Vietnam finalizing trade deal with Washington
This comes days before a pause on what US President Donald Trump calls "reciprocal tariffs" will expire.
Vietnam's foreign ministry spokesperson gave an update at a news conference on the status of the talks.
Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesperson, Pham Thu Hang, said that negotiation teams from Vietnam and the US are working together to exchange ideas and specify discussions between the leaders of the two countries.
Trump said on social media Wednesday that all Vietnamese goods will face a 20 percent levy, which is much lower than a total of 46 percent the country faced in April. But it's unclear if the earlier 10 percent global tariff is included in the 20 percent.
He also warned he'll tax goods from other countries transited through Vietnam at 40 percent. US media report the move is aimed at cracking down on Chinese products being routed through the country.
Trump also said Vietnam has agreed to give the US "total access" to its markets and lower tariffs on American goods.
Thailand is also rushing to negotiate a deal with the Trump administration before the July 9 deadline. Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira is in Washington and is scheduled to meet with the US trade representative on Thursday.
Thailand was slapped with a total of 36 percent tariffs. But it has asked the US to review the rate by proposing to expand imports of energy resources and agricultural products.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
3 hours ago
- Japan Times
NATO's Donald Trump dilemma
NATO's just-completed summit in The Hague came at a time of extraordinary tension. Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has repeatedly accused Europe of free riding on U.S. defense spending, raising serious concerns about the health of the Atlantic alliance. His decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities just three days before the summit — in coordination with Israel and without informing America's NATO allies — has only intensified those fears. Trump's strikes against Iran evoked memories of the post-9/11 interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, when NATO expanded its role beyond addressing conventional military threats to include counter-terrorism operations. While the alliance supported the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq was far more divisive, owing to the lack of convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and the absence of an explicit United Nations Security Council mandate. The resulting rift prompted then-U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to draw a controversial distinction between 'Old Europe' and 'New Europe.' But the current situation is even more alarming. Unlike in 2003, when the United States at least made an effort to consult its allies, Trump now keeps them in the dark. He provided no credible evidence to justify the attack on Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi contradicted his claims of an imminent nuclear threat, stating just days earlier that there was no proof of a 'systematic' Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons. Strikingly, many NATO leaders were informed of the attack only after it had been carried out. By sidelining NATO, Trump has effectively reduced the alliance to a passive observer, undermining its core principles and signaling a dangerous shift in global diplomacy. Imagine if Iran had retaliated by targeting U.S. bases in Turkey, potentially dragging my country into war. And if a nuclear leak had occurred, endangering Turkish civilians, who would have borne responsibility? Although Israel and Iran accepted Trump's announcement of a ceasefire, NATO members had been thrust into a dangerous situation without warning. This was particularly worrisome for Turkey, which shares a border with Iran and is highly vulnerable to the consequences of regional escalation. Trump's behavior has jeopardized NATO's collective security. After all, there is no guarantee that Israel will not violate the ceasefire, as it did in Gaza in March. NATO members must now confront a fundamental question: Can the alliance survive if member states may launch unilateral military action that puts others at risk? The U.S. may have legitimate evidence that Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty or was just about to do so. But if that were the case, the proper course would have been to present the evidence to the IAEA and pursue a coordinated response through the U.N. Security Council. Alternatively, the U.S. may have assumed that Iran would not retaliate and saw the attack as a way to force the Iranians back to the negotiating table. But talks between the two countries were already set to resume before Israel's intervention derailed them. A third explanation is more cynical but may be true: the attack was meant to divert attention from Israel's brutal war in Gaza. Whichever explanation proves true, Trump's actions could have far-reaching consequences for NATO and the alliance's future could depend on how its leaders respond. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for example, must clearly outline the risks that regional instability poses to NATO's collective defense posture — especially given Turkey's proximity to Iran. As leaders of countries with permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council, French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer could play a vital role in strengthening coordination between NATO and the U.N. Likewise, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will be instrumental in shaping NATO-EU relations, while Norwegian President Jonas Gahr Store and his Finnish counterpart, Alexander Stubb, could help reinvigorate diplomacy and restore the alliance's moral compass. Ultimately, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's effectiveness will largely depend on leaders' commitment to pursuing rational, law-abiding security policies. Even beyond the immediate Iran crisis, NATO finds itself at a crossroads. The Hague summit may ultimately be seen as a defining moment — one that will determine whether the alliance can remain the world's most powerful defense organization, grounded in its members' shared concerns and contributions, or is destined to become a mere instrument of U.S.-Israeli strategic interests. If I were in office today, I would use the summit to highlight Israel's growing aggression and the security risks facing Turkey as the only NATO member in the region. I would ask Trump whether, in his 'America First' hierarchy, NATO allies now rank below nonmember Israel. Any leader willing to pose that question would take a principled stand against reckless military adventurism — and might just help save the alliance itself. Before the Iraq War, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder were dismissed as representatives of 'Old Europe' for opposing U.S. intervention. Had their warnings been heeded, the catastrophic costs of the war might have been avoided and Iran's regional influence would likely not be as significant as it is now. History has shown that wars launched before exhausting every diplomatic avenue lead to ruin for all involved. Russia's miscalculations in Ukraine serve as a grim reminder that while starting a war is easy, ending one is far more difficult. Today, as Trump's actions threaten further erosion of hard-won international laws, European leaders must push back. If NATO fails to uphold the rule of law, it risks forfeiting its role as the cornerstone of global security. The alliance's fate — and the future of global stability — will hinge on whether its leaders insist on pursuing peace rather than confrontation. Ahmet Davutoglu is a former prime minister (2014-2016) and foreign minister (2009-2014) of Turkey. © Project Syndicate, 2025
The Mainichi
4 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Japan seeks 8th round of tariffs talks in U.S. amid Trump impasse
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The Japanese government has informed the United States that its chief negotiator intends to conduct an eighth round of ministerial-level talks in Washington early next week, a source close to the matter said Thursday. With President Donald Trump appearing to harden his stance ahead of next Wednesday's deadline for his administration's 90-day pause on country-specific tariffs, Japan's last-ditch effort will hinge on whether Ryosei Akazawa can secure a deal that includes a reduced tariff rate on cars, the source said. In rounds of talks since April, the United States has been reluctant to accept Tokyo's request to withdraw or reduce the additional 25 percent tariff on cars. Amid the stalemate, Japan is seeking an extension of the tariff suspension deadline to allow talks to continue. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on Thursday expressed confidence that bilateral tariff negotiations with the United States are making steady progress. "We need to cover a wide range of areas, including nontariff barriers. But we are steadily and certainly making progress on each of them," Ishiba told a program on public broadcaster NHK. "Japan is the largest investor in the United States and the biggest contributor in terms of creating jobs. Our hope is that this will be taken into consideration," he said, underscoring the need for Washington to focus on investment rather than tariffs. His remarks came as Trump on Tuesday floated the idea of raising tariffs on imports from Japan to as high as 30 percent or 35 percent, while complaining about Japan's purchases of American rice and cars. "I'm not sure we're going to make a deal. I doubt it," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, calling Japan "very tough" and "very spoiled." The dispute over auto tariffs has been a key obstacle to a deal, with Washington also pressuring its Asian security ally to boost imports of U.S. farm products, including rice, cars and oil, to help reduce its large trade deficit. In return, Japan has highlighted its contributions to the U.S. economy and proposed a package deal that includes increased investment in the United States and cooperation on economic security, the source said. Without an extension to the 90-day pause on part of the so-called reciprocal tariffs, Japan will face an additional 14 percent country-specific tariff on top of the 10 percent baseline duty the United States has imposed on imports from all countries. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that the United States warned Japanese officials during talks in late May that it might demand a cap on the number of vehicles Japan could export to the United States -- a policy known as a voluntary export restriction, citing people familiar with the matter. But Japanese officials held firm, telling their U.S. counterparts they would not accept any deal that preserves Trump's 25 percent automotive tariff, resulting in a deadlock in the negotiations, the U.S. newspaper said.
The Diplomat
4 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Are India-US Relations at a Crossroads?
