Trump says South Korea has secured US trade deal with 15% tariff
NEW YORK -- South Korea has struck a trade deal with the U.S. and will be charged a 15% tariff rate on exports to the U.S., President Donald Trump said Wednesday.
South Korea will also purchase $100 billion worth of American liquefied natural gas or other energy products, Trump said in a social media post.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
2 hours ago
- The Diplomat
China Calls on Cambodia and Thailand to Resolve Border Conflict
China stands ready to help Thailand and Cambodia resolve their bitter border dispute, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said yesterday, after convening a three-way meeting with the countries' foreign ministers in Yunnan province. The meeting between Wang, Thai Foreign Minister Maris Sangiampongsa, and Cambodian Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn took place on the sidelines of the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Anning, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The three envoys 'had a friendly and candid communication over the conflict along the border between Cambodia and Thailand in a harmonious atmosphere,' and they 'agreed to keep communication channels open through a flexible approach,' the statement said, as per China Daily. The Foreign Ministry also said that Wang held separate one-on-one meetings with Maris and Sokhonn, which covered the border dispute as well as other issues of bilateral concern. On July 28, Cambodia and Thailand agreed to a ceasefire that ended five days of fierce fighting, which killed at least 43 people and displaced more than 300,000 on both sides of the border. The two sides followed this up with a meeting of their bilateral General Border Committee in Malaysia on August 7, at which they agreed to a number of means of de-escalating tensions. Among these were mutual pledges to freeze border troop movements and patrols, not to reinforce their positions along the border, and 'not to undertake provocative actions that may escalate tensions.' However, the situation remains febrile, with both nations trading near-daily accusations of ceasefire violations, often with reference to territorial claims that are not internationally recognized. Wang said that China 'supports Cambodia and Thailand in engaging in dialogue, clearing misunderstandings, rebuilding mutual trust and restoring normal exchanges and cooperation,' the China Daily reported. China also promised support and assistance for landmine clearance in the border areas of Cambodia and Thailand, and the three ministers agreed to continue communication in a 'flexible manner.' Beijing also hoped for the stabilization of relations between the two nations and the reopening of border crossings as soon as possible, Wang said. Chinese officials have been present as observers at the recent bilateral talks, along with their American counterparts, and China's Vice Foreign Minister Sun Weidong hosted an informal trilateral meeting with representatives from both nations in Shanghai on July 30. During the meeting, both Cambodia and Thailand 'reaffirmed their commitment to the ceasefire consensus and expressed appreciation for China's positive role in de-escalating the situation,' the Global Times reported. Yesterday's meetings could signal a Chinese desire to play a more active role in mediating the conflict. Despite enjoying good relations with both Thailand and Cambodia, China has been somewhat upstaged in this respect by the United States. President Donald Trump was widely credited with pushing Thailand and Cambodia to agree to the initial ceasefire on July 28 by threatening to withhold tariff deals if they did not cease hostilities. (Cambodia later nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his role.) However, since securing relatively competitive 'final' tariffs of 19 percent, the two nations have continued to spar over the border issues, making a return to hostilities a very real prospect. In any event, the mistrust between the Thai and Cambodian governments remains at such a high pitch, and the issue has now become an issue of such salience to domestic politics in both nations that Beijing will have to do a lot more to reverse the deterioration of the relationship that has taken place over the past few months.
