经济学人期刊制作了"战L指数"，通过AI判断中国外交发布会上1.6万条回应里辞令的攻击性，并制成指数追踪，发现2022年之后显著下降，愈加柔和。 本文来自微信公众号：嬉笑创客，作者：CB，题图来自：AI生成 中国的外交姿态在肉眼可见变得柔和。 当国家面临选择时，跟随哪个体系更能致富，让民众体感更好，让领导层更有安全感，有时候成为了胜负手。 毕竟，从统计来说大部分国家都是弱国，越是弱肉强食的价值观，越容易会引起恐惧、不安。 当然驻军、离岸制衡等传统现实主义的手段也有效，但柔和硬，两者都不能少。 另一方面，近期商务部在海外呼吁出海企业之间不要再内卷、徒然自相残杀，也是一个进步。值得注意的是，呼吁的其中一个出发点是，这是我们和美方 达成协议的一部分，要"稳定中美关系"。 其实无论于中于外，这都是一个良好的姿态。并非美方支持的我们都要反对。举个例子，反内卷这点或许每一个跨境电商领域的人都深有体会：整个亚马 逊最大的威胁往往来自于抄款和降价竞争的中国友商，而非海外竞对。互相砍价，最后海外消费者和平台成最大赢家。甚至有时候平台都看不下去而介 入，因为知道无底线的竞价最终会扰乱商业秩序，反而排挤了高质量的商家。 从拒绝产能 ...

2025年8月29日，中国商务部向全球发布了一条震动国际经贸界的重大声明。在这个具有历史意义的日 子里，中国高级经贸代表团飞越大洋彼岸，在华盛顿与美国财政部、商务部及贸易代表办公室的多位高 级官员展开了为期三天的深入磋商。这场会谈不仅彰显了中国政府维护国际贸易秩序的坚定立场，更以 实际行动向世界宣告：中国在经贸谈判中坚持平等互利的原则底线不容践踏。 就在中方代表团圆满完成访美行程的同一天，美国司法系统爆出震撼性消息。美国联邦巡回上诉法院以 雷霆之势作出三项具有里程碑意义的裁决，直指特朗普政府时期实施的多项关税政策存在\"严重违宪 \"问题。法院明确指出，这些关税措施因\"缺乏国会明确授权\"，属于典型的行政权力越界行为。这份 长达87页的判决书犹如一柄利剑，精准刺穿了美国单边主义贸易政策的要害。主审法官在裁决意见书中 运用严谨的法律论证，系统性地驳斥了特朗普政府关税政策的合法性，揭露其在程序上的重大缺陷和理 论依据的荒谬性，将这项政策的草率与鲁莽暴露无遗。 法院在裁决书中特别强调，特朗普政府在挥舞关税大棒、四处树敌的过程中，完全无视了美国宪法确立 的权力制衡原则，刻意规避国会监督这一重要\"安全阀\"。这种绕 ...

Core Points - The European Commission announced a suspension of two countermeasures against the U.S. tariffs for six months, indicating a temporary resolution to the transatlantic tariff dispute [1] - The agreement has sparked internal criticism within Europe, raising concerns about the EU's positioning on the international stage and its future policy directions [1][2] Economic Implications - The EU will accept an average 15% import tariff on certain European industrial goods imposed by the U.S., while the U.S. has only promised limited market access for some European products [1] - European Parliament member Peter Volkin highlighted that Europe will pay $250 billion annually for U.S. energy over the next three years, significantly higher than the $60-80 billion previously paid to Russia for energy [2] - The agreement is viewed as detrimental to the EU's economic interests, with critics arguing it imposes a higher tariff burden on European exports while providing no substantial benefits in return [3][4] Political and Strategic Concerns - Critics argue that the agreement undermines established international trade rules and could lead to systemic disruptions in the global trade order [3] - There are calls for the EU to demonstrate its capability as a global player and to utilize various trade protection mechanisms to safeguard its interests [3] - The agreement is perceived as a capitulation, with some industry leaders suggesting that the current EU leadership should resign to facilitate necessary reforms [4]

在全球化的今天，经济的相互依赖让各国之间的关系愈发复杂。在这样的背景下，美国总统特朗普的"关税战"显得尤为突出。最近，他对印度和中国的加税 举动，让这场贸易博弈再度成为焦点。这不仅是美国内政的反应，更是国际局势变化的风向标。 作为全球两大新兴市场，中印两国在能源采购上占据了举足轻重的位置。然而，这次特朗普的关税威胁似乎是在挑战这两个国家的经济韧性。特朗普以"印 度购买俄罗斯石油"为名，对印度进口商品加征高达50%的关税，连他自己都承认这是在坐实对"不合作"的惩罚。他还不止于此，媒体报道指出，他可能会 对中国也施加类似的关税，理由无外乎是中国同样在大规模购买俄罗斯石油。 正如巴西总统卢拉所言，这场斗争并不是单方面的"宣战争"，而更像是一场多方博弈的交响曲。特朗普的举动让本来在经贸上已经有着缝隙的金砖国家 （BRICS）迅速团结了起来。以往竞争激烈的中印，如今却可能因为共同的压力而携手抗衡美国的霸权。 但特朗普的加税策略究竟能否奏效呢？从历史来看，美国的保护主义往往适得其反。虽然美国自认为能够通过提高关税，改变其他国家的采购行为，进而打 击俄罗斯的经济基础，然而这样的逻辑却充满了单边思维的局限性。 美国的贸易政策 ...

