Embargoes and Sanctions

More stories

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Russia’s Moves in Ukraine Unsettle Energy Companies and Prices

    by

    Oil and gas prices are up, and Western energy giants with operations and investments in Russia could find it harder to keep doing business there.Russia’s recognition of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine could threaten important investments of Western oil giants and further drive up global energy prices in the next few weeks.Since the closing days of the Cold War, Russia’s energy-based economy has become entwined with Europe’s. European energy companies like BP, TotalEnergies and Shell have major operations and investments in Russia. Though expansion of those holdings was largely halted after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, they remain important profit centers and could now be at risk.Seeking to isolate President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President Biden and the European Union imposed new sanctions on the Russian government and the country’s political and business elite on Tuesday. The measures do not directly target the energy industry. That’s why oil and gas prices settled only modestly higher on Tuesday afternoon in New York.But analysts said the energy industry could still be hurt if the crisis dragged on, particularly if Mr. Putin decided to send troops into the rest of Ukraine or sought to take control of the capital, Kyiv. Such aggressive action would most likely force Mr. Biden and other Western leaders to ratchet up their response.European leaders are already taking aim at some Russian energy exports. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Tuesday that Germany would halt certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is supposed to deliver Russian gas. The decision will not have an immediate impact on European energy supplies because the pipeline is not yet operating. But Russian gas shipments through Ukraine could be halted, especially if Mr. Putin’s troops push farther into Ukraine or if he cuts off gas to Europe in retaliation for Western sanctions.Russia supplies one out of every 10 barrels of oil used around the world. After Western officials said Russian troops had entered eastern Ukrainian regions held by separatists, oil prices quickly jumped early Tuesday to nearly $100 a barrel, their highest level in more than seven years, before moderating.Energy experts say oil prices could easily rise another $20 a barrel if Mr. Putin seeks to occupy more or all of Ukraine. Such an outcome would also cause huge problems for Western oil companies that do business in Russia.“In that environment, the legal and reputational risk faced by Western energy companies operating in Russia will rise sharply,” said Robert McNally, who was an energy adviser to President George W. Bush and is now president of the Rapidan Energy Group, a consulting firm. “For oil markets, this means slower supply growth and even tighter global balances and higher prices in the coming years.”TotalEnergies, which is based near Paris, owns nearly 20 percent of Novatek, Russia’s largest liquefied natural gas company, and Shell has a strategic alliance with Gazprom, Russia’s natural gas monopoly.The Salym oil field, which Shell operates jointly with Gazprom in western Siberia.Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr./BloombergThe Western oil company most involved in Russia is BP, which owns nearly 20 percent of Rosneft, the state-controlled energy company managed by Igor Sechin, who is widely considered a close Putin ally and adviser. BP’s chief executive, Bernard Looney, and its former chief executive Bob Dudley sit on Rosneft’s board with Mr. Sechin and Alexander Novak, Russia’s deputy prime minister.Rosneft contributed $2.4 billion in profits and $600 million in dividends to BP in 2021, and has a secondary listing on the London Stock Exchange. About a third of BP’s oil production, or 1.1 million barrels a day, came from Russia last year.BP executives have so far expressed calm. “We have been there over 30 years and our job is to focus on our business, and that is what we are doing,” Mr. Looney said in a recent conference call with analysts. “If something comes down the road, then obviously we will deal with it as it comes.”Most oil companies have been reporting bumper profits because of rising oil and gas prices. European firms are using some of their profits to invest more in wind, solar, hydrogen and other forms of cleaner energy. But the current crisis could be a major distraction, if not worse.Doing business in Russia has always been complicated, especially as Mr. Putin reasserted state control over energy, squeezing private investors.Shell was forced to give up control of its premier Russian liquefied natural gas project on Sakhalin Island, in eastern Russia, to Gazprom in 2006. Shell retains a modest stake in the facility, and it appears to want to keep the door open to more business in Russia. Along with four other European companies, it helped finance the estimated $11 billion Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany.TotalEnergies has continued investing in a $27 billion natural gas complex in the Yamal Peninsula, in the Arctic, that Novatek controls. The project sidestepped earlier Western sanctions by obtaining financing from Chinese banks. It began producing gas for European and Asian customers in 2017.Share prices of BP and Total closed on Tuesday down more than 2 percent, and Shell was down about 1 percent.Prospects for Western oil companies seeking to do business in Russia were once far brighter. Exxon Mobil, Italy’s ENI and other foreign oil companies teamed up with Rosneft in 2012 and 2013 to explore Arctic oil and gas fields.BP owns nearly 20 percent of Rosneft, which operates this refinery in Novokuibyshevsk, Russia.Andrey Rudakov/BloombergBut U.S. and European Union sanctions imposed after Russia’s seizure of Crimea forced many Western companies to stop expanding in Russia in part by limiting access to financing and technology for deepwater exploration.Exxon formally abandoned exploration ventures with Rosneft in 2018, and took a $200 million after-tax loss.Understand How the Ukraine Crisis DevelopedCard 1 of 7How it all began. More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Officials Appear Unlikely to Change Course Amid Ukraine Conflict