Donald Trump's intervention in a brief Indo-Pakistan conflict and his diplomatic theatrics have rekindled fears of a return to Washington's old habit of hyphenating India with Pakistan. In the wake of a terrorist attack in late April targeting tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, a series of military skirmishes took place between India and Pakistan. These involved extensive artillery barrages along the Line of Control (the de facto international border in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir), the use of drones and missiles to attack a range of targets, and the use of air power. Following this four-day conflict, Pakistan alleged that it had shot down as many as six Indian combat aircraft. General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defense staff, confirmed that the Indian Air Force had lost some aircraft but did not specify the number. After the hostilities concluded, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that he had successfully persuaded both India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire. To that end, he asserted that he had threatened to impose significant trade sanctions on both countries, thereby inducing them to end the ongoing hostilities. Pakistan lauded his public remarks and even briefly nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. (After Trump's decision to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran, Pakistan's political opposition asked its government to rescind the nomination.) India, for its part, has repeatedly and categorically denied that the ceasefire was a product of Trump's intervention. It is both difficult and unnecessary to adjudicate the veracity of either claim. What matters is that Trump's attempt to insert himself into this latest India-Pakistan crisis has set off alarm bells in New Delhi about the state of India-U.S. relations. Before Trump proclaimed his role in ending the brief, intense conflict, Vice President J.D. Vance had stated that the India-Pakistan crisis was 'none of our business.' Trump subsequently claimed the U.S. acted as mediator in defusing India-Pakistan tensions. The latter statement raised hackles in New Delhi owing to its long-standing aversion to external efforts to resolve its differences with Pakistan. Finally, to New Delhi's dismay, Trump decided to host General Asim Munir, the Pakistan Army's chief of staff, for lunch at the White House. Although little of substance emerged from the meeting, the optics were a source of considerable misgiving in New Delhi. Several Indian political analysts and commentators have argued that Trump's statements and actions suggest a return to the much-disliked U.S. policy of hyphenation: linking India and Pakistan in its dealings with the two antagonistic neighbors. Indeed, this had characterized U.S. policy toward the subcontinent during much of the Cold War. It was only under the late U.S. Ambassador Frank Wisner in the mid-1990s that Washington decided to de-hyphenate its relations with the two countries. Wisner, who served as the ambassador to New Delhi between 1994 and 1997, was able to pursue this strategy because of India's growing economic clout in the wake of its fitful embrace of economic liberalization in 1991. Subsequent administrations, for the most part, adhered to this policy. Even after the renewal of a Pakistan-U.S. security relationship following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States, Washington maintained a cordial and mostly robust relationship with India. The India-U.S. partnership even survived Secretary of State Colin Powell's maladroit designation of Pakistan as a 'major non-NATO ally' in 2004, despite causing its share of unease in New Delhi. What, in considerable part, redeemed the India-U.S. relationship was President George W. Bush's monumental decision in 2005 to pursue the India-U.S. civilian nuclear accord. This accord, for all practical purposes, exempted India from the strictures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 and allowed it to maintain its nuclear weapons program. All prior U.S. presidents had, to varying degrees, sought to cajole, persuade and even browbeat India to eschew its nuclear weapons program and accede to the NPT. Bush's decision to make an exception for India amounted to what scholars of international relations refer to as a 'costly signal' — namely, one that requires the expenditure of significant domestic and international political capital. In its wake, India-U.S. relations had been placed on a far more secure footing. Subsequent administrations, both Democratic and Republican, steadily built upon the solid foundations that Bush had constructed during his second term in office. The Barack Obama administration, for example, during its first year in office, neglected India. However, Obama visited India in 2010. During the visit, much to the surprise of his interlocutors in New Delhi, in a speech to the Indian Parliament he publicly stated that the United States, at some point, would look forward to including New Delhi as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Since this was a long-standing Indian goal, his announcement came as a very pleasant surprise to the Indian political leadership. Also, at the initiative of then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the administration designated India as a 'Major Defense Partner,' thereby easing defense acquisitions from the United States. Even the advent of the first Trump administration did not lead to substantial policy changes. India, it appeared, had for all practical purposes become a mostly bipartisan issue. The Joe Biden administration, despite expressing some misgivings about democratic backsliding and human rights in India, continued to deepen and broaden the strategic partnership, especially because of its concerns about an increasingly assertive, if not downright revanchist, China in Asia. Trump's return to office in 2025, however, has seen some disturbing signs, largely because of his propensity to use trade as a weapon or at least a source of leverage. Unlike in the past, perhaps cognizant of Trump's inclination to exploit the trade deficit with India as a political blunderbuss, the Modi government indicated a willingness to make certain trade concessions. These trade negotiations, though initially promising, have yet to result in an accord. Meanwhile, Trump's maladroit remarks and his hosting of General Munir have cast a pall on the India-U.S. relationship. It is, of course, possible that New Delhi is needlessly tying itself in knots about these ill-advised statements from the White House. They may simply reflect Trump's proclivity for self-aggrandizement and a degree of policy incoherence. That said, given Trump's mercurial disposition, New Delhi's concerns about the future of the relationship may well be understandable. Much of the progress that has been achieved in India-U.S. relations could suffer a setback owing to Trump's ill-advised remarks. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
