林德宜：大马是否在特朗普关税战中让渡过多？

当东盟区域的各方经济利益相关者开始评估美国总统特朗普最近出席东盟峰会所带来的损害时，一个关键问题逐渐浮现：

区内国家，尤其是马来西亚，是否被迫仓促签订了不利的协议？各国领导人是否“让渡过多”，超出了历史情势所要求的程度？

反对这种说法的人辩称，为了争取快速且“有利”的协议，有必要利用特朗普众所周知的“喜欢奉承”的弱点。不过，从峰会结果来看，没有任何东盟国家获得所谓“特别待遇”。以下的主要得失对照显示出这一点：

短期利益vs长期代价

市场准入--避免高达49%的惩罚性关税，维持对美出口市场的准入，为主要出口项目争取暂时的喘息与可预测性。

美国仍可随时以“国家安全”等理由单方面提高关税。美国日后与其他国家的协议，也可能削弱东盟国家原有的竞争优势。

经济让步--协议包括重大采购承诺（如波音飞机、液化天然气）及鼓励在美投资的条款。然而部分承诺可能因生产或监管限制难以兑现。

战略与主权代价--协议纳入针对中国的“经济安全”条款，如配合美国出口管制，等同将国家安全部分外包给美国，并可能引发中国（东盟最大贸易伙伴）的反制。这点在社交媒体上引起广泛讨论。

法律与执行问题--协议缺乏传统争端解决机制，美国握有巨大谈判筹码，使东盟国家难以对美方行动提出挑战。为防范中国转口的“再出口条款”模糊不清，也为企业制造巨大不确定性。

协议主要条款与区域脉络

美国与马来西亚、柬埔寨签署的协议，以及与越南、泰国建立的框架，都有若干关键特征，体现了上述的种种权衡取舍，这在本区域的经济史上是前所未见的:

· 关税结构：马来西亚、柬埔寨等同意降低或取消部分美国商品的关税。作为回报，美国承诺将其对这些国家的关税上限限制在19%，低于原本威胁的逾40%。

· 原产地与转口规定：协议重点在防止第三国，尤其是中国借由东盟转口。美国推动更严格的“原产地”与“转口”规范，以杜绝中国货物经轻微加工或改标后出口美国。不过，缺乏公开明确的公式，让区域供应链陷入不确定。

· 囚徒困境中的“最不坏选项”：协议支持者认为，这是东盟国家在“怕邻国先谈成协议、抢走竞争优势”情境下的现实选择。然而这种“各自为政”削弱了东盟的集体谈判力，也背离了“团结应对”的口号，让区域长期利益被短期个别利益取代。

乐观派为这些快速签署的协议辩护，称其为“务实的止损方案”，可暂时避免经济危机，阻止美国高额关税立刻生效。但代价是庞大的经济让步、与中国关系的战略风险，以及明显偏向美国利益的条件。中长期后果可能是削弱“东盟中心性”，让成员国更深陷美中对抗之中。

值得注意的是，这些贸易协议在美国本土仍面临法律挑战——这使“各国过早仓促回应”的批评更具说服力。

美国最高法院：将如何裁决特朗普关税？

11月5日，美国最高法院将审理两宗针对特朗普关税权限的案件，这不仅关乎总统权力的边界，也将对全球产生外溢效应。

关税合法性的疑虑
诉讼焦点在于：特朗普政府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）征收的全面性关税是否违宪。之前美国低级法院，国际贸易法院与联邦巡回上诉法院已裁定，总统在IEEPA下的权力并不涵盖此等广泛关税。最高法院将作出最终裁决。

风险：若最高法院推翻或限制这些关税，美国政府与东盟谈判时的主要筹码将大幅削弱，甚至完全丧失。

批评观点：批评者认为，东盟国家在关税合法性尚未确定前就签约，等于在压力下谈判。若等最高法院裁决后再谈，或许能以更有利条件签署，甚至可免除现有协议中的让步。

结论

美国金融界预计最高法院的裁决结果将“势均力敌”，而最新报导显示有60%的机会对特朗普不利。

无论结果如何，马来西亚与其他东盟国应在法院裁决后，尽快以个别或集体方式重新与美国谈判贸易协议。这可望在明年初展开，也可配合其他美国盟友的重新谈判进程。

新的谈判应强调：特朗普关税政策已严重破坏以规则为基础的全球贸易体系，对东盟这一全球供应链核心区域造成负面冲击。

同样重要的是，要指出这些协议违反世界贸易组织原则与规范，是美国在战略上的重大误判，将进一步削弱其在亚洲乃至全球的影响力与声望——这种衰退，或许是二战以来最严重的一次。

林德宜《大马是否在特朗普关税战中让渡过多？》原文：Did Malaysia Bent Its Knee Too Much in Response To Trump Tariff War

As stake players and stakeholders in the economic well being of the ASEAN region undertake assessment of the damage count from President Donald Trump’s recent visit, one key concern is emerging.

This is whether countries of the region, and especially Malaysia, have been or are being rushed into premature agreements; and whether the leaders of countries in the region may be “bending their knee” more than the historical situation and circumstance demands.

