Text | Tang Bahu, well-known writer and author of the Phoenix News column

Recently, U.S. Commerce Secretary Rutenberg made a statement to American media that due to the failure to reach a tariff agreement, the United States will "fix" some countries including India and Brazil in order to force them to open their markets to American companies.

When talking about the tariff issue, Rutenberg first praised Trump's "great achievements" as usual, stating that under Trump's pressure, markets such as the EU, the UK, and Japan, which were once closed, now have opened their doors to the United States, which is something no previous U.S. president could achieve.

Rutenberg then turned his tone, saying, "There are still a bunch of countries that need fixing, like India, Brazil, and Switzerland."

He said, "Swiss officials always tell us that Switzerland is a small country and they want a deal similar to the UK. But I told them it's impossible. Even if they came knocking the day after the US-UK deal was signed, it wouldn't help... because the deal with the UK is the most favorable one. For Switzerland to get a similar deal, they would have to pay more."

Rutenberg pointed out that according to Trump's negotiation style, the first deal is always the "most favorable," and the conditions for subsequent deals will only gradually increase.

Finally, he emphasized that whether it's Switzerland, or India and Brazil, these countries that have not yet reached an agreement with the U.S. need to take "correct actions": open their markets to American companies, stop actions that harm American interests, and cooperate with the president's policies.

The background of Rutenberg's remarks is the stalled bilateral trade negotiations between the U.S. and several countries.

Regarding India, due to the failure to reach an agreement, the U.S. first increased India's tariffs to 25% on August 1st, and then raised the tariffs to 50% on August 27th by citing India's purchase of Russian oil.

The Trump administration has taken a stance towards India that says, "If you don't cooperate, we'll keep doing this." Whether India buys Russian oil is not important; what's important is how much oil India buys from the U.S.

India obviously does not want to give up the discounted oil from Russia. During the recent United Nations General Assembly, the Indian commerce minister led a delegation to the U.S. and had a round of talks with U.S. representatives. They publicly stated that the negotiations were "constructive," but essentially, the core differences between the two sides remain unresolved.

What Trump wants is for India to open up sensitive markets such as agriculture, dairy products, and pharmaceuticals; while Modi's government is determined to protect its domestic farmers and traditional industries. As a result, the negotiations continue intermittently, but neither side has given in.

According to insiders, India doesn't expect to immediately lower the tariffs to zero, but instead hopes that Trump will first cancel the 25% tariff on Russian oil, allowing Modi's government to make concessions in the trade field and provide an explanation to domestic public opinion.

Before the Indian officials left for the U.S., Modi also posted on social media that "the U.S. and India are close friends and natural partners," and that the two teams will complete the trade negotiations as soon as possible.

But the result is that the U.S. has not only failed to remove this tariff, but has further tried every means to pressure India.

One is to revise the H-1B visa policy, excluding a large number of Indian technical talents;

Two is to revoke the sanctions exemption for India's operations at the Chabahar port in Iran.

In short, Trump is completely treating India as a soft target and squeezing it to the extreme. The "extreme pressure" strategy that didn't work against China is now being used by Trump to "fix" India.

As for Brazil, the situation is no better. The U.S. first imposed a flat 50% tariff on almost all Brazilian goods. In response, Brazilian President Lula directly announced that he would take the U.S. government to the WTO for legal procedures and requested the government to prepare countermeasures.

Later, Trump may have felt it was too harsh, so he issued an executive order to exempt tariffs on products such as civilian aircraft parts, minerals, fertilizers, orange juice, and nuts. These exempted products account for 45% of Brazil's total exports to the U.S., and only need to pay a 10% "minimum basic tariff".

But Lula is determined to stand firm. At the end of last month, Lula authorized the Brazilian government to conduct an investigation into the U.S. tariffs and submit a technical analysis report within 30 days, to formulate related countermeasures.

Of course, Brazil is not entirely unwilling to negotiate. On the 14th of this month, Lula published a signed article in the U.S. media outlet "The New York Times", stating that Brazil is willing to negotiate with the U.S. on the basis of mutual benefit, but that Brazil's internal affairs and sovereignty are not up for discussion - referring to Trump's repeated criticisms of the Lula government for "persecuting" former conservative president Bolsonaro.

As for Switzerland, the situation is somewhat different - no one expected that Trump would suddenly impose a 39% tariff on Switzerland on August 1st. This is the highest tariff rate among European countries, and currently, only India and Brazil have higher rates than them in the world.

To this day, there is no unified explanation for this event. According to insiders, during the call between Trump and Swiss leaders in early August, he only focused on two things:

First, how Switzerland can solve the hundreds of billions of dollars in trade deficit every year;

Second, what else this "very wealthy" country can offer the U.S.

So far, the tariff negotiations between the U.S. and India, Brazil, and Switzerland have not only been simple economic disputes, but have been transformed into a political performance by the Trump administration. The so-called "fixing" is both external pressure and a show of strength internally.

But the problem is, whether this method can really force the other party to make concessions remains questionable - the U.S. economy is showing frequent warning signals, and China's decisive actions have proven the value of "retaliation."

Next, how long Trump's "tariff card" can be played depends on how much the other party can endure, as well as how much American businesses and consumers can bear.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7555440794073612840/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the [top / down] buttons below.