The Mainichi
2 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Editorial: 80 years after World War II, now is the time for Japan to act for global peace
Eighty years have passed since the end of a war that brought Japan to the brink of destruction and claimed countless lives in the Asian countries it invaded. It is time to reaffirm the weight of the peace built on such immense sacrifices. The journey of postwar Japan, marked by reconstruction and economic growth while upholding a vow to never wage war again, is something to be proud of. This was made possible by the postwar international order, underpinned by the rule of law and free trade. However, this foundation is on the verge of collapse. The international community has failed to stop the two wars continuing in Europe and the Middle East, while the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is disrupting the global economy with coercive high tariffs. The risk of nuclear weapons being used is increasing, and natural disasters caused by climate change are unending. The "Doomsday Clock," which warns of how close humanity is to its final hour, is set at its shortest time ever at 89 seconds to midnight. The logic of the powerful prevails In these turbulent times, the arrogance of powerful nations is rampant. The Israeli military is destroying the Gaza Strip in the Palestinian territories, while Russia is pressuring Ukraine, once referred to as "Little Russia," to surrender. This is a structure where the weak are suppressed. Nazi Germany incited hostility toward Jews and drove its people into World War II. As the number of people who experienced the war dwindles and the preservation of their memories becomes challenging, there is concern about the rise of distorted nationalism and exclusionism. Japan is no exception. Politicians have made remarks denying the historical facts about the Battle of Okinawa and the Nanjing Massacre. During the recent House of Councillors election, false rumors such as "foreigners are being given preferential treatment" and "crime rates are high" were rampant. "It is tough for us, though we're the ones supporting Japan's convenient lifestyle." This was a comment received by Jiho Yoshimizu, the representative director of the nonprofit Nichietsu Tomoiki Shienkai (the Japan Vietnam Mutual Support Association), which supports Vietnamese residents in Japan. Intolerance that excludes minorities is continuous with the logic of "survival of the fittest." We must not allow the clock to be turned back to an era of war. Postwar Japan has maintained war-renouncing Article 9 of its Constitution and bases its security on the Japan-U.S. alliance to avoid direct involvement in armed conflict. By relying on the U.S. military for security, rapid economic growth was also possible. However, there is no denying that postwar Japan's societal trend was strongly influenced by the idea of "one-country pacifism," or a desire never to be caught up in war again, as noted by University of Tokyo professor Tadashi Karube. Now that the Trump administration has turned its back on global stability, Japan's ability to devise and create peace on its own initiative based on its postwar experience is put to the test. The most urgent task is to rebuild order. Japan must listen to the voices of the Global South and help create fair international rules. Instead of lamenting its declining national power, Japan should work to strengthen the function of the United Nations as "a forum where middle powers can join hands with small countries to exert their presence," as stated by U.N. Under-Secretary-General Izumi Nakamitsu. The free trade system must be protected. Deepening dialogue with Southeast Asian countries and the European Union, and expanding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is a logical step. The creation of an environment that brings stability to East Asia is also urgent. Japan is in a position to propose the establishment of a regional framework for dialogue aimed at building trust. It is crucial not to impose "Japan-centric Asianism" as seen before the war, but to work as equal partners. Breaking away from 'own country first' policy According to a public awareness survey by the Japanese Red Cross Society, more than half of respondents believe "Japan is peaceful," while less than 20% feel "the world is peaceful." How can this gap be bridged? Professor Toshikazu Inoue of Gakushuin University, an expert on Showa-era (1926-1989) history, pointed out, "Japan must fulfill its fair share of responsibility in building world peace." There are notable citizen efforts. The Kyoto-based nonprofit Terra Renaissance sends staff to countries including Uganda in East Africa to help children, who were abducted by anti-government forces and forced to become soldiers, return home and reintegrate into society. Founder Masaya Onimaru explained, "We want to reclaim child soldiers and dismantle armed rebel groups. What is needed is to end conflicts through means other than violence." Now is the moment for Japan's political leadership to reflect on history and present a vision for a "world without war." It is perplexing that Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba chose not to issue a statement to mark the anniversary of the end of WWII. Diplomatic critic Kiyoshi Kiyosawa, who was slammed as a "pacifist" during wartime, lamented the narrow, self-centered nationalism in his "A Diary of Darkness," writing, "Japan sees only its own position." His words still strike at the heart of the issue, even 80 years later. We must not shut ourselves off from the world and be bystanders to others' plights. At this 80-year postwar milestone, what is required of Japan is action that spreads the practice of peace across the globe.