    by

    Conflict in Ukraine appears unlikely to shake Federal Reserve officials from their plans to pull back support for the economy at this point, but the rapid escalation in tension is sure to draw policymaker attention and could make for even higher inflation in the near term.The central bank has two jobs — fostering full employment and stable prices — and it has been preparing to raise interest rates and make other policy adjustments too cool down the economy as inflation runs at its fastest pace in 40 years.Oil and gas prices have already risen during the conflict and could continue to climb, leading to a higher peak in headline inflation, which includes prices at the pump. The Fed typically avoids reacting to fluctuations in energy prices when setting its policy, given the volatility of fuel costs, but the potential disruption could make ongoing inflation trends all the more painful for consumers.“The Federal Reserve pays very close attention to geopolitical events, and this one of course in particular as it’s the most prominent at this point,” Michelle Bowman, a Fed governor, said on Monday.Ms. Bowman noted that the U.S. has minor banking, financial, and trade interests with Russia, and that “we don’t believe that would have a significant impact” on the economy given the small size of those relationships.“But we do recognize that there are significant opportunities for potential impacts on the energy markets, as we’re moving forward, if things were to deteriorate,” Ms. Bowman added. “Obviously we’ll continue to watch that, and if we believe that might have some influence on the global economy, we’ll take that into account as we’re going into our meetings and discussing the economy more broadly.”High fuel prices could weigh on consumer spending on other goods and services as families devote more of their monthly budgets to energy. If the potential for war makes consumers uncertain about the future or sends stock prices plummeting, it also could weigh on demand as nervous shoppers retrench.Central bankers noted in minutes of their most recent meeting that geopolitical risks “could cause increases in global energy prices or exacerbate global supply shortages,” but also that they were a risk to the outlook for growth.But officials have painted it as more of one risk among many than as a pivotal point of concern.“We actually have seen fighting in this area of the world in the past,” James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said on CNBC last week. “I do think it’s quite an important foreign policy issue, but I’m not seeing it as a leading macroeconomic issue, at least at this point.”Assessing exactly what the conflict between Russia and Ukraine will mean for the American economy is challenging because it is unclear how much tensions will escalate and because it is not obvious how Russia might respond as the U.S. and Europe prepare sanctions.Plus, while rising fuel prices could push up inflation, global unease is likely to push the value of the dollar higher as global investors move into what they see as “safe-haven” assets. That could make imported goods cheaper, working in the opposite direction to rising fuel costs. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Why Are Oil Prices So High and Will They Stay That Way?

    by

    HOUSTON — Oil prices are increasing, again, casting a shadow over the economy, driving up inflation and eroding consumer confidence.Crude prices rose more than 15 percent in January alone, with the global benchmark price crossing $90 a barrel for the first time in more than seven years, as fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine grew.Though the summer driving season is still months away, the average price for regular gasoline is fast approaching $3.40 a gallon, roughly a dollar higher than it was a year ago, according to AAA.The Biden administration said in November that it would release 50 million barrels of oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to relieve the pressure on consumers, but the move hasn’t made much of a difference.Many energy analysts predict that oil could soon touch $100 a barrel, even as electric cars become more popular and the coronavirus pandemic persists. Exxon Mobil and other oil companies that only a year ago were considered endangered dinosaurs by some Wall Street analysts are thriving, raking in their biggest profits in years.Why are oil prices suddenly so high?The pandemic depressed energy prices in 2020, even sending the U.S. benchmark oil price below zero for the first time ever. But prices have snapped back faster and more than many analysts had expected in large part because supply has not kept up with demand.Oil prices are at their highest point since 2014.Price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark, and West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. standard

