In a recent turn of events, the United States and South Korea have struck a trade deal aimed at averting a potentially damaging tariff war between the two allied nations.
While any agreement that prevents the escalation of economic tensions is seen as favorable, several key issues still require clarification as the details unfold.
The deal with South Korea aligns with similar agreements made by President Donald Trump with Japan and the European Union, showcasing a pattern in negotiation strategies during his administration.
Under the newly established terms, South Korea successfully negotiated a 15 percent tariff rate under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), alongside a reduced tariff for automobiles and auto parts.
This represents a decrease from a threatened 25 percent reciprocal tariff rate that was set to take effect on August 1st.
For South Korea, achieving a 15 percent tariff ceiling was crucial, particularly given the significant impact that the looming tariff threat had on its auto exports to the United States.
Although President Trump boasted about U.S. cars and trucks entering the South Korean market tariff-free, the effect is minimal as the existing U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement had previously eliminated tariffs on most manufactured goods.
Unfortunately, key non-tariff barriers expected to favor U.S. interests, such as the safety standards applied to U.S. vehicles by South Korea, remain unaddressed.
In other sectors, the deal indicated that South Korea would not face treatment worse than any other nation regarding tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, likely securing a similar arrangement to those granted to Japan and the European Union.
However, a 50 percent tariff on aluminum, steel, and copper products will continue to affect imports from South Korea.
In regard to agricultural trade, President Trump noted that South Korea would import more agricultural products from the United States.
Significantly debated topics within this scope include rice and beef, although South Korean officials assert that they made no concessions concerning these products.
Additionally, there is uncertainty surrounding whether South Korea agreed to lift the ban on importing beef from U.S. cattle older than 30 months.
President Trump also highlighted a proposal for South Korea to invest $350 billion in U.S. industries and to purchase $100 billion worth of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG).
However, details concerning these investment commitments are largely unspecified.
It remains unclear whether the LNG purchases signify new contracts or simply a shift from previous orders sourced from the Middle East.
The agreement does not confirm if there will be collaboration on the Alaska LNG project, a venture that Trump has actively supported.
Despite some discussions, several factors crucial to U.S. interests appear absent from the negotiations, including regulations on digital services set by the South Korean government, currency manipulation issues, and supply chain restrictions concerning China.
Looking ahead, the next steps involve both sides working to finalize the details from the agreements currently on the table.
President Trump has suggested that a summit with South Korean President will take place at the White House within the next two weeks to commemorate the deal.
This meeting is expected to serve not only as a means of celebrating the trade agreement but also as leverage for President Trump to solicit further concessions in areas such as investment commitments, non-tariff barriers, and currency practices.
The two leaders may also address non-trade-related topics, including an updated cost-sharing agreement, where the United States seeks substantial increases in annual contributions from its ally, which currently stands at approximately $1 billion annually.
While there is always room for improvement in any negotiation, South Korea’s position in these talks may have been affected by the absence of retaliatory policies against U.S. tariffs.
Unlike the European Union and Canada, which employed an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy, South Korea entered negotiations from a place of largely zero tariffs on U.S. products due to existing agreements.
This lack of leverage may have constrained Seoul’s ability to negotiate more favorable terms.
However, given the security priorities in their alliance, South Korea may have determined that this was their best possible strategy moving forward.
image source from：csis
