Group 1 - The trade agreement between Indonesia and the United States requires Indonesia to open its market for U.S. industrial technology and agricultural products, eliminating 99% of tariff barriers, while Indonesian goods face a 19% tariff in the U.S. [1][3] - The agreement includes a large procurement deal worth billions, including purchases of Boeing aircraft, agricultural products, and energy, raising concerns about the unequal terms of the deal [1][3][12] - Indonesia's economic situation makes it difficult to absorb the expected influx of U.S. products, leading to speculation that Indonesia may act as a middleman to resell these products to other markets [5][9] Group 2 - The U.S. threatened to impose a 32% tariff on Indonesian goods if the agreement was not reached, making the 19% tariff seem more acceptable to Indonesia [5][12] - The influx of U.S. agricultural products could threaten local farmers and food security in Indonesia, as the country has a fragile agricultural sector [7][12] - The U.S. aims to showcase its international influence and secure mineral resources from Indonesia, particularly rare earth elements, which are crucial for high-tech industries [9][12] Group 3 - The projected $50 billion market access opportunity is unrealistic given Indonesia's annual import total and its limited capacity to absorb U.S. agricultural and high-tech products [12][13] - The agreement reflects a political maneuver rather than a genuine economic partnership, with both parties having their own agendas [13] - Historical patterns suggest that such unequal agreements often disadvantage the weaker party, in this case, Indonesia [13]