    Source: FactSetBy The New York TimesWestern oil companies, partly under pressure from investors and environmental activists, are drilling fewer wells than they did before the pandemic to restrain the increase in supply. Industry executives say they are trying not to make the same mistake they made in the past when they pumped too much oil when prices were high, leading to a collapse in prices.Elsewhere, in countries like Ecuador, Kazakhstan and Libya, natural disasters and political turbulence have curbed output in recent months.Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.“Unplanned outages have flipped what was thought to be a pivot towards surplus into a deep production gap,” said Louise Dickson, an oil markets analyst at Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm.On the demand side, much of the world is learning to cope with the pandemic and people are eager to shop and make other trips. Wary of coming in contact with an infectious virus, many are choosing to drive rather than taking public transportation.But the most immediate and critical factor is geopolitical.A potential Russian invasion of Ukraine has “the oil market on edge,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “In a tight market, any significant disruptions could send prices well above $100 per barrel,” Mr. Cahill wrote in a report this week.Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil a day, or roughly one of every 10 barrels used around the world on any given day. Americans would not be directly hurt in a significant way if Russian exports stopped, because the country sends only about 700,000 barrels a day to the United States. That relatively modest amount could easily be replaced with oil from Canada and other countries.A Russian invasion of Ukraine could interrupt oil and gas shipments, which would increase prices further.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesBut any interruption of Russian shipments that transit through Ukraine, or the sabotage of other pipelines in northern Europe, would cripple much of the continent and distort the global energy supply chain. That’s because, traders say, the rest of the world does not have the spare capacity to replace Russian oil.Even if Russian oil shipments are not interrupted, the United States and its allies could impose sanctions or export controls on Russian companies, limiting their access to equipment, which could gradually reduce production in that country.In addition, interruptions of Russian natural gas exports to Europe could force some utilities to produce more electricity by burning oil rather than gas. That would raise demand and prices worldwide.What can the United States and its allies do if Russian production is disrupted?The United States, Japan, European countries and even China could release more crude from their strategic reserves. Such moves could help, especially if a crisis is short-lived. But the reserves would not be nearly enough if Russian oil supplies were interrupted for months or years.Western oil companies that have pledged not to produce too much oil would most likely change their approach if Russia was unable or unwilling to supply as much oil as it did. They would have big financial incentives — from a surging oil price — to drill more wells. That said, it would take those businesses months to ramp up production.What is OPEC doing?President Biden has been urging the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to pump more oil, but several members have been falling short of their monthly production quotas, and some may not have the capacity to quickly increase output. OPEC members and their allies, Russia among them, are meeting on Wednesday, and will probably agree to continue gradually increasing production.In addition, if Russian supplies are suddenly reduced, Washington will most likely put pressure on Saudi Arabia to raise production independently of the cartel. Analysts think that the kingdom has several million barrels of spare capacity that it could tap in a crisis.What impact would higher oil prices have on the U.S. economy?A big jump in oil prices would push gasoline prices even higher, and that would hurt consumers. Working-class and rural Americans would be hurt the most because they tend to drive more. They also drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. And energy costs tend to represent a larger percentage of their incomes, so price increases hit them harder than more affluent people or city dwellers who have access to trains and buses.Rising oil and gas prices would pinch consumers, especially the less affluent and rural residents.Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA, via ShutterstockBut the direct economic impact on the nation would be more modest than in previous decades because the United States produces more and imports less oil since drilling in shale fields exploded around 2010 because of hydraulic fracturing. The United States is now a net exporter of fossil fuels, and the economies of several states, particularly Texas and Louisiana, could benefit from higher prices.What would it take for oil prices to fall?Oil prices go up and down in cycles, and there are several reasons prices could fall in the next few months. The pandemic is far from over, and China has shut down several cities to stop the spread of the virus, slowing its economy and demand for energy. Russia and the West could reach an agreement — formal or tacit — that forestalls a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.And the United States and its allies could restore a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran that former President Donald J. Trump abandoned. Such a deal would allow Iran to sell oil much more easily than now. Analysts think the country could export a million or more barrels daily if the nuclear deal is revived.Ultimately, high prices could depress demand for oil enough that prices begin to come down. One of the main financial incentives for buying electric cars, for example, is that electricity tends to be cheaper per mile than gasoline. Sales of electric cars are growing fast in Europe and China and increasingly also in the United States. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    What a Disconnect From Swift Would Mean for Russia

