的重拳——直接判定他靠着《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）加征的大部分 全球关税，纯属越权，根本不合法！不过也没赶尽杀绝，留了个缓冲期，等到10月14号，让最高法院来最终定调。 巧了不是，几乎同一时间，加州联邦法官也撂了句硬话：特朗普把国民警卫队和海军陆战队调去洛杉矶"帮忙执法"，这事同样没道理，不合法！法院的木槌 刚落下，全国的抗议声浪立马就起来了——劳工们、教育界的老师、服务业的工作人员，还有工地上的工人，举着标语就往街上冲，那阵仗可不小。 不过这次裁决也没把路堵死，留了个缓冲期，让现有政策先撑到10月中旬，给上诉留了点时间。但白宫和司法部硬气得很，一口咬定总统这么做合法，全是 为了国家安全和经济安全，半点不让步。 舆论场上倒没一边倒地骂，有分析师直接泼冷水：就算最高法院最后站在下级法院这边，关税也未必会黄，大不了换个"法律口袋"接着用——比如拿国家安 全当由头搞232调查，或者走《1974年贸易法》第122条里的国际收支紧急措施，条条大路通罗马嘛！ 232这张牌最近几年打得可熟了，钢铁、铝还有相关的衍生品，税率一路涨到50%，征税 ...

Core Points - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Trump's executive order imposing tariffs on multiple countries, including China and India, was illegal, emphasizing the principle of separation of powers in the U.S. government [1][3][5] - The court specifically stated that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs arbitrarily, as it was intended for managing financial transactions during emergencies [1][5] - The ruling could potentially require the U.S. to refund up to $1 trillion in tariff revenues if the tariffs are deemed invalid, which has raised concerns about fiscal chaos [3][5] Impact on Trade Relations - The ruling directly affects export businesses in countries like China and India, with India facing significant tariffs on copper, steel, aluminum, and auto parts, leading to potential retaliatory measures [7] - India's exports to the U.S. for copper are valued at $360 million, while steel, aluminum, and auto parts exceed $2 billion, making the tariffs particularly damaging for Indian exporters [7] - The Indian government has gained confidence in negotiations with the U.S. following the court's decision, as public opinion in India has reacted positively to the ruling [7]

Core Viewpoint - India's foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, has unexpectedly shifted his stance towards China, expressing gratitude and a commitment to maintaining friendly relations, contrasting sharply with his previous hardline approach [3][5][9]. Group 1: Diplomatic Shift - Jaishankar's visit to Beijing was anticipated to be confrontational, but he instead praised China-India relations and promised to uphold peace along the border [3][9]. - The change in attitude is attributed to pressure from the U.S., particularly Trump's imposition of high tariffs on Indian goods, which has made India reconsider its foreign alliances [5][10]. Group 2: U.S.-India Relations - Trump's administration has targeted India with significant tariffs, including a 26% tariff warning and increases on automotive and steel products, which has impacted India's trade dynamics [5]. - The U.S. has demonstrated that India is not a true ally but rather a pawn that can be sacrificed, leading to India's realization of the need for a more balanced foreign policy [5][11]. Group 3: Strategic Autonomy - Jaishankar emphasized India's commitment to a "strategic autonomy" policy, indicating a desire to maintain independent foreign relations and not be used as a tool against China [9][10]. - The Indian foreign minister's remarks suggest a long-term perspective on China-India relations, focusing on avoiding conflict and fostering cooperation [9][10]. Group 4: Historical Context - This diplomatic shift is noted as a rare occurrence in the history of China-India relations, highlighting the importance of practical interests over ideological alliances in international politics [11][12]. - The current geopolitical climate has prompted India to seek respectful dialogue with China, recognizing the limitations of its relationship with the U.S. [11][12].

Group 1 - The U.S. President Trump signed an executive order to adjust the scope of import tariffs and implement trade and security framework agreements with foreign trade partners [2][4] - The executive order allows for the reduction of certain reciprocal tariffs to zero after reaching framework or final agreements, particularly for products that cannot be produced in the U.S. or are insufficient to meet domestic demand [4] - The U.S. Department of Commerce and other relevant agencies will monitor compliance and trade deficits, reporting to Trump for further adjustment recommendations [4] Group 2 - Trump announced discussions with the EU regarding new sanctions against Russia, linking tariffs on Indian goods to their purchase of Russian oil [4] - The executive order also includes a proposal to rename the Department of Defense to "Department of War," with the Secretary of Defense's title changing accordingly [5] - The name change proposal has sparked controversy, with critics arguing it could lead to high costs and distract from security priorities [5] Group 3 - Trump identified potential candidates to replace Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, including Kevin Hassett, Christopher Waller, and Kevin Walsh [7] - The U.S. Treasury Secretary stated he is not interested in the Federal Reserve position [7] Group 4 - Trump criticized the EU's $3.5 billion fine on Google, calling it unfair and detrimental to U.S. investments and jobs [8] - He warned that if the EU continues to impose similar measures on U.S. tech giants, he may invoke Section 301 to overturn these penalties [9] - The EU fined Google €2.9 billion (approximately $3.5 billion) for abusing its dominant position in the advertising technology market [9]