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis
U.S. President Donald Trump's criticism of Goldman Sachs' research on tariff risks could prompt some analysts to water down their research, investors and academics said, an outcome that could leave investors with less reliable information. The reams of research that banks such as Goldman produce are used by institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset managers, in deciding how to allocate capital. Trump's comments — in which he lambasted Goldman, its economics team and CEO David Solomon and accused them of making "a bad prediction" — have triggered a debate on Wall Street about the possible fallout, according to interviews with banking industry sources and investors. At one Wall Street bank, Trump's comments spurred informal conversations among staff, a source familiar with the matter said. The source said they also discussed how to incorporate government data in the wake of Trump's decision to fire the head of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming — without evidence — that its data had been politicized. Still, the bank was not considering changing the way research operates. "This is going to come down to a person's ability to withstand a barrage of criticism from the Oval Office, and the extent to which these banks provide support for their chief economists," said Dave Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research, who has worked in the economics departments at several banks. "If we notice that research is being watered down ... then we'll know that this has had an effect." Jack Ablin, chief investment strategist at Cresset Capital, said if banks do start self-censoring, smaller investors who do not have the resources to do their own analysis are likely to suffer most. Trump's criticism is his latest attack on corporate America and other institutions, and is a break from historical norms, where presidents have typically avoided calling out private companies and executives for things they do not like. Some companies that have considered passing on tariff costs to customers have faced public criticism, and Trump, who came to politics after running businesses, has intervened directly in private business decisions by making a deal with Nvidia to give a portion of its revenues from sales to China of AI chips to the government. Trump "certainly is taking a number of steps that diverge from the traditional view of the respective roles of the government and private industry,' said Henry Hu, a securities law professor at the University of Texas. In a social media post earlier this week, Trump said foreign companies and governments were mostly absorbing the cost of his tariffs, counter to Goldman's research. "Given that sell-side Wall Street analyst predictions have been about as accurate as random guessing, small investors will do just fine with the president exercising his First Amendment right about flawed Wall Street research," a White House official said. On Wednesday, Goldman's U.S. head economist David Mericle defended its research on CNBC, vowing to "keep doing" what the bank considers informative research. Goldman declined requests for further comment. Other major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Citigroup, declined to comment. There has already been evidence of self-censorship. A senior JPMorgan Asset Management investment strategist, Michael Cembalest, earlier this year said during a webinar that he refrained from voicing some of his thoughts on U.S. tariffs publicly. Shortly after Cembalest's comments, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, said that he expects analysts to speak their minds. Both Cembalest and the bank declined to comment for this story. Hu said there is a risk involved in even appearing to give way to political pressure. "Goldman's reputational capital is at stake here,' he said. "If their views on the economy become biased, and they are shown to be wrong, why would anyone choose Goldman to advise them on anything?' Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Wells Fargo, said independent research is critical for an investment bank's reputation. "Investment banks live and die by their reputation and independence. That transcends all other considerations." Wall Street research has long been tightly overseen, one source said, with supervisory analysts reviewing research reports to ensure that language is not inflammatory, emotive or partisan and that reports are objective and cite sources. That person said that if analysts feel unable to speak openly then investors will pay more or take greater risk. Liquidity will suffer and there will be less foreign participation in U.S. markets, the person said. It was large losses by smaller investors that triggered the first major probe of Wall Street research in the aftermath of the dot-com stock bubble of the late 1990s. Eliot Spitzer, then New York's attorney general, found that Wall Street analysts had swapped their honest opinions for unwarranted "buy" ratings on companies to help their banks win underwriting and advisory business. The result: a $1.5 billion global settlement payout by Wall Street and lifetime bans for some analysts. It remains to be seen whether the current kerfuffle will have an outsized impact on Wall Street or if it is a storm in a teacup, said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at IBKR. "It does raise a lot of questions," he added.
