一、关税延期背后的谈判交锋 据看看新闻报道，7月31日，商务部官宣中美关税休战协议再延90天，为全球最大两个经济体的经贸关 系注入短期稳定。这场在瑞典斯德哥尔摩落幕的第三轮谈判，表面是关税延期的程序性推进，实则暗藏 美方精心设计的三大谈判陷阱，将中美博弈推向更复杂的维度。 美国海关查验（资料图） 二、美方三大谈判陷阱解析 （一）产业政策干预：以"产能过剩"施压制造业转型 美方在谈判中重提"中国产能过剩威胁论"，要求中方主动限制钢铁、光伏等产业的产能扩张，为美国制 造业回流腾出市场空间。其核心逻辑是将美国制造业空心化归咎于中国商品的"低价倾销"，试图通过关 税工具迫使中国接受产业发展"自我设限"。 数据显示，2025年上半年中国对美出口机电产品同比增长12%，而美国同类产品在本土市场占有率已跌 破30%。美方的真实意图是借助关税谈判，系统性打压中国高端制造崛起，维持其在全球产业链上游的 垄断地位。这种将经贸问题政治化的做法，直接触及中国产业升级的核心利益。 2024年中国从俄罗斯进口原油占比达18%，伊朗原油进口量较2023年增长25%，低价稳定的能源供应对 保障工业体系运转至关重要。美方若实施所谓"500%次 ...

Group 1 - The article highlights the contradiction in the U.S. approach towards China, where it heavily relies on Chinese rare earths while targeting Chinese agricultural investments, which constitute only 0.7% of U.S. farmland [1][5][11] - The U.S. dependence on Chinese rare earths is critical, as 75% of global rare earth refining occurs in China, impacting key industries such as military, artificial intelligence, and electric vehicles [11][17] - The article argues that the U.S. agricultural ban is a political maneuver by Trump to divert attention from domestic issues, despite the minimal threat posed by Chinese investments in U.S. farmland [15][29][41] Group 2 - The article points out the double standards in U.S. foreign investment policies, noting that Canadian and Dutch investments in U.S. farmland are significantly higher than those from China, yet they face no scrutiny [19][23] - It emphasizes the potential economic repercussions for U.S. farmers if China retaliates by reducing soybean imports, as China accounted for 21.1% of U.S. soybean exports in 2024 [25][27] - The article suggests that U.S. restrictions on Chinese investments may inadvertently accelerate China's efforts to achieve agricultural self-sufficiency and diversify its supply chains [31][35][39]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the introduction of the "No Adversarial AI Act" aimed at strengthening the U.S. federal government's ability to protect against risks posed by foreign adversaries' artificial intelligence technologies [1][2][15] Legislative Background - The act was proposed by bipartisan members of Congress in response to the complex geopolitical landscape and increasing technological competition, particularly highlighting the threats posed by AI systems controlled by foreign adversaries such as China and Russia [2][15] - Specific examples, such as the company DeepSeek, are cited to illustrate the potential risks associated with foreign-controlled AI systems [2] Objectives of the Act - The primary goal of the act is to empower the federal government to identify, exclude, and remove adversarial AI technologies while enhancing transparency and oversight [3][15] - A federal adversarial AI list will be created to identify AI systems developed by foreign adversaries [3][6] Implementation Framework - The act mandates the Federal Acquisition Security Council to create and regularly update a list of AI technologies developed by foreign adversaries within 60 days of the act's enactment [4][6] - The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to publish this list on a public website within 180 days [5][6] Usage Restrictions - Federal agencies are prohibited from procuring or using AI systems listed as developed by adversarial entities [7][15] - Agencies must review and consider the exclusion of these technologies within 90 days of the act's enactment [8][9] Exceptions and Oversight - Limited exceptions for using listed AI technologies are allowed under specific circumstances, such as research or national security, but must be documented and reported to Congress [10][11][12] - The act defines key terms to ensure clarity and effective enforcement, including definitions for "artificial intelligence" and "foreign adversary" [13][14] Strategic Implications - The act reflects the U.S. effort to decouple from China in the technology sector, establishing a framework to prevent the use of AI technologies developed by foreign adversaries [15] - This legislative action may lead to increased global competition in AI, potentially creating parallel but disconnected AI ecosystems [15]

Group 1: Trade Policies and Economic Impact - The Trump administration's reliance on tariffs has been described as almost obsessive, with an average tariff rate of 25% on Chinese goods, affecting approximately $550 billion worth of products by June 2025 [4][6] - The U.S. trade deficit is projected to reach $950 billion in 2024, a 12% increase from 2018, indicating that the tariff strategy has not effectively reduced the trade gap [6] - U.S. companies, particularly in the clean energy sector, have seen supply chain costs rise by over 30% due to forced decoupling from China [6][8] Group 2: Technology and Supply Chain Challenges - The U.S. semiconductor industry has faced an 18% decline in sales to China in 2024, with major companies like Intel and Qualcomm experiencing significant profit reductions [12] - China's advancements in technology, particularly in AI and quantum computing, have surpassed those of the U.S., with Chinese firms holding six of the top ten global AI patent rankings in 2024 [12] - The pressure on allies to join the U.S. in technology restrictions has backfired, as companies in Japan and the Netherlands have reported growth in their Chinese market revenues, undermining U.S. efforts [12] Group 3: Military Strategies and Regional Tensions - The U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region has reached its highest level since the Cold War, with significant naval deployments intended to deter China [13] - China's military exercises in response to U.S. actions have intensified, with joint drills with Russia occurring near Taiwan, indicating a growing military collaboration [13][15] - The U.S. military strategy in the Middle East has encountered unexpected resistance, with Iranian capabilities proving more formidable than anticipated, leading to increased regional instability [15][16]

