africa.chinadaily.com.cn
US Tariffs Coerce Southeast Asia, Undermining Global Trade Order
Facing a US-imposed August 1 deadline, Southeast Asian nations agreed to revised tariffs after negotiations, but these deals involved significant concessions and raise concerns about global trade governance.
- How has the US's unilateral tariff policy impacted Southeast Asian economies and the global trading system?
- The US imposed tariffs on Southeast Asian economies, forcing them into accepting unfavorable trade deals to avoid market exclusion. This undermines the WTO-centric global trading system and highlights the lack of collective countermeasures against US protectionism.
- What are the underlying causes and potential long-term consequences of the US's protectionist approach to trade with ASEAN?
- The US used its economic leverage to secure concessions from ASEAN countries, including tariff reductions and increased purchases of US goods. This action demonstrates a shift away from multilateral cooperation and toward unilateral trade practices, jeopardizing the rules-based global order.
- What are the future implications for regional economic integration, specifically the RCEP, given the US's focus on 'transshipment' and its potential to disrupt supply chains?
- This protectionist approach by the US will likely destabilize regional trade relations. The coerced nature of these deals creates resentment and may lead to retaliatory measures or further fragmentation of the global trading system. ASEAN countries face a dilemma between complying with US demands and upholding existing regional trade agreements.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative strongly frames the US tariffs as an act of aggressive protectionism and coercion. The headline (while not explicitly provided, the overall tone implies one) and introduction immediately establish this negative framing. The repeated use of words like "arm-twisting," "coerced," and "hefty coerced purchase" reinforces this perspective. Positive aspects of the tariff negotiations, or any potential benefits for ASEAN countries, are largely ignored. The focus remains on the negative consequences, leading to a biased portrayal of the situation.
Language Bias
The article uses strongly charged language, consistently portraying the US actions in a negative light. Words like "arm-twisting," "coerced," "naked act of protectionism," "punitive tariffs," and "throttle" express strong condemnation and shape the reader's perception. More neutral alternatives could be used, such as "pressured," "influenced," "protectionist measures," and "tariffs." The repeated use of "Trumpian" also carries a negative connotation.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the negative impacts of US tariffs on ASEAN countries, but omits discussion of potential benefits or alternative perspectives on the tariffs. There is no mention of the stated reasons behind the US tariffs, or whether these reasons are valid. The piece also overlooks the potential economic benefits to ASEAN countries of increased access to the US market, even if this access is achieved under duress. The perspective of US businesses and consumers is largely absent.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between complying with US demands and maintaining good relations with other trading partners, particularly China. It implies that ASEAN countries must choose one or the other, ignoring the possibility of finding a balanced approach. The article also frames the situation as a simple case of US coercion versus ASEAN countries' helplessness, failing to acknowledge the agency and strategic choices made by ASEAN nations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The US tariffs disproportionately impact developing economies in Southeast Asia, exacerbating economic inequality between the US and these nations. The coercion tactics used by the US to secure favorable trade deals further entrenches this inequality.