Reference News Network, July 11 report: The Hong Kong South China Morning Post website published an article titled "Why is negotiation meaningful when Trump is so capricious on tariffs?" on July 9. The author is Stephen Olson, a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore. The article excerpts are as follows:

The 90-day "reciprocal tariff" negotiation window set by US President Trump has ended, but the results have not caused much commotion. The US has sent letters to many countries, extending the negotiation deadline to August 1st.

Initially, the White House stated that countries were lining up to reach agreements and confidently claimed that the US could "reach 90 agreements within 90 days." However, as the possibility of achieving this feat became increasingly low, the US government shifted to the second phase plan: reaching a certain number of agreements within 90 days.

As the deadline of July 9 approached, it turned out that the tariff negotiations were more difficult than expected - trade partners were less compliant - and the Trump team entered the third phase plan: the US will ensure "phase-by-phase agreements" with some countries instead of final agreements.

Government officials from the US's main trading partners have noticed these reversals and may be considering several increasingly obvious questions.

First, do these negotiations resolve any issues, or are they just a reality show for the American audience? Although Trump often uses vague wording to promote trade "agreements" that have supposedly been "reached," most details and many of the most difficult issues remain to be negotiated.

This benefits Trump, allowing him to present himself as a master negotiator, steadily accumulating trade "victories" for the American public. Most countries initially participated in the negotiations with the intention of resolving friction points in a way that is as satisfactory as possible. But as events unfolded, many people would begin to doubt whether the Trump administration was playing another trick.

Additionally, is the "reciprocal tariff" a distraction? While the US pushes for basic agreements that can somewhat alleviate the impact of "reciprocal tariffs," a more threatening tariff issue is quietly approaching: tariffs on specific industries.

The Trump administration has implemented or threatened to impose tariffs ranging from 25% to 50% on a series of important industries such as steel, automobiles, and timber. For the relevant countries, the impact of imposing tariffs on specific industries may be at least as destructive as "reciprocal tariffs." Making concessions to the US to obtain relief from "reciprocal tariffs" may be futile.

Trump insists that he holds "all the cards" in trade negotiations, and countries need to sit at the negotiating table and accept his demands, otherwise they will face consequences.

Looking ahead, the question is whether there will be a critical point where countries, after seeing the US's increasingly excessive capriciousness, finally decide to leave Trump alone with the cards at the negotiating table. (Translated by Guo Jun)

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7525661593704497718/

Statement: This article represents the views of its author. Please express your opinion below using the [up/down] buttons.