\n
<\/p>\n
Ever since U.S. President Donald Trump announced his \u201cLiberation Day<\/a>\u201d tariffs on the rest of the world, there have been, according to the White House, lines of supplicants begging<\/a> for trade deals.\u00a0<\/p>\n The list, even the short list, is long. At the top of it are India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Britain, and maybe the European Union. These are the countries and economic blocs, some of them quite large, with which the Trump administration aims to reach agreements on all the irritants in trade relations in the next 60 or so days. There may be another 180-odd countries in the queue.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Ever since U.S. President Donald Trump announced his \u201c<\/span>Liberation Day<\/span><\/a>\u201d tariffs on the rest of the world, there have been, according to the White House, lines of supplicants <\/span>begging<\/span><\/a> for trade deals.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The list, even the short list, is long. At the top of it are India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Britain, and maybe the European Union. These are the countries and economic blocs, some of them quite large, with which the Trump administration aims to reach agreements on all the irritants in trade relations in the next 60 or so days. There may be another 180-odd countries in the queue.<\/span><\/p>\n Many of them are jostling to get to the front of the line\u2014<\/span>Japan<\/span><\/a>, for instance, seems to have line-jumped in front of <\/span>India<\/span><\/a> for the first deal, though long-standing <\/span>issues<\/span><\/a> such as trade in steel and autos may complicate even an accord with the United States\u2019 main security partner in Asia.<\/span><\/p>\n South Korea<\/span><\/a>, too, is angling for special treatment; <\/span>Europe<\/span><\/a> has offered to buy more natural gas to appease Trump but also reached for a few sticks. Talks with Vietnam, the principal conduit for Chinese-made manufactures into the United States, are being held under a Damocles sword of 46 percent tariffs. Israel, which since 1985 has had a free-trade agreement with the United States, <\/span>is mulling<\/span><\/a> further concessions to go back to a status quo ex ante. Britain, which <\/span>previously prostrated<\/span><\/a> itself to win a trade deal with its minor trade partner in Washington rather than its neighbor and much bigger trade partner in Brussels, was pushed<\/a> to the back of the bus yet again. The Trump administration says that deals with scores of countries are in the works, all to avoid the worst of the punitive tariffs announced, and then suspended for 90 days, on and shortly after April 2.<\/span><\/p>\n But whatever arrangements these talks are going to yield in that time frame, they won\u2019t be trade deals. True trade deals take years to negotiate and grapple with extremely technical issues, such as phytosanitary standards and the proper treatment and upbringing of poultry.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe question is what happens after this 90-day pause. I imagine after the White House declares victory spotlighting \u2018framework\u2019 agreements with a handful of countries, the hard work will begin. When it comes to trade deals, the devil is in the details,\u201d\u00a0<\/span>said Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator now at the Asia Society.<\/span><\/p>\n In reality, these talks are preliminary white flags rolled out by the White House<\/span> to ameliorate the damage Trump has already done to the U.S. economy and, to a lesser extent, the global one. His love of tariffs already <\/span>shrank the U.S. economy<\/span><\/a> in the first quarter of this year, and that was the economy that was outperforming everyone else<\/a>. Stock and bond markets still have the jitters, and the oil market is traumatized.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Part of the problem is that countries don\u2019t know how to please Trump, who touts tariffs as a permanent U.S. revenue source, a way to reshore U.S. manufacturing, and a point of leverage for negotiations. Where to start?<\/span><\/p>\n Also frustrating to other countries\u2014and, indeed, some members of the U.S. Congress in Trump\u2019s own party\u2014is that the United States <\/span>seems unsure<\/span><\/a> of who its trade interlocutors even are, even though their job titles are quite straightforward. After a meeting this week with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Republican Sen. Rand Paul <\/span>voiced concern<\/span><\/a> at the administration\u2019s top-down approach to trade talks. \u201c<\/span>It reminded me of a meeting on industrial policy in the Soviet Union, where you have to be nice to the tsar because if you\u2019re nice to the tsar, they\u2019ll bequeath upon you exceptions to the iron fist,\u201d Paul <\/span>said<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Trump wants more purchases of U.S. goods overseas, though he <\/span>tanked<\/span><\/a> the $30 billion Chinese market for U.S. agriculture, and the United States can\u2019t easily sell more U.S. cars or trucks overseas, where emissions requirements and consumer tastes mitigate heavily against. Europe would happily buy more U.S. natural gas, but it can nowhere near absorb the <\/span>$350 billion<\/span><\/a> in force-fed fossil fuel exports Trump has proposed. China has <\/span>forsworn Boeing<\/span><\/a>. And so on.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIf people are expecting the tariff-related issues to be resolved by the end of the 90-day period, they are going to be disappointed,\u201d Cutler said. \u201cThe tariff saga is likely to keep on giving for the foreseeable future.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n This post is part of FP\u2019s ongoing coverage of the Trump administration<\/i>. <\/i>Follow along here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n