Group 1: Tariff Adjustments - President Trump signed an executive order to adjust the scope of import tariffs, allowing for potential reductions to zero for certain goods after reaching framework agreements with foreign trade partners [2][4] - Goods eligible for zero tariffs include those that cannot be produced in the U.S. or are insufficient to meet domestic demand, specific agricultural products, aircraft and parts, and non-patented pharmaceutical items [4] - The Department of Commerce and the Trade Representative's Office will monitor compliance and trade deficits, reporting to Trump for further adjustment recommendations [4][5] Group 2: Defense Department Renaming - Trump signed an executive order to restore the historical name of the U.S. Department of Defense to "Department of War," allowing it to be used as a secondary title [7] - The order requires the Secretary of Defense to take measures to implement the permanent renaming, with related proposals pending congressional approval [7] - Critics argue that the renaming could lead to high costs and distract the Pentagon from security priorities [7] Group 3: Federal Reserve Candidates - Trump announced potential candidates to replace Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chair, including Kevin Hassett, Christopher Waller, and Kevin Warsh [8] - Trump indicated that while he has a preferred candidate, he will still conduct interviews as part of the selection process [8] Group 4: EU and Google Fine - Trump criticized the European Union's decision to fine Google $3.5 billion, calling it "extremely unfair" and detrimental to U.S. investments and jobs [10] - He warned that if the EU continues to impose similar penalties on U.S. tech giants, he may invoke Section 301 to overturn these "unfair penalties" [10]

特朗普签署行政令，对进口关税范围进行调整，并落实与外国贸易伙伴的贸易与安全框架协议。行政命令规定，在与外国贸易伙伴达成框架协议或最终协议后，美国可根据协议内容调整关税，包括将部分商品的对等关税降至零，但最终协议签署前通常不会缩小关税范围或修改第232条相关关税（钢铁和铝衍生品关税）。可获得零对等关税的商品包括无法在美国生产或生产不足以满足国内需求的产品、特定农产品、飞机及零件，以及药品应用的非专利物品。 ...

特朗普签署行政令，对进口关税范围进行调整，并落实与外国贸易伙伴的贸易与安全框架协议。行政命令规定，在与外国贸易伙伴达成框架协议或最终协议后，美国可根据协议内容调整关税，包括将部分商品的对等关税降至零，但最终协议签署前通常不会缩小关税范围或修改第232条相关关税（钢铁和铝衍生品关税）。可获得零对等关税的商品包括无法在美国生产或生产不足以满足国内需求的产品、特定农产品、飞机及零件，以及药品应用的非专利物品。 ...

Group 1 - The U.S. government has expanded the scope of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to include hundreds of derivative products, with a 50% tariff imposed on 407 product codes due to their steel and aluminum content [1] - The new tariff list took effect on August 18, marking the highest actual tariff rate since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which poses a significant negative impact on the international economy [1] - Historical evidence suggests that previous tariff wars have had adverse effects, with the current complex global supply chains increasing the systemic risks associated with tariff misuse [1][2] Group 2 - The U.S. is attempting to construct a new set of trade rules that reflect its own interests, effectively transferring its domestic costs to global trade partners, which goes beyond normal trade policy into protectionism [2] - The so-called "fair trade" approach by the U.S. is a guise for maintaining its economic monopoly, as it enforces unilateral tariffs that undermine the World Trade Organization's principles [2] - The imposition of asymmetric tariffs distorts global supply chains and converts reasonable economic benefits of trade partners into monopolistic gains for the U.S. government [2] Group 3 - From the perspective of global value chain restructuring, the U.S. trade policy reveals a dual paradox: most of the tariff costs will ultimately be borne by U.S. companies, and the restructuring of supply chains primarily concentrates in ASEAN regions, leading to secondary dependencies [3] - The excessive use of tariffs is unlikely to reduce trade deficits or protect industries, instead causing structural imbalances in global economic governance [3] - The current tariff strategy may not restore the economic glory of the past but could accelerate the decline of the U.S.'s dominant position in global trade [3]

Group 1 - The core argument of the articles revolves around the impact of Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" policy on global trade dynamics, particularly focusing on India and its economic vulnerabilities [1][2][4] - Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" logic highlights the disparity in tariff rates between the U.S. and India, with India's average tariff at 9.5% compared to the U.S. at 3%, which could lead to significant cost increases for Indian exports [2][4] - The potential economic fallout for India includes a projected loss of approximately $70 billion in key sectors such as automotive and agriculture, alongside a structural pressure on India's trade surplus with the U.S. [2][12] Group 2 - The unilateral nature of Trump's tariff policy has led to a breakdown of trust among allies, with countries like Canada and Mexico also facing significant tariff increases, indicating a broader strategy to reshape global trade rules [6][9] - The economic implications of these tariffs could result in increased costs for American households, estimated at $1,200 annually, and potential disruptions in supply chains that may exacerbate inflation [9][12] - India's strategic dilemma is underscored by its reliance on high tariffs to protect local farmers while facing pressure from the U.S. to open its agricultural markets, revealing a conflict between economic interests and strategic autonomy [10][12] Group 3 - The articles suggest that the ongoing trade tensions could lead to a significant economic cost, with the U.S. stock market losing $3.6 trillion in value and a shift in global supply chains towards Southeast Asia and Latin America [13] - Political responses to U.S. unilateralism are emerging, with countries like Canada and India considering collective actions to counterbalance U.S. pressures, indicating a potential revival of multilateralism [13][15] - The conclusion emphasizes that India's path forward may lie in embracing pragmatic multilateralism rather than succumbing to U.S. pressures, which could enhance its bargaining power in global trade negotiations [15]