Group 1: Economic Implications - The U.S. defense budget for fiscal year 2025 is projected to be $895.2 billion, accounting for 40% of global military spending, which underpins the U.S. military presence in over 800 bases worldwide [2] - The stability of U.S. Treasury bonds is closely tied to the military's ability to maintain global order, with $9.2 trillion in U.S. debt maturing in 2025, raising concerns about potential market reactions to military failures [3] - A significant sell-off of U.S. debt due to military failures could lead to soaring interest rates, directly impacting U.S. fiscal sustainability [3] Group 2: Technological Competitiveness - The U.S. military's leading position in military technology is crucial for maintaining competitiveness, with historical examples like ARPANET showcasing military-driven technological advancements [4] - Recent setbacks in key areas such as hypersonic weapons have exposed vulnerabilities in U.S. military technology, potentially undermining global trust in U.S. technological superiority [4] - Non-traditional warfare tactics employed by smaller nations could challenge U.S. military dominance, as demonstrated by attacks on U.S. naval assets [5] Group 3: Geopolitical Consequences - Military failures could lead to a rapid decline in U.S. influence, with allies potentially seeking partnerships with countries like China and Russia, undermining U.S. strategic initiatives [6] - The potential for a liquidity crisis in the U.S. debt market could arise if Asian countries accelerate the sale of U.S. bonds in response to military setbacks, threatening the global financial system [6] - The collapse of U.S. military hegemony could trigger a shift towards a multipolar world, challenging the existing global order [7]

Core Viewpoint - The recent reduction of tariffs between China and the U.S. is seen as a significant easing of trade tensions, with 91% of tariffs being canceled and 24% suspended for 90 days, which may lead to a rebound in Chinese exports and alleviate cost pressures for global businesses [1] Group 1: Short-term and Long-term Impacts - The tariff adjustments are expected to relieve cost pressures for global enterprises and stabilize supply chains, potentially leading to a "revenge growth" in exports from China in the third quarter [1] - The 90-day period is viewed as a critical opportunity for businesses to navigate the tariff dispute and optimize their supply chains [1] Group 2: Strategies for Overseas Expansion - Companies are advised to diversify markets, decentralize supply chains, and promote localization to mitigate risks associated with tariffs [2] - Emphasis is placed on selecting countries with abundant labor and favorable tariff conditions while avoiding double taxation [2] Group 3: Support for Low-Profit Industries - Recommendations for low-profit sectors like hardware and textiles include technological upgrades, production relocation, and product diversification to mitigate risks [3] - Government support should focus on technological transformation and incentives for overseas expansion to reduce tariff risks [3] Group 4: Addressing "Technological Decoupling" - High-tech companies are encouraged to enhance core technology research and development, reduce reliance on foreign technology, and deepen industry cooperation [4] - Expanding domestic and friendly markets while adjusting supply chain layouts is crucial for long-term sustainability [4] Group 5: International Agreements and Regional Cooperation - High-standard agreements like CPTPP and RCEP are expected to accelerate the internationalization of Guangdong enterprises, particularly in production and service sectors [5] - The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area should leverage its advantages to integrate with ASEAN, enhancing logistics and reducing costs [5] Group 6: Supply Chain Resilience - Companies should focus on expanding domestic consumption, re-evaluating market positioning, and enhancing brand strength to build resilient supply chains [6] - Future trade tensions may center around tariff issues related to re-exported goods and high-tech products, with potential exemptions for certain sectors [6]

导读： 2018年后，科学仪器行业在贸易摩擦中展现了复杂影响，美国企业在华营收曾逆势增长，但2023年后出现下滑，国产替代加速和技术脱钩趋势显现成关键 挑战。 特别提示 微信公众号机制调整，请点击顶部"仪器信息网" → 右上方"…" → 设为 ★ 星标，否则很可能无法看到我们的推送。 科学仪器行业，作为技术密集型产业，其供应链和市场需求往往对国际贸易环境高度敏感。2 0 1 8年的贸易摩擦，曾让行业一度担忧美国仪器企 业的在华业务。但现实的发展却充满了矛盾与意外。基于此，本文深入剖析2 0 1 9 - 2 0 2 3年间科学仪器企业在华营收数据，复盘贸易摩擦对该行 业造成的实际影响。同时，着眼于2 0 2 5年，探寻企业增强发展信心、从容应对复杂贸易形势的有效路径。 一、贸易摩擦下的"逆势增长"：2 0 1 9 - 2 0 2 2年多重因素影响 2 0 1 8年贸易形势不稳定性突发，美国对包括质谱仪、色谱仪在内的科学仪器加征2 5%关税。然而，以赛默飞、丹纳赫、安捷伦、沃特世为代表 的美国仪器企业在华营收却 呈现"关税免疫"现象 。2 0 1 9 - 2 0 2 2年，四家企业中国区营收年均复合增长率保持在9 ...