关于3500亿美元对美投资，美方要求投资方式、收益分配结构等基本采用与日本相同的模式。根据9月4 日正式签署的美日协议，日本承诺对美投资5500亿美元。但对韩国政府而言，情况却全然不同。韩国一 直在向美国官员强调，他们不能接受与日美敲定的5500亿美元投资承诺相同的条款。考虑到韩国经济规 模等因素，按此执行将面临诸多困难，因此韩国正通过拉锯谈判争取调整为符合韩国实际情况的标准。 目前，韩美双方的贸易谈判陷入僵局。根据特朗普此前说法，韩国输美产品将适用15%关税税率，美国 产品在韩国则不会被征收关税。韩国将向美国投资3500亿美元，同时还将从美国采购价值1000亿美元的 液化天然气或其他能源产品。韩国将对美国全面开放贸易并接受美国汽车和农产品等。 韩国总统李在明强调，韩国与日本的情况有所不同：日本政府的外汇储备规模是韩国的两倍多，达到 4100亿美元，使用的是国际货币日元，并且与美国还有货币互换协议。"如果没有货币互换，而我们按 照美国要求的方式提取3500亿美元，并将这笔资金全部以现金形式投资到美国，那么韩国将面临类似 1997年金融危机的局面。"李在明表示。 距离美国总统特朗普宣布美韩达成贸易协议已过去近两 ...

Group 1 - The core issue in the US-Korea trade agreement negotiations is the disagreement over investment details, which has led to a stalemate [1][3] - South Korea has committed to invest $350 billion in exchange for reduced tariffs from the US, but the agreement has not been formally signed due to differences in handling the investment [2][3] - South Korea proposed establishing a currency swap mechanism to mitigate the impact of the investment on the Korean won's exchange rate, but the US has not agreed to this proposal [3][4] Group 2 - The South Korean President warned that accepting US investment demands without protective measures could lead to a crisis similar to the 1997 financial crisis [1][4] - The US Commerce Secretary suggested that South Korea should emulate Japan's recent trade agreement with the US, which involved a 15% tariff payment and a $550 billion investment from Japan [4] - The President emphasized that South Korea's situation differs from Japan's due to its lower foreign exchange reserves and the absence of a currency swap agreement with the US [4] Group 3 - Achieving a detailed agreement that ensures commercial viability is the main challenge in the negotiations, with current proposals failing to bridge the gap [5] - The recent immigration enforcement actions against Korean workers in the US have caused public outrage in South Korea, potentially affecting investment sentiment [6][8] - Despite the immigration incident, the President believes it will not damage the US-Korea alliance and considers it an overzealous enforcement action rather than a deliberate act by the US government [6][7]