HSBC’s recent analysis names Japan, India and China as the most likely beneficiaries of any forthcoming long‑term trade agreements with the United States, underscoring their economic heft, strategic alignment and current momentum in bilateral discussions. In a note to clients on May 15, Frederic Neumann, HSBC’s chief Asia economist, argued that these three economies are “in pole position” to secure preferential market access, thanks to a confluence of factors ranging from diplomatic ties and investment flows to sectoral complementarities and recent tariff negotiations.

Japan stands out at the top of the shortlist. As the largest Asian investor in the United States—having poured over \$300 billion into American businesses over the past decade—it combines deep commercial integration with an established security alliance anchored by the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty. Beyond their longstanding defense partnership, Japan and the U.S. have collaborated intensively on technology and clean‑energy initiatives. Japanese automakers are already expanding electric‑vehicle supply chains in North America to meet evolving emissions regulations, while semiconductor firms such as Toshiba and Sony are investing in U.S. chip‑manufacturing capacity under the CHIPS and Science Act. Those commitments align closely with Washington’s goal of domesticizing critical technology sectors, positioning Tokyo favorably for discussions on tariff reductions or sector‑specific concessions.

India’s candidacy has accelerated this spring, after New Delhi publicly signaled willingness to dismantle nearly all of its remaining tariffs on U.S. goods in return for concessions in digital services and mobility. That offer represents the most ambitious opening salvo from any major trading partner in recent years, reflecting India’s broader economic reform drive under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. India’s exports of pharmaceuticals, information‑technology services and engineering goods have surged even amid global headwinds, making it an attractive counterbalance to China for U.S. policymakers seeking diversified supply chains. In turn, U.S. firms are lobbying for lower duties on auto parts, capital machinery and agricultural equipment, betting that India’s rapidly growing middle class and infrastructure‑build out will translate into robust demand.

China remains in the hunt despite lingering geopolitical tensions. Ongoing high‑level consultations between Washington and Beijing have doused expectations of an imminent “phase three” tariff rollback, yet they underscore both sides’ recognition of mutual economic stakes. China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury debt and America’s second‑largest trading partner, with two‑way goods and services trade topping \$800 billion in 2024. From China’s perspective, securing relief from existing 25 percent tariffs on industrial inputs—such as steel and aluminum—would provide a lifeline to export‑oriented provinces. For U.S. manufacturers, a reduction in China’s 35 percent duties on U.S. soybean and pork producers could ease farm‑state political pressure. Despite strategic rivalry, trade pragmatism continues to drive incremental dialogues, placing China firmly on HSBC’s shortlist.

HSBC’s analysis also spotlights two unexpected contenders: Singapore and Australia. Both economies have deeper‑than‑anticipated U.S. linkages in areas championed by the current American administration. Singapore’s status as a hub for advanced‑manufacturing and biomedical research dovetails with U.S. priorities in next‑generation healthcare and precision engineering. Meanwhile, Australia’s abundant mineral resources—especially critical metals like lithium and cobalt essential for electric vehicles and renewable‑energy storage—make it a compelling partner for Washington’s green‑energy ambitions. Though neither country carries the same scale as Japan, India or China, their niche strengths and pro‑U.S. diplomatic posture could allow them to “unexpectedly race ahead,” in Neumann’s words.

From a U.S. corporate perspective, preserving access to these key Asian markets is paramount. American multinationals collectively derive more revenues from Japan, India and other Asia‑Pacific economies than from any single European partner. Industries ranging from aerospace and pharmaceuticals to digital platforms and agricultural commodities are lobbying intensively to prevent new barriers—or to secure reductions in existing duties. The aerospace sector, for instance, sees Japan’s airline modernization programs as a springboard for sales of Boeing jets and Pratt & Whitney engines. Likewise, U.S. agribusiness firms view tariff relief in India as central to stabilizing export volumes of wheat, corn and dairy products.

HSBC’s briefing underscores that any successful trade deal will likely hinge on binding purchasing commitments. Washington is expected to press Asian counterparts for guaranteed off‑take of U.S. mineral fuels—particularly liquefied natural gas—alongside high‑value manufactured goods. Commitments to acquire American‑made aircraft, farm equipment, electric vehicles and even defense hardware could form the backbone of reciprocal market‑access deals. In exchange, Asian economies might negotiate preferential access to specialized supply chains in technology and pharmaceuticals, sectors where U.S. firms maintain cutting‑edge capabilities.

Yet the talks are not without hurdles. Non‑tariff barriers—such as product‑safety regulations, digital‑data localization rules and opaque standards—remain a sticking point. India’s nascent data‑protection regime and China’s cybersecurity framework, for example, could complicate market entry for U.S. tech firms. Japan’s evolving food‑safety inspections and labeling requirements pose challenges for U.S. agricultural exporters. To address these concerns, Neumann suggests that Asian policymakers announce parallel reforms to ease regulatory burdens, thereby demonstrating goodwill and accelerating negotiations.

Equally important are direct investment flows. U.S. trade negotiators have flagged the need for stronger protections for American investors abroad, particularly in areas like intellectual‑property enforcement and arbitration mechanisms. Japan has long maintained bilateral investment treaties with robust dispute‑resolution provisions, offering a model for India and China. New Delhi’s pending reforms to streamline foreign‑direct‑investment approvals are widely seen as a positive step in that direction. Beijing, meanwhile, has negotiated investment‑screening procedures for foreign capital that could be fine‑tuned to satisfy U.S. concerns without undermining China’s domestic policy objectives.

Geopolitical considerations infuse every aspect of these discussions. For Washington, securing deeper economic ties with the world’s three most populous nations aligns with the broader Indo‑Pacific strategy aimed at balancing China’s rise. Forging a high‑stakes trilateral arrangement with Japan and India could reinforce a shared security‑and‑prosperity architecture, even as separate bilateral talks with Beijing focus on damage control. ASEAN economies, too, stand to be influenced by the outcome, mindful that a U.S. trade package that privileges select partners could reshape regional supply‑chain loyalties.

The timeline for reaching definitive agreements remains fluid. Informal “scoping” sessions have already occurred in Washington, New Delhi and Tokyo, but formal negotiating rounds are not slated until later this summer. Observers expect an initial tranche of targeted sectoral pacts—covering areas like semiconductors, electric vehicles and pharmaceuticals—before any comprehensive free‑trade agreement emerges. That phased approach would allow negotiators to secure tangible wins early, building momentum for broader market‑access concessions.

For investors and corporate planners, the key milestone will be the issuance of a consolidated negotiating text, likely to be released in the fall. Until then, pledge‑driven announcements—such as India’s tariff‑drop offer or Japan’s infrastructure commitments under the Build Back Better World initiative—will serve as barometers of each country’s negotiating posture. Trade experts caution, however, that headline‑grabbing pledges can mask the real work of resolving technical issues in rules of origin, dispute‑settlement mechanisms and regulatory harmonization.

Ultimately, HSBC’s designation of Japan, India and China as favoured candidates reflects a blend of economic scale, political alignment and recent diplomatic signals. While the precise contours of any trade deal remain uncertain, one thing is clear: American and Asian leaders view these negotiations not merely as tariff‑cutting exercises but as strategic instruments to shape global economic networks for decades to come. As Madison Avenue negotiators prepare for the next round of trade talks, corporate and government stakeholders alike will be watching closely, gauging who gains the upper hand—and which markets emerge as the true winners of one of the world’s most consequential commercial contests.

(Adapted from BusinessTimes.com.sg)

Categories: Economy & Finance, Geopolitics, Regulations & Legal, Strategy