中国反制美关税霸权，获全球认可 近期一份在12月29日发布的《中国国际形象全球调查报告》传递出令人深思的信号：国际社会对中国的观感持续向好，而对关税霸权 的批评则日益尖锐。 尤其值得注意的是，多个国家的民众将美国的关税战形容为"单边霸凌"，并对中方采取的对等反制表示支持。 这究竟是国际贸易秩序风向开始转变的征兆，还是国际社会对极端保护主义的一次集体反思？ 民意何以倒向"反霸凌"的那一边 这项覆盖46个国家、约5.17万样本的年度调查显示，全球公众对中国形象的认可度正稳步提升，对其政策理念的认同也在逐渐扩大。 报告发布当日，即获得多家权威媒体的同步转载，凸显出这一议题在当下的现实重要性。 从统计角度看，该调查样本广泛、方法专业，为讨论提供了扎实的数据基础。 与这份年度报告相呼应的是，多项针对关税议题的专项调查同样释放出清晰信号。 根据2025年2月至4月面向38个国家进行的一项民意调查，超过九成受访者对美国的关税霸凌行为表示反对，并且在38国中的37国，大 多数受访者支持中国采取的反制措施。 即便采取相对保守的估算，支持率仍高达六到七成，这足以说明一个趋势：全球舆论对单边加税行为的容忍度正在迅速降低。 为什么" ...

贸易博弈再添新局，世贸组织为美欧熟橄榄争端画上关键句点。 当地时间12月19日，世界贸易组织成员在争端解决机构会议上达成共识。 正式授权欧盟依据此前世贸组织的裁决，对美国进口商品实施反制措施。 这场聚焦熟橄榄贸易的争端已持续数年。核心争议源于美欧双方在熟橄榄进口关税、市场准入规则等方 面的分歧。 欧盟曾多次就美国对欧盟熟橄榄产品的贸易限制措施提出异议，最终将争端提交世贸组织裁决。 不久前，世贸组织仲裁机构已就此案做出明确裁决。 裁决认定美国相关贸易措施违反世贸组织规则，允许欧盟每年对价值不超过1364万美元的美国商品实施 反制。 这一金额是仲裁机构根据欧盟因美国贸易限制所遭受的损失，经过精准核算得出的。 此后，欧盟依据该裁决，正式向世贸组织争端解决机构提交申请。 在争端解决机构会议上，世界贸易组织各成员经过审议，最终同意了欧盟的这一申请。 这意味着欧盟已获得世贸组织的合法授权，可随时启动对美国商品的反制措施。 欧盟方面同时透露，具体受影响的美国商品清单将在适当的时候正式公布。 外界推测，清单可能涵盖美国本土特色农产品、轻工业制品等领域。 此次裁决与授权，是世贸组织争端解决机制发挥作用的典型案例。 作为全球多边 ...

Core Viewpoint - The report from China's Ministry of Commerce highlights the significant issues arising from the United States' violations of multilateral trade rules, portraying the U.S. as a disruptor of the multilateral trade system and emphasizing the need for adherence to WTO regulations [1][4]. Group 1: U.S. Trade Practices - The report systematically lists the serious problems caused by the U.S. in undermining multilateral trade rules over the past year, including unilateralism and manipulation of industrial policies [1][4]. - The U.S. has faced widespread criticism from its trade partners, with over 30 WTO members expressing dissatisfaction with its unilateral tariff increases [3]. - The U.S. has shifted from being a builder and promoter of the multilateral trade system to a proponent of unilateral protectionism, which has severely damaged its international reputation [4]. Group 2: Economic Impact - The World Bank estimates that U.S. unilateral tariff measures could lead to a 1% reduction in global trade volume by 2025, equivalent to erasing 4% of expected growth [5]. - New tariffs may increase annual household expenses in the U.S. by $2,500, with 92% of tariff costs ultimately borne by American consumers [5][6]. - The effective tariff rate in the U.S. has reached its highest level since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, contributing to rising costs for American families and businesses [6]. Group 3: Recommendations - The report urges the U.S. to eliminate its "reciprocal tariffs" and abandon unilateralism and protectionism, advocating for a return to compliance with multilateral trade rules [6].

