Signs indicate that Vietnam has been a sneak attack on the United States.
On the surface, it seems that after Trump’s global taxation on April 2nd, Vietnam became the second country to reach an agreement with the United States, following the UK. However, we see:
1. So far, the US and Vietnam have not determined a specific tariff level;
2. Both sides have said they have a joint statement but have not disclosed it externally;
3. Vietnam has remained quite low-key, almost to the point of being shrouded in secrecy.
The only public disclosure seems to be Trump’s self-serving statements on social media on July 2nd:
1. The US tariff rate on Vietnam has been reduced from the claimed 46% to 20%;
2. Tariffs on goods transshipped through Vietnam are set at 40%;
3. The US has zero tariffs on its exports to Vietnam.
Isn’t this quite unequal? Especially the 40% tariff rate, which is known worldwide, targeting who exactly?
The devil lurks in the details.
According to the latest disclosure by Politico, Vietnam was likely caught by surprise by Trump’s last-minute attack.
According to four sources,
At the time, the Vietnamese negotiation team believed that the agreed tariff rates were actually around 11%.
However, when Trump suddenly announced them on July 2nd, they were suddenly raised to 20%, shocking Vietnam because
Vietnamese negotiators had never accepted a 20% tariff rate”
Moreover, Trump confidently announced that he had reached a deal with Su Lín, the leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam, during a phone call, claiming that Su Lín had agreed to the terms.
In fact, Trump overlooked the issue of tariffs during his call with Su Lín, and “Su Lín did not participate in the initial tariff negotiations.”
According to the report, a Washington lobbyist who works with governments in Vietnam and other Asian countries also expressed astonishment, including members of the outside groups closely monitoring the progress of negotiations.
“Trump has deceived everyone.”
The Vietnamese government’s response was described as
“surprise, disappointment, and anger.”
Knowing Trump is unreliable, but not expecting him to be this absurd.
Of course, the White House has different accounts.
An anonymous White House official stated that there was no issue with Trump’s temporary tax increase; the Vietnamese side had already known about the maximum tax rate before the call. He said:
“My understanding is that both sides’ trade teams have almost agreed upon a deal, which was then finalized by the leaders of both parties.”
However, during the Obama administration, Deputy Trade Representative Wendy Carter believed that Trump’s behind-the-scenes maneuvers against Vietnam
“further exacerbated uncertainty—even if you thought you had reached an agreement, he could change the terms at any moment, and in this case, it was clearly unilateral and public changes made by Vietnam without participation.”
Therefore, this can also explain why after so many days of announcements of agreements, the two countries have not signed the formal agreements, nor is it clear when the relevant tariff rates will take effect, whether they will truly take effect.
Additionally, Vietnam has remained silent.
Only on the day Trump announced his victory did Vietnamese media report on the related agreement, but it did not mention any “agreed” tariff terms, only revealing that
Trump’s conversation with Su Lin led to the “joint declaration of a fair, balanced, and reciprocal trade agreement.”
Even this joint declaration has not been officially released yet. According to American media interpretations,
this might reflect Vietnam’s dissatisfaction with Trump’s destruction of the original agreement.
In other words, the fate of the US-Vietnam agreement remains unknown.
First, it’s important to understand Trump’s “art of trading.”
During his time as a real estate developer, Trump wrote “The Art of Trading,” and I saw that someone summarized that his so-called transactions generally involve four steps.
The first step is to propose astonishing goals, setting conditions far beyond expectations, leaving opponents stunned.
Second step, then aggressively promote through various public opinion campaigns to strengthen its deterrent power.
Third step, decision-making subsequently oscillates back and forth, creating various uncertainties in negotiations, offering space for the other party while not easily agreeing to their demands, causing them to feel anxious.
Fourth step, ultimately forcing the other party to compromise, yet still hoping not to receive the worst outcome.
The so-called art of negotiation is to present a condition far beyond expectations, leaving the other party at a loss for action. Constantly changing tactics exert pressure on the opponent, offering suboptimal conditions that the opponent accepts, achieving the initial goal.
This is typical intimidation.
To withstand intimidation, one must be firm in their resolve, calm, and not panic.
Secondly, it’s crucial to guard against sudden surprise attacks.
This could be the most terrifying. There’s no trustworthiness involved.
If “Politico” disclosed facts that Trump suddenly changed his stance, originally expecting a tax rate around 11%, he openly announced 20% and forced Vietnam to accept.
If Vietnam accepted, then they risked success and were elated, making a significant profit;
If Vietnam did not accept, apologies, you have just slapped me in the face, and all previous negotiations are nullified.
Vietnam finds itself in this dilemma. Being caught off guard and having no way out.
Moreover, there’s another issue. Even if we reluctantly accept 20%, what happens when Trump suddenly changes his mind again? Now it’s 40%, what should we do?
Poor Vietnam. But a 40% import tariff rate, if true, how much more tragic and hateful it would be.
Thirdly, what is the meaning of negotiation?
I saw an article published by the South China Morning Post on July 9th titled “Trump’s Unpredictable Trade Issues: What Does Negotiation Really Mean?”
Do these negotiations solve any problems, or are they just part of Trump’s performance show for American audiences?
Even if concessions are made to the United States in the “equal tariff” negotiations, it might be futile because Trump has introduced tariffs on specific industries, which are more threatening.
The article hasn’t mentioned Vietnam as an example, but I always feel that it is more dramatic and representative. As former Assistant Trade Representative Brodman put it,
“(The President) making such moves is tantamount to completely destroying the credibility of the negotiators.”
How can negotiations proceed then? What good would they do?
Therefore, the final statement in the South China Morning Post article said,
Trump insists he holds “all cards” in trade negotiations, and countries need to sit down at the negotiating table and accept his demands or face consequences.
Looking ahead, the question is whether there will be a critical point where, after seeing the increasingly excessive repetition by the United States, countries decide to let Trump play alone at the negotiating table.
If the world stops playing altogether, wouldn’t that really mean the United States is singing solo?