Seoul-Washington strike USD 450 bn investment deal to cap US tariff at 15%
As reported by The Korea Herald, in exchange, Seoul pledged a USD 350 billion investment package along with USD 100 bn energy imports from U.S and most favoured nation status to U.S., in key sectors which helped in reinforcing cap on tariffs.
The agreement, reached just hours before the deadline, suspends the near-zero tariff regime under the 2012 Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and introduces a new 'reciprocal" rate similar to deals recently struck with Japan and the European Union. The deal comes at a critical time, with the U.S. taking in nearly a fifth of Korea's total exports reports Korea Herald.
The newly installed government in Seoul moved quickly to craft a deal acceptable to Washington, negotiating up from an initial USD 100 billion offer before agreeing to the final USD 350 billion package, below Japan's USD 550 billion commitment to the U.S.
President Lee Jae Myung called the outcome a 'major breakthrough," crediting it with restoring predictability for Korean exporters. 'This agreement aligns America's goal of manufacturing revival with Korea's ambition to expand its industrial competitiveness in the US market," Lee said in a Facebook post. 'It will further deepen Korea-US industrial cooperation and strengthen our alliance."
Of the Korean investment, USD 150 billion will fund a major shipbuilding initiative named 'Make American Shipbuilding Great Again." Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol said the program was 'the single most decisive factor" in finalizing the deal. 'With Korean shipbuilders recognized for world-class design and construction capabilities, the project is expected to unlock new growth momentum and position Korea as a core partner in reviving US industry," he said.
Another USD 200 billion will support joint industrial efforts in strategic sectors like semiconductors, nuclear energy, batteries, and biopharma. To reduce risk, the U.S. agreed to take over output from vetted projects, according to presidential policy chief Kim Yong-beom.
Korea also committed to buying USD 100 billion in U.S. LNG and energy products over four years and secured most-favored-nation treatment for future tariff considerations on key exports. Sensitive agricultural sectors like rice and beef were shielded from new concessions.
While several contentious issues remain unresolved, a summit between President Lee and U.S. President Donald Trump is being planned within the next two weeks. (ANI)
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Book ban imposed by LG, not me: Omar
Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah on Friday blamed lieutenant governor Manoj Sinha for banning 25 books and said he would 'never ban books'. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah visits a stall during National Tribal Festival-2025, at Gurez Valley in Bandipora on Thursday. (ANI) While responding to a twitter account seeking revocation of the ban, Omar said that the ban was imposed by the home department controlled by the LG. 'Get your facts right before you call me a coward, you ignoramus. The ban has been imposed by the LG using the only department he officially controls - the Home Department. I've never banned books & I never would,' Abdullah said. Jammu and Kashmir lieutenant governor's order of banning 25 books, some of them by acclaimed national and international authors, has raised many eyebrows and elicited harsh reactions and condemnations. The government's home department has issued a notification for 'forfeiture' of the 25 books to the government written by some prominent and acclaimed authors, political scientists and historians, including AG Noorani, Arundhati Roy, Sumantra Bose, Sugata Bose, Christopher Snedden and Victoria Schofield for allegedly propagating 'false narrative and secessionism' in J&K. Most of these books are written on Kashmir conflict, politics, history and human rights. The order has attracted surprise and condemnation from many circles. The government ordered the forfeiture of the books under section 98 of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The forfeited books also include Between Democracy & Nation: Gender and Militarisation in Kashmir by Seema Kazi, Do you Remember Kunan Poshpora? by Essar Batool and Resisting Disappearance: Military Occupation and Women's Activism in Kashmir by Ather Zia. The publication of Jamaat-e-Islami founder Moulana Abul A'la Maududi Maududi's Al Jihad fil Islam and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna's Mujahid ki Azan are also on the list. J&K Police on Thursday raided various books shops across the Valley looking for 'prohibited' content and urged the shopkeepers to forfeit the books to the government. During the searches, all bookshop owners were sternly warned against stocking or distributing prohibited content. The Peoples Democratic Party had alleged that it was astonished at the arbitrary and intellectually regressive move by the government to 'forfeit' 25 books it claims promote secessionism.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump Rattles Latin America by Weighing Using Military Force