Group 1 - The European Union (EU) plans to impose tariffs ranging from 25% to 50% on various Chinese steel and related products in the coming weeks, indicating a targeted approach towards China [3][5] - The EU aims to link public procurement contracts to the purchase of European products and implement quotas to encourage the prioritization of European electric vehicles [3][5] - The EU's recent trade agreement with the Trump administration has led to significant concessions, including the cancellation of retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. industrial goods and a commitment to purchase U.S. energy and chips [5][7] Group 2 - The EU's steel imports have increased significantly, with imports accounting for one-fourth of total sales, and the share from China has also risen, leading to challenges for European steel companies [7][9] - European steel companies are struggling with declining profit margins and high costs associated with decarbonization efforts, making it difficult for them to compete without protective tariffs [7][9] - The EU's focus on imposing tariffs on Chinese steel exports may inadvertently harm its own downstream industries, particularly the automotive sector, which relies heavily on steel [12][14] Group 3 - The EU's proposed tariffs may not effectively address the underlying issues, as the majority of Chinese steel exports to Europe consist of lower-end products, while European firms excel in high-end steel production [9][10] - The EU's approach to tariffs is seen as a protectionist measure, with accusations of violating World Trade Organization (WTO) rules by using "substitute country prices" for tariff calculations [14][16] - The Chinese Steel Industry Association has indicated that it may pursue legal action through the WTO if the EU implements the new tariffs, and could retaliate against EU products such as wine and automobiles [16][18] Group 4 - The EU is encouraged to focus on collaboration with China to enhance technology and optimize energy structures rather than resorting to trade protectionism, which could further marginalize Europe in the global supply chain [18]

Group 1 - Japan's Finance Minister Kato Katsunobu's response to the U.S. request for tariffs on China was a firm rejection, highlighting Japan's strategic balance in global trade and politics [1][3] - The U.S. has pressured G7, EU, and NATO members to impose tariffs of 50%-100% on China and India, citing their continued import of Russian oil as justification, but this approach lacks broad international support [3][4] - Japan's refusal to impose tariffs is rooted in its economic dependence on China, which is its largest trading partner, with bilateral trade expected to reach $380 billion in 2024 [3][4] Group 2 - Japan continues to import energy from Russia, with oil imports accounting for 1% and liquefied natural gas for 2.3% of total imports, making the U.S. request contradictory [4][6] - Japan's stance emphasizes the importance of WTO rules, as the proposed tariffs violate the most-favored-nation principle, reflecting Japan's commitment to maintaining a rules-based international trade order [4][9] - The rejection of U.S. tariff proposals is not an isolated incident, as other countries like the EU, South Korea, and Australia have also expressed reservations, indicating a decline in U.S. influence among allies [6][9] Group 3 - Japan's economic strategy prioritizes its own interests, balancing its security alliance with the U.S. while maintaining strong economic ties with China [7][9] - Kato's succinct response is seen as a diplomatic art, allowing Japan to assert its position without alienating either the U.S. or China, reflecting Japan's cautious approach in international relations [7][9] - Japan's refusal is viewed as a victory for multilateralism and rules-based trade, reinforcing the commitment to fair trade and economic cooperation in the context of globalization [9]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent trade tensions between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, highlighting the challenges faced by Canada and Mexico in their attempts to cooperate against U.S. trade policies, particularly under the Trump administration's protectionist measures [1][3][5]. Group 1: Trade Dynamics - Canada and Mexico's bilateral trade amounts to only $40.5 billion, significantly less than Canada's trade with the U.S. at $924.4 billion, creating a disparity that raises questions about the depth of their cooperation [3][5]. - The reliance on the U.S. market is a double-edged sword; while it drives cooperation, it also fosters competition between Canada and Mexico for favorable trade terms from the U.S. [3][5][7]. Group 2: Political and Economic Context - The imposition of tariffs—50% on Canadian steel and 25% on Mexican pharmaceuticals—has led both countries to consider a united front to mitigate losses from U.S. trade policies [5][12]. - The historical context of limited interaction between Canada and Mexico over the past eight years reflects a lack of depth in their bilateral relationship, which has been overshadowed by their interactions with the U.S. [5][7]. Group 3: Potential for Cooperation - Despite the challenges, there is potential for substantive cooperation in areas such as energy interconnection, manufacturing division, and combating drug trafficking, which could shift the relationship from mere political statements to practical collaboration [9][12]. - The interdependence of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico in trade creates a negotiation leverage for Canada and Mexico, as both countries are crucial to U.S. agricultural, energy, and manufacturing sectors [11][12]. Group 4: Internal Challenges and External Pressures - Internal competition in sectors like the automotive industry and differing strategies on security issues may hinder deeper cooperation, but the external pressures from U.S. trade policies could temporarily set aside these internal conflicts [14][16]. - The shared goal of mitigating risks from U.S. trade actions provides a strong foundation for Canada and Mexico to pursue a coordinated strategy, despite their historical differences [14][16].

