图为加拿大温哥华港口集装箱码头的货柜。 （新华社发） 近期，美国最高法院裁决认定，特朗普政府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》实施的大规模全球关税政策缺乏法 律授权。这一裁决推翻了特朗普政府自2025年上台后以"国家紧急状态"为由绕过国会、单方面加征关税的核 心政策工具。然而，就在最高法院裁决公布后数小时内，特朗普签署行政令，宣布自2月24日起对全球商品加 征10%的进口关税，其随后进一步将新关税税率提升至15%，并威胁称若贸易伙伴"玩花招"，将面临更高关 税。特朗普政府"硬刚"最高法院裁决，继续滥用关税措施，美国围绕关税展开的内斗给国际贸易体系稳定性 带来进一步威胁。 美贸易政策进一步失信，美欧贸易协定陷入停摆。特朗普政府加征15%关税的政策，加剧了美欧贸易关系的 不确定性，使得欧盟对批准美欧贸易协议持更加谨慎态度。欧洲议会国际贸易委员会主席朗格通过社交媒体 表示，鉴于美国最高法院裁定美国政府大规模关税政策违法引发的"混乱"，他将提议欧洲议会暂停批准欧盟 与美国间的贸易协议。朗格强调，在采取任何进一步措施之前，需要明确规定和法律确定性。欧洲议会国际 贸易委员会原定于2月24日举行会议，对推进批准该贸易协议的相关立法 ...

2月11日，美国国会众议院以219票赞成、211票反对的微弱多数通过了一项反对特朗普部分关税政策的决议，这一投票结果让特朗普政府措手不及。按照常 理，2024年中期选举后，共和党应该全力支持总统的政策，但结果却显示出选票的力量比党派忠诚更加重要。在这次投票中，6名共和党议员投出了反对 票，这一举动彻底打破了政治阵营中的默契。比如内布拉斯加州的唐·培根和华盛顿州的丹·纽豪斯，他们不仅无视特朗普的威胁，毅然站在了民主党一边。 分析这些叛变者的背后动因，可以看到，根源往往是选民的压力。以纽豪斯为例，他所在的华盛顿州，农业经济极度依赖加拿大市场，而特朗普加征加拿大 商品关税导致当地农民的出口订单减少，选民和企业的投诉让议员们不得不重新审视自己的立场。 特朗普寄予厚望的制造业回流并没有实现。相反，关税政策让美国企业的国际竞争力大幅下降，2025年美国制造业出口额下降了8.3%。为了规避关税，许 多美国企业将生产线转移到墨西哥、东南亚等地，而非美国本土，这与特朗普的政策初衷完全背离。正如众议院少数党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯所言，这些关 税导致物价飙升，给美国家庭带来不必要的不确定性，堪称得不偿失的政策。 这种反对声浪不仅来自 ...

近期有关法国及欧盟可能对中国商品加征高额关税的讨论，在国际舆论场引发强烈关注，部分媒体甚至 将之解读为"法国要对华打贸易战"。这一风波由法国政府咨询机构提出的战略报告点燃。该报告认为， 面对中国商品大量涌入、对欧洲制造业造成压力，欧盟应当采取更大力度的贸易政策调整，建议对中国 商品统一征收约30%的关税或者让欧元对人民币贬值约30%，以缓解所谓"廉价进口冲击"。许多媒体予 以报道，并引用"相当于贸易宣战"的表述来描述这一建议。 第二种反制是对欧盟整体一系列对华不友好举措启动"反歧视调查"，这一策略在多边贸易规则框架内有 其法律依据。中方观点认为，如果欧盟成员国采取有针对性的贸易限制措施，中国可以申请通过世贸组 织等国际机构审视这些措施是否违反规则，从而通过制度路径寻求纠正。这将使贸易争端的解决回归规 则框架，而非纯粹的单边对抗。 第三种反制是直接对等加征关税，即在欧盟单边对中国商品加征关税后，中方可对欧盟相关产品加征同 等税率的关税。这一策略在中美贸易摩擦中已有先例，双方曾多次通过对等关税表达各自立场。这种直 接对等措施虽然能迅速产生实际效果，但同时也可能加剧两边成本压力，最终转嫁给企业和消费者。 在这一建议 ...