Those refuting this contention argue that it was necessary to secure a quick, and what some negotiators from the region regard as a "favorable" deal, by taking advantage of Trump's well known susceptibility to flattery and praise. However no “special deal” appears to have been secured by any ASEAN member country from the summit meeting. This is clear from the summary of core trade-offs below. 

Pros (Short-Term Benefits) Cons (Long-Term Costs & Risks)

Market Access--Maintains access to the U.S. market by avoiding crippling tariffs (as high as 49%). Provides at least temporary relief and predictability for key exports. 

The U.S. can still unilaterally raise tariffs in the future for "national security" or other reasons. Subsequent U.S. deals with other countries could undermine the competitive advantage gained.

Economic Concessions-- Agreements include major purchase commitments (e.g., Boeing aircraft, LNG) and facilitation of investments in the U.S.. Some of these may be hard or even impossible to fulfill due to production and regulatory constraints.

Strategic & Sovereignty Costs-- Includes "economic security" provisions aimed at China, such as aligning with U.S. export controls. This risks subcontracting national security interests to the U.S. and may provoke countermeasures from China, ASEAN's largest trading partner. This concern has been a major feature in the social media. 

Legal & Enforcement Issues-- Deals lack traditional dispute settlement mechanisms. The U.S. retains significant leverage, making it risky for ASEAN partners to challenge U.S. actions. New, unclear rules on transshipment to counter China create major uncertainty for businesses.

Key Provisions of the Deals and Regional Context

The agreements signed with Malaysia and Cambodia, along with frameworks for Vietnam and Thailand, share several key features that illustrate the above trade-offs which are unprecedented in the region’s economic history :

· Tariff Structure: ASEAN countries like Malaysia and Cambodia agreed to eliminate or reduce their tariffs on a range of U.S. goods. In return, the U.S. agreed to cap its tariffs on their goods at no higher than 19%, a reduction from the initially threatened rates of over 40%.

· Rules of Origin and Transshipment: A notable feature is the focus on preventing third countries, particularly China, from benefiting. The U.S. is pushing for stricter rules and enforcement against transshipment, which involves Chinese goods being slightly processed or relabeled in ASEAN nations before being exported to the U.S.. However, the lack of a clear, published formula for these rules creates uncertainty for regional supply chains.

· A "Least-Worst Option" in a Prisoner's Dilemma: Supporters of the concluded agreements and those to come soon in the region see the bilateral deals as the least-worst option.

Fearing that their neighbors might cut a deal first and gaining a competitive advantage, each country has negotiated alone, undermining the collective bargaining power of ASEAN; and negating assertions by leaders of the importance of standing together. This has led to a situation where the region's economic interests and longer term resilience have been subordinated for individual, short-term gains.

Optimistic defenders of the trade agreements reached have touted these quick deals as a pragmatic solution. Thus they note that it can successfully avert an immediate economic crisis by preventing prohibitively high U.S. tariffs. However, the agreements to date have come at the price of significant economic concessions, heightened strategic risks with China, and the acceptance of terms that heavily favors U.S. leverage and interests. The medium and long-term consequence may be a weakening of ASEAN centrality as members are pulled deeper into the U.S.- China rivalry.

Meanwhile, it is necessary to emphasise an important point missing from much of the objection to the trade agreements concluded. This is that the trade agreements are being legally contested in the U.S. which makes the concern of its premature responses stronger and more persuasive.

U.S. Supreme Court: How Will It Rule On Trump Tariffs

On November 5, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a pair of challenges to Trump’s power to impose sweeping tariffs on virtually all goods imported into the U.S. The stakes are high as the cases are not only an important test of presidential power but also for their external impacts.

The Uncertainty of the Tariffs' Legality
The Lawsuit: The tariffs imposed by the current administration, largely under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), being challenged in US courts, includes an appeal to the Supreme Court. Lower courts (the US Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) have already ruled against the broad application of these tariffs, suggesting they exceed the President's authority under IEEPA.The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon.

The Risk: If the Supreme Court were to strike down or significantly limit the tariffs, the primary leverage the U.S. administration used in the negotiations with ASEAN countries would be greatly reduced or even removed entirely.

The Argument: Critics argue that by signing agreements while the tariffs were still legally contested, ASEAN nations were negotiating from a position of weakness under duress. Had they waited for a favorable Supreme Court ruling, they might have secured much better terms - or even the automatic removal of the tariff - without having to make the concessions included in the current deals.

Conclusion

Market players in the US are expecting a close call on the Trump tariff case at the Supreme Court with the latest news report predicting that there is a 60 percent chance that the court will rule against the President.

Whatever the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, Malaysia and ASEAN member countries should consider individual as well as collective renegotiation of the imposed trade agreements with the United States as soon as practicable. This can take place as early as next year following the Court decision. Or it can follow up on the outcome of the trade renegotiation agreements that other countries, including some of the U.S. closest allies are engaged in with the Trump administration.

This renegotiation can allow ASEAN countries to drive home the disruption that Trump's tariff policy has unleashed on the rules-based global trading system and its negative economic impact on ASEAN which is a key player in global markets and supply chains. 

Equally important is the need to emphasize that the latest trade agreements are a violation of the World Trade Organization’s principles and rules and also a strategic blunder that will continue to seriously diminish American influence and standing in the region and world which is at its worst level since the end of the Second World War.