Core Viewpoint - The exclusion of China from the recent global tariff list by the Trump administration indicates a significant shift in the U.S.-China trade dynamics, suggesting that China is no longer an easily manipulated entity in international trade negotiations [1][3][5]. Tariff Strategy - The global tariff list differentiates between trade surplus and deficit countries, imposing a 10% tariff on surplus countries and starting at 15% for deficit countries, with Canada facing the highest penalty of 35% [1][4]. - The absence of China from the tariff list, which would typically incur at least a 15% tariff, raises questions about the underlying strategic considerations of the U.S. [3][4]. Negotiation Dynamics - The recent U.S.-China trade talks in Stockholm featured a significant disparity in negotiation teams, with China sending a 75-member professional team, which placed the U.S. in a weaker negotiating position [3][4]. - U.S. Treasury Secretary's remarks post-negotiation reflect a strategic concession, acknowledging China's autonomy in energy imports and recognizing the U.S.'s lack of leverage on key issues [3][4]. Economic Implications - The U.S. faces three critical vulnerabilities: reliance on China for 90% of global rare earth resources, potential inflation from tariffs that could raise the U.S. CPI by 1.5%, and the risk of pushing China closer to Russia [4][5]. - The retaliatory measures from allies, such as Canada considering a 50% tariff on U.S. steel, highlight the backlash against U.S. tariff policies [4]. Historical Context - The previous imposition of a 25% tariff on China did not reduce the trade deficit but instead encouraged China to enhance self-sufficiency in critical technology sectors, indicating the ineffectiveness of tariff strategies against China [4].

Group 1 - The U.S. President Trump threatened to impose a 50% tariff on goods imported from Brazil unless Brazilian President Lula stops the "political persecution" of former President Bolsonaro [1][3] - The total trade volume between the U.S. and Brazil is approximately $92 billion, with a U.S. trade surplus of $7.4 billion against Brazil [3] - Trump's proposed tariffs are the highest globally, raising questions about the motivations behind targeting a surplus country like Brazil [3][5] Group 2 - Brazilian Vice President Alckmin criticized the tariffs as unjust, highlighting that over 80% of U.S. imports from Brazil enjoy zero tariffs [1][5] - Lula emphasized Brazil's independence and the significant trade surplus the U.S. has maintained with Brazil over the past 15 years, amounting to $410 billion [5] - The tariffs are expected to negatively impact both Brazilian exports and the U.S. juice industry, particularly affecting products like orange juice [7][8] Group 3 - The tariffs have led to a nearly 3% drop in the Brazilian real against the dollar, affecting Brazilian companies listed in the U.S. [7] - Brazil's GDP is only 1.7% dependent on trade with the U.S., indicating that Brazil can survive without this trade [7][8] - The U.S. unilateral tariff actions have sparked global criticism and may accelerate regional economic integration, particularly among emerging markets [12][14]

而此次美国法院判决后的结果会有效吗，给出的理由是否合法，接下来将会从这三大方面进行分析，首先美国际贸易法院给出的理由十分明确，美方宪法将 规范国际贸易的权利，只给了国会总统就算是打着保护经济的旗号，去行使所谓的经济权利，也绝对不能凌驾在国会之上，其次关于法院给出的理由是否合 法，绝对是合法的并且做出的判断也是合法的，要知道国际贸易法院是作为美国联邦法院之一，不止是对外国贸易争端具备全国的管辖权，针对关税方面也 拥有着此权利。 最后从特朗普个人的角度来看，其实他所发起的关税政策根本站不住脚跟，因为川普依据的是国际紧急经济权利法，根本就没有明确授权美国总统能够征收 关税，此外贸易逆差也压根不符合该法律规定，而美国贸易逆差截止到现在都已逆差了将近50年，怎么可能说紧急就紧急了呢，另外针对特朗普对中方加征 的报复性关税，美国白宫发言人在一份声明中表示称，贸易逆差就是国家的紧急状况，已经摧毁了美方国内的社区，同时也致使美国的工人被抛弃，很大程 度上都削弱了美方的国防工业基础，而这些事实都没有遭到法院的质疑，特朗普政府将动用一切行政手段应对此危机。 美国法院出手了，特朗普关税被叫停，法官裁定特朗普的这些关税政策属于违宪， ...