Group 1 - The intertwining of economic and political factors is more pronounced than ever, particularly with the U.S. administration increasing tensions with Iran and using tariffs as a pressure tool [1] - The 25% sanctions imposed by the Trump administration are aimed not only at Iran but also at countries like China, signaling that any nation engaging in business with Iran will face consequences [1][3] - The U.S. strategy appears to be counterproductive, as it risks undermining its own international credibility and trust in its commitments [5] Group 2 - China, as a major trading partner of Iran, is directly affected by U.S. tariff threats, which aim to create a chilling effect on international trade relations [3] - The Chinese government has expressed opposition to the U.S.'s unilateral sanctions, emphasizing the importance of multilateral trade rules [3][5] - Iran has shown flexibility in negotiations, indicating a willingness to discuss alternatives, which suggests that it is not entirely isolated despite U.S. pressures [3] Group 3 - The ongoing U.S.-China trade tensions have already imposed significant costs on both sides, with high tariffs failing to revitalize U.S. manufacturing and instead increasing prices for consumers and businesses [5] - The current geopolitical landscape necessitates that countries, particularly China, remain calm and assertive in defending their economic interests and international trade norms [7] - The use of tariffs as a weapon may lead to backlash, and the future of international relations may hinge on the balance between U.S. aggression and China's rational approach [7]

Core Viewpoint - The international community increasingly recognizes China's image positively while criticizing the unilateral tariff actions of the United States, which are viewed as "bullying" [1][3][25]. Group 1: Public Opinion and Support for China's Response - A global survey covering 46 countries and approximately 51,700 samples indicates a steady increase in public recognition of China's image and policy ideas [3][4]. - Over 90% of respondents in a survey conducted across 38 countries oppose the U.S. tariff actions, with a majority in 37 of those countries supporting China's countermeasures [4][6]. - The tolerance for unilateral tariff actions is rapidly decreasing, with support for countermeasures estimated at 60-70% even in conservative estimates [6][8]. Group 2: Economic Implications of Tariffs - Unilateral tariffs are seen as an erosion of multilateral trade rules, distorting global resource allocation and increasing trade costs and supply chain risks [6][8]. - The actual consequences of tariffs are returning to the policy initiator, with rising prices and increased costs for U.S. businesses and consumers, leading to negative net effects [8][9]. - The protective measures taken by the U.S. are perceived as having a short-lived and steep benefit curve, indicating a diminishing return on protectionism [9]. Group 3: China's Strategic Response - China's response is characterized as a "measured and verifiable" policy approach, combining appeals within the WTO framework with targeted countermeasures [9][11]. - The countermeasures are not a broad-based retaliation but are strategically aligned with U.S. actions, utilizing a combination of tariffs, export controls, and trade remedies [12][14]. - This approach aims to maintain domestic industry stability while adhering to international rules, garnering understanding and sympathy in international public opinion [11][14]. Group 4: Future Considerations - The effectiveness of multilateral dispute resolution mechanisms will determine whether unilateral tariff actions face stronger institutional barriers [18]. - The ability of U.S. policies to self-correct in response to domestic economic pressures could provide a realistic impetus for negotiations [18][20]. - The adaptability of industries in navigating costs and compliance will directly influence the effectiveness of countermeasures and their potential to translate into genuine growth quality [18][20].

Core Viewpoint - The World Trade Organization (WTO) has authorized the European Union (EU) to implement countermeasures against U.S. imports, marking a significant development in the long-standing trade dispute over olives [1][3]. Group 1: Dispute Background - The trade dispute between the U.S. and EU has been ongoing for several years, primarily focusing on differences in import tariffs and market access rules for processed olives [1]. - The EU had previously raised objections to U.S. trade restrictions on its olive products and ultimately submitted the dispute to the WTO for resolution [1]. Group 2: WTO Ruling and Authorization - The WTO arbitration body ruled that U.S. trade measures violated WTO rules, allowing the EU to impose countermeasures on U.S. goods valued at up to $13.64 million annually [1]. - Following this ruling, the EU formally requested authorization from the WTO to suspend tariff concessions and other obligations on U.S. imports as a countermeasure [3]. Group 3: Implications of the Ruling - The authorization represents a significant victory for the EU in this trade dispute, enabling it to protect its industry interests through legitimate countermeasures [4]. - The outcome may prompt the U.S. to reassess its trade policies towards the EU to avoid further trade tensions, highlighting ongoing trade disputes in various sectors such as aviation, agriculture, and technology [4]. - The resolution of this olive trade dispute serves as a model for addressing trade differences within a multilateral framework, emphasizing the importance of WTO rules in maintaining global trade stability [4].

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].