The US under President Donald Trump is crafting a confrontational approach toward Latin America that signals a willingness to use military force against drug cartels, discarding the Biden administration's preference for carrots over sticks to coax countries into alignment with US interests. The New York Times reported Friday that the president ordered the Defense Department to prepare options to take military action against Latin American drug cartels. A US agreement with Mexico to expand security cooperation, expected to be signed in the coming weeks, would facilitate joint monitoring of criminal organizations by security forces and coordination on the border. But the pending agreement won't provide legal grounds for direct US military action on Mexican territory, officials have said. Any such intervention would risk inflaming anti-US sentiments already whipped up by the Trump administration's wave of tariffs. 'This could call into question the security agreement that was drawn up, which is based on a great deal of trust,' said Victoria Dittmar, a researcher at Insight Crime who specializes in Mexico. Trump, asked about the possibility of using military force Friday at the White House, said he would have 'more to say about that soon.' 'Latin America has got a lot of cartels. They've got a lot of drugs flowing. So, you know, we want to protect our country,' Trump said. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment. The emerging plans to deal with cartels build on the Trump administration's already more aggressive presence in a region that is deeply integrated into the US economy, from cross-border gas pipelines to maritime logistics. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Central America on his first overseas trip, pushing for concessions on US military use of the Panama Canal. The administration has engaged in a war of words with Colombia's leftist president Gustavo Petro and may be preparing to decertify that country's efforts against narcotics. Officials have also stepped up allegations against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as a drug lord, doubling a reward for information leading to his arrest to $50 million this week. The hardening of US policy toward Latin America has been met with varying responses in the region, from open arms to strident opposition. In Ecuador, the pro-US government is preparing a referendum that would allow foreign military installations in national territory, a move seen as clearning the way for the US to reactivate the use of a base in the violence-torn country. But in Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum has responded defiantly to any suggestion that American soldiers would take a combat role in her country. Any agreement with the Trump administration must respect the nation's sovereignty, she reiterated Friday at her daily news conference. 'The United States is not going to come to Mexico with the military,' she said Friday. 'We cooperate, we collaborate, but there will be no invasion. That is out of the question, absolutely out of the question. What has been stated in all the calls is that it is not permitted, nor is it part of any agreement, much less.' The security deal in the works rests on the idea that the US won't intervene in Mexico, said Dittmar of Insight Crime. 'If that were to be broken, it would indeed break the relationship of trust and would require a rethinking of joint security strategies,' she said. The Trump administration's approach risks inviting a broader backlash in a region still scarred by decades of Cold War-era intervention from Guatemala to Chile. 'This will strengthen autocratic regimes like the ones in Venezuela or Nicaragua, and the anti-American sentiment in Mexico, Guatemala and even in Colombia,' said Jorge Restrepo, an economics professor who directs CERAC, a Bogota-based research institution that monitors the nation's civil conflict. 'Just the announcement will have the unintended effect of strengthening governments which are not cooperating as much as they could with the United States,' Restrepo said. US interests in the region could become soft targets for criminal organizations, said James Bosworth, founder of political risk firm Hxagon, in a phone interview. The cartels have the ability to take the fight to US territory in a way that al-Qaeda 'could only dream of,' according to Bosworth. While Venezuela, Colombia and Honduras are all potential targets, Mexico is the country that is most vulnerable, especially since Trump officials are much more worried about fentanyl then they are about cocaine, Bosworth said. Trump made a promise to fight trafficking of fentanyl, originating in China and responsible for tens of thousands of US deaths, a key point of his 2024 campaign. Despite stepped-up rhetoric from Washington, Venezuela could be shielded from intervention by US oil interests and concerns about disrupting a steady flow of reverse migration, said Geoff Ramsey, who tracks Venezuela at the Atlantic Council. 'This is an instance in which Trump is seeking to project strength but ultimately understands that any kind of military action in Venezuela would run completely contrary to US interests,' said Ramsey. 'Unfortunately, Maduro knows that this is a bluff. But the opposition doesn't. And I think this is going to fuel a lot of counterproductive daydreaming from the opposition. And my fear is that this is only going to lead them down the path of magical thinking.' The US posturing also risks playing into Venezuela's siege narrative. The country's armed forces on Friday vowed 'to confront, combat, and neutralize any action that threatens the stability and peace of our citizens, as well as the safeguarding of our national territory.' And on state television, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez reiterated denials that Venezuela hosts organized crime groups. 'There are no criminal gangs operating here, they have taken the story of the Tren de Aragua, they have been completely dismantled, they do not exist, nor do cartels or bosses exist,' Padrino said. Ramsey said US military action in Venezuela 'would risk destabilizing the entire country, and potentially the region itself.' With assistance from Scott Squires. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump Rattles Latin America by Exploring Use of Military Force