Core Points - The China-UK investment exchange event was successfully held during the 25th China International Investment and Trade Fair, with around 300 representatives from both countries discussing new bilateral investment opportunities [1] - Chinese officials expressed a strong welcome for UK investments in China and encouraged Chinese enterprises to invest in the UK, emphasizing the commitment to free trade and multilateral trade rules [1] - The UK ambassador highlighted the strategic and respectful nature of UK-China economic relations, aiming for deeper integration of modern industrial strategies with China's innovation ecosystem [1] Group 1 - The event included various activities such as the opening ceremony, "Invest in China" session, "Invest in the UK" session, and the China-UK Health Innovation Platform investment promotion activity [2] - Companies presented progress in projects across sectors like life health, green energy, smart manufacturing, and consumer goods, reflecting China's commitment to high-level openness [1] - Attendees noted a strengthened long-term positive outlook on the Chinese economy through the "Invest in China" session [1]

Core Points - The U.S. Federal Circuit Court ruled that the Trump administration lacked the authority to impose high tariffs globally, indicating that such actions exceed presidential powers [1][2] - The ruling, effective from October 14, allows Trump to appeal, but if unsuccessful, it could lead to the collapse of the tariff framework [2] - This legal battle reflects a broader "legal war" against Trump's tariff policies, with courts acting as checks on his trade strategies [2] Group 1 - The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to international law and multilateral trade rules, countering Trump's unilateral approach to trade [2][3] - Trump's tariffs were intended to protect domestic manufacturing and regain negotiating power in global trade, but they have faced widespread criticism for potential negative impacts on costs and supply chains [2][3] - The court's decision sends a strong signal against the notion of trade dominance through domestic law, reinforcing the need for open and predictable policy collaboration among global partners [2][3] Group 2 - The ruling complicates the situation for countries that signed trade agreements with the Trump administration, as it undermines the stability and trust in existing agreements [4] - Nations like Japan, South Korea, and the EU, which made significant concessions for better market access, now face uncertainty regarding the continuation of these agreements [4] - This situation tests the resilience and flexibility of multilateral relationships, requiring countries to navigate the complexities of existing agreements amidst changing U.S. policies [4]

Core Points - The U.S. has increased tariffs on Brazilian goods from 10% to 50%, effective August 6, 2023, as a means of political pressure on Brazil [1][3] - Brazil's government and experts express strong dissatisfaction with the U.S. tariff policy, emphasizing a commitment to diversify trade partnerships and enhance cooperation with Global South countries [1][6] - The tariff measures are seen as politically motivated, intersecting with sensitive judicial and political issues in Brazil [4][6] Group 1 - The U.S. tariffs are being used as a tool for economic and political pressure, particularly related to the legal situation of former President Jair Bolsonaro [3] - Brazil has formally requested consultations with the World Trade Organization, claiming that U.S. measures violate multilateral trade rules [6] - The Brazilian government is actively seeking to diversify its export markets and deepen economic cooperation with Europe and other BRICS nations to reduce reliance on the U.S. market [6][7] Group 2 - The increase in tariffs has led to a temporary oversupply of Brazilian goods that were previously exported to the U.S., while American consumers face rising prices and increased living costs [7] - Economists warn that using trade as a pressure tool undermines global economic stability and erodes diplomatic trust between nations [7]

Group 1: Tariff Changes and Global Impact - The U.S. has raised tariffs on imported goods from 25% to 35%, initiating a global trade storm and marking the start of Trump's "reciprocal tariff" system [1] - Swiss watch manufacturers face a 39% tariff, while South African mining companies are subject to a 30% tariff, indicating unprecedented rates among developed countries [2] - A new tiered tariff system has been established, with a baseline rate of 10%, 15% for countries with trade surpluses or agreements, and higher rates for others, creating a differentiated global tariff landscape [1][2] Group 2: Responses from Other Countries - The EU and Japan are investing heavily to mitigate tariff impacts, with the EU committing $600 billion and Japan $550 billion to secure lower tariff rates [2] - This strategy of using investment to offset tariffs is redefining global trade rules [2] Group 3: Economic Data and Reactions - U.S. economic data shows a loss of 37,000 manufacturing jobs since April, raising concerns about the negative effects of tariffs [4] - The credibility of U.S. economic data is in question, leading to uncertainty in global financial markets [4] Group 4: Federal Reserve and Leadership Changes - The Federal Reserve is under pressure, with internal divisions emerging regarding inflation and economic weakness [4] - Treasury Secretary Scott Bencet has withdrawn from the race for Fed Chair, while a Fed governor's unexpected resignation has opened up a new position [6][10] Group 5: Global Trade Forecasts - The WTO has warned that U.S. tariff policies could lead to a 0.2% decline in global goods trade by 2025, with North American exports potentially dropping by 12.6% [8] - The new tariff system imposes additional taxes on 57 major trading partners, complicating international trade dynamics [8] Group 6: Vulnerable Economies - Emerging market economies, particularly the most vulnerable, are facing disproportionate harm from U.S. tariffs, while China is better positioned to withstand these shocks due to its economic structure [9]