    by

    A Belgian financial messaging service is once again at the center of an international sanctions fight.WASHINGTON — President Biden has pledged that if Russia invades Ukraine it will face “severe economic consequences,” with the United States likely to unleash a blistering package of sanctions that would effectively cut the Russian economy off from much of the global financial system.The United States has become increasingly reliant on sanctions in the last decade as a way to address diplomatic problems, but directing such tools at an economy the size of Russia’s would come with little precedent. The Biden administration has said that all options remain on the table, suggesting that it could impose an array of sanctions on Russian financial institutions and new restrictions on the exports of American products. But the biggest question among sanctions experts when it comes to inflicting economic pain on Russia is the fate of a critical financial conduit: Swift.In sanctions circles, a move by the United States and its European allies to cut Russia off from Swift has been characterized as a nuclear option. However, doing so is not as simple as it sounds and could yield unintended consequences because of Russia’s size and position in the world economy.“The Russian economy is a different beast,” said Adam M. Smith, who served as a senior sanctions official in the Obama administration’s Treasury Department. “It is twice the size of any economy the U.S. has ever sanctioned.”A Treasury Department spokeswoman said the Biden administration was assessing potential “spillovers” from any sanctions it imposes on Russia and exploring ways to reduce any unintended negative effects. Last week, Biden administration officials met with representatives from U.S. banks to discuss the risks and potential market impacts of sanctions on Russia, including the possible ramifications of cutting off Swift access for entities that had been hit with sanctions.Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.What is Swift?Officially the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, Swift is a Belgian messaging service that connects more than 11,000 financial institutions as they transfer money around the world. It does not actually hold or transfer funds, but allows banks and other financial firms to alert one another of transactions that are about to take place.Swift is a global cooperative of financial institutions that is based in Belgium. It started in 1973 when 239 banks from 15 countries came together to figure out how to best handle cross-border payments.Despite its best efforts to be an apolitical cog in the international financial system, Swift has at times found itself embroiled in diplomatic disputes.Can Russia be booted from Swift?There have been continuing discussions between the United States and its allies in Europe over whether to block Russia’s access to Swift. However, the Biden administration could take that step unilaterally.If the United States decided to levy sanctions on Russian banks, it could then say that Swift was in violation of those sanctions by continuing to let those banks use its system. The Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022, which Senate Democrats unveiled this month, would authorize sanctions on providers of specialized financial messaging services, such as Swift, but the Biden administration could also impose such sanctions without the approval of Congress.Cutting a country’s access to Swift is not without precedent.In 2012, Swift expelled as many as 30 Iranian financial institutions, including its central bank, in order to comply with European Union sanctions that were enacted in response to Iran’s disputed nuclear energy program. Services were reconnected after the 2015 nuclear deal, and then cut again in 2018 after the Trump administration withdrew from the pact and resumed sanctions.How would Russia respond to being removed?Russia has faced such threats before. In 2014, when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, there were calls in Europe to exclude Russia from Swift. Dmitri A. Medvedev, then Russia’s prime minister, said at the time that such a move would be a “declaration of war.” According to the Carnegie Moscow Center, Russian forecasts at the time projected that being cut off from Swift would shrink the country’s gross domestic product by 5 percent.Last week, Nikolay Zhuravlev, the vice speaker of Russia’s Federation Council, told the government-run news agency TASS that removing Russia from Swift would also have economic consequences for European countries, which he said would not be able to receive imports of Russian oil, gas and metals as a result of Russia’s being unable to receive foreign currency.Mr. Smith, the former Treasury official, said the United States and Europe might look for ways to exempt certain Russian sectors, such as energy, from sanctions. However, moves to cut off Russia’s economy could have unintended consequences, such as Moscow retaliating, that could rattle global markets.“They are not without their own cards to play,” he said.A switch to Swift alternativesThe threat of being cut off from Swift might not be as dire as it was in the past.Several countries including Russia have developed their own financial messaging systems that, while less sophisticated than Swift, could allow Russian financial firms to maintain communications with the world. Russia began developing its system in 2014 amid threats of escalating sanctions from the United States.Mr. Medvedev, who is now the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, said last week that the new system was functional and that financial flows would be able to continue within Russia if the country was cut off from Swift. He acknowledged that international financial transfers could be complicated if that happened.“Yes, they will be more difficult, it is obvious, but it won’t be a catastrophe,” Mr. Medvedev said.Some experts on Russia sanctions agree that Western officials are overplaying the potential effects of disconnecting Russia from Swift.“Cutting Russia off from Swift — it won’t be as painful for Russia as Western officials envision,” said Maria Snegovaya, a visiting scholar at George Washington University and a co-author of an Atlantic Council report on U.S. sanctions on Russia.Edward Wong More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Sanctions Aimed at Russia Could Take a Wide Toll

    by

    The boldest measures that President Biden is threatening to deter an invasion of Ukraine could roil the entire Russian economy — but also those of other nations.WASHINGTON — The most punishing sanctions that U.S. officials have threatened to impose on Russia could cause severe inflation, a stock market crash and other forms of financial panic that would inflict pain on its people — from billionaires to government officials to middle-class families.U.S. officials vow to unleash searing economic measures if Russia invades Ukraine, including sanctions on its largest banks and financial institutions, in ways that would inevitably affect daily life in Russia.But the strategy comes with political and economic risks. No nation has ever tried to enact broad sanctions against such large financial institutions and on an economy the size of Russia’s. And the “swift and severe” response that U.S. officials have promised could roil major economies, particularly those in Europe, and even threaten the stability of the global financial system, analysts say.Some analysts also warn of a potential escalatory spiral. Russia might retaliate against an economic gut punch by cutting off natural gas shipments to Europe or by mounting cyberattacks against American and European infrastructure.The pain caused by the sanctions could foment popular anger against Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin. But history shows that the country does not capitulate easily, and resilience is an important part of its national identity. U.S. officials are also sensitive to the notion that they could be viewed as punishing the Russian people — a perception that might fuel anti-Americanism and Mr. Putin’s narrative that his country is being persecuted by the West.From Cuba to North Korea to Iran, U.S. sanctions have a mixed record at best of forcing a change in behavior. And while the Biden administration and its European allies are trying to deter Mr. Putin with tough talk, some experts question whether they would follow through on the most drastic economic measures if Russian troops breached the border and moved toward Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.President Biden has said he will not send American troops to defend Ukraine. Instead, U.S. officials are trying to devise a sanctions response that would land a damaging blow against Russia while limiting the economic shock waves around the world — including in the United States. Officials say that for now, the Biden administration does not plan to target Russia’s enormous oil and gas export industry; doing so could drive up gasoline prices for Americans already grappling with inflation and create a schism with European allies.But many experts on sanctions believe that the boldest sanctions against Russia’s financial industry, if enacted, could take a meaningful toll.“If the Biden administration follows through on its threat to sanction major Russian banks, that will reverberate across the entire Russian economy,” said Edward Fishman, who served as the top official for Russia and Europe in the State Department’s Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation during the Obama administration. “It will definitely affect everyday Russians.”Mr. Fishman added: “How are you going to change Putin’s calculus? By creating domestic disturbances. People will be unhappy: ‘Look what you did — all of a sudden my bank account is a fraction of what it was? Thanks, Putin.’”Understand Russia’s Relationship With the WestThe tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.Competing for Influence: For months, the threat of confrontation has been growing in a stretch of Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Threat of Invasion: As the Russian military builds its presence near Ukraine, Western nations are seeking to avert a worsening of the situation.Energy Politics: Europe is a huge customer of Russia’s fossil fuels. The rising tensions in Ukraine are driving fears of a midwinter cutoff.Migrant Crisis: As people gathered on the eastern border of the European Union, Russia’s uneasy alliance with Belarus triggered additional friction.Militarizing Society: With a “youth army” and initiatives promoting patriotism, the Russian government is pushing the idea that a fight might be coming.Sanctions imposed after Mr. Putin annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and gave military support to an insurgency in the country’s east created a modest drag on Russia’s economy. Those penalties and later ones took a surgical approach, heavily targeting Mr. Putin’s circle of elites as well as officials and institutions involved in aggression against Ukraine, in part to avoid making ordinary Russians suffer.U.S. officials say the impact of sanctions now would be categorically different.Washington is looking to take a sledgehammer to pillars of Russia’s financial system. The new sanctions that American officials are preparing would cut off foreign lending, sales of sovereign bonds, technologies for critical industries and the assets of elite citizens close to Mr. Putin.Previous sanctions heavily targeted Mr. Putin’s circle of elites as well as officials and institutions involved in aggression against Ukraine, in part to avoid making ordinary Russians suffer.Alexander Zemlianichenko/Associated PressBut the real damage to Russia’s $1.5 trillion economy would come from hitting the biggest state banks as well as the government’s Russian Direct Investment Fund, which has prominent Western executives on its advisory board. The Treasury Department would draw from its experience targeting Iranian banks under President Donald J. Trump, though Iran’s banks are much smaller and less integrated into the global economy than Russian banks.Once the department puts the Russian banks on what officials call its “game over” sanctions list, known as the S.D.N. list, foreign entities around the world would stop doing business with the banks, which would have a big effect on Russian companies.The United States would also enact sanctions to cut lending to Russia by foreign creditors by potentially $100 billion or more, according to Anders Aslund, an economist and an author of an Atlantic Council report on U.S. sanctions on Russia. Though Russia has taken steps since 2014 to rely less on foreign debt for expenses, such a loss could still devalue the ruble, shake the stock market and freeze bond trading, Mr. Aslund added.His report estimated that the 2014 sanctions reduced Russia’s annual economic growth by up to 3 percent, and new sanctions could bite much harder.For an average Russian, the harshest U.S. measures could mean higher prices for food and clothing, or, more dramatically, they could cause pensions and savings accounts to be severely devalued by a crash in the ruble or Russian markets.“It would be a disaster, a nightmare for the domestic financial market,” said Sergey Aleksashenko, a former first deputy chairman of the Central Bank of Russia and former chairman of Merrill Lynch Russia. He noted that the ruble had already fallen more than 10 percent from its October value against the dollar, amid increasing talk of Western sanctions.In a sign of the growing seriousness, officials from the National Security Council have been talking with executives from some of Wall Street’s largest banks, including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, about the stability of the global financial system in the wake of potential sanctions.The European Central Bank has also warned bank lenders to Russia about risks if the United States imposes sanctions and has asked about the sizes of their loans.For now, though, American officials are not considering any immediate sanctions on the foundation of Russia’s economy: its oil and gas exports.​​European nations rely on natural gas from Russia, and several U.S. allies, notably Germany, prefer that Washington refrain from disrupting the Russian energy industry. Analysts say sanctions that limit Russia’s ability to export oil and gas would be by far the most powerful weapon against the Russian economy, and perhaps the most effective economic deterrent against an invasion of Ukraine, but they would also cause pain in Europe and the United States.“At some point, the West will have to sacrifice a little bit of its well-being if the goal is to deter Putin,” said Maria Snegovaya, a visiting scholar at George Washington University and an author of the Atlantic Council report.“U.S. inflation further constrains the administration’s actions,” she added. “Inflation is already unprecedented for the last 30 years. Any action against Russia that is dramatic will lead to changes in oil and gas prices.”Understand the Escalating Tensions Over UkraineCard 1 of 5A brewing conflict. More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Effort to Combat Forced Labor Targets Corporate China Ties

    by

    The Biden administration is expected to face