The US under President Donald Trump is crafting a confrontational approach toward Latin America that signals a willingness to use military force against drug cartels, discarding the Biden administration's preference for carrots over sticks to coax countries into alignment with US interests. The New York Times reported Friday that the president ordered the Defense Department to prepare options to take military action against Latin American drug cartels. A US agreement with Mexico to expand security cooperation, expected to be signed in the coming weeks, would facilitate joint monitoring of criminal organizations by security forces and coordination on the border. But the pending agreement won't provide legal grounds for direct US military action on Mexican territory, officials have said. Any such intervention would risk inflaming anti-US sentiments already whipped up by the Trump administration's wave of tariffs. 'This could call into question the security agreement that was drawn up, which is based on a great deal of trust,' said Victoria Dittmar, a researcher at Insight Crime who specializes in Mexico. Spokespeople at the White House and Pentagon declined to comment. The emerging plans to deal with cartels build on the Trump administration's already more aggressive presence in a region that is deeply integrated into the US economy, from cross-border gas pipelines to maritime logistics. Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Central America on his first overseas trip, pushing for concessions on US military use of the Panama Canal. The administration has engaged in a war of words with Colombia's leftist president Gustavo Petro and may be preparing to decertify that country's efforts against narcotics. Officials have also stepped up allegations against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as a drug lord, doubling a reward for information leading to his arrest to $50 million this week. The hardening of US policy toward Latin America has been met with varying responses in the region, from open arms to strident opposition. In Ecuador, the pro-US government is preparing a referendum that would allow foreign military installations in national territory, a move seen as clearning the way for the US to reactivate the use of a base in the violence-torn country. But in Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum has responded defiantly to any suggestion that American soldiers would take a combat role in her country. Any agreement with the Trump administration must respect the nation's sovereignty, she reiterated Friday at her daily news conference. 'The United States is not going to come to Mexico with the military,' she said Friday. 'We cooperate, we collaborate, but there will be no invasion. That is out of the question, absolutely out of the question. What has been stated in all the calls is that it is not permitted, nor is it part of any agreement, much less.' The security deal in the works rests on the idea that the US won't intervene in Mexico, said Dittmar of Insight Crime. 'If that were to be broken, it would indeed break the relationship of trust and would require a rethinking of joint security strategies,' she said. The Trump administration's approach risks inviting a broader backlash in a region still scarred by decades of Cold War-era intervention from Guatemala to Chile. 'This will strengthen autocratic regimes like the ones in Venezuela or Nicaragua, and the anti-American sentiment in Mexico, Guatemala and even in Colombia,' said Jorge Restrepo, an economics professor who directs CERAC, a Bogota-based research institution that monitors the nation's civil conflict. 'Just the announcement will have the unintended effect of strengthening governments which are not cooperating as much as they could with the United States,' Restrepo said. US interests in the region could become soft targets for criminal organizations, said James Bosworth, founder of political risk firm Hxagon, in a phone interview. The cartels have the ability to take the fight to US territory in a way that al-Qaeda 'could only dream of,' according to Bosworth. While Venezuela, Colombia and Honduras are all potential targets, Mexico is the country that is most vulnerable, especially since Trump officials are much more worried about fentanyl then they are about cocaine, Bosworth said. Trump made a promise to fight trafficking of fentanyl, originating in China and responsible for tens of thousands of US deaths, a key point of his 2024 campaign. Despite stepped-up rhetoric from Washington, Venezuela could be shielded from intervention by US oil interests and concerns about disrupting a steady flow of reverse migration, said Geoff Ramsey, who tracks Venezuela at the Atlantic Council. 'This is an instance in which Trump is seeking to project strength but ultimately understands that any kind of military action in Venezuela would run completely contrary to US interests,' said Ramsey. 'Unfortunately, Maduro knows that this is a bluff. But the opposition doesn't. And I think this is going to fuel a lot of counterproductive daydreaming from the opposition. And my fear is that this is only going to lead them down the path of magical thinking.' The US posturing also risks playing into Venezuela's siege narrative. The country's armed forces on Friday vowed 'to confront, combat, and neutralize any action that threatens the stability and peace of our citizens, as well as the safeguarding of our national territory.' And on state television, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez reiterated denials that Venezuela hosts organized crime groups. 'There are no criminal gangs operating here, they have taken the story of the Tren de Aragua, they have been completely dismantled, they do not exist, nor do cartels or bosses exist,' Padrino said. Ramsey said US military action in Venezuela 'would risk destabilizing the entire country, and potentially the region itself.' With assistance from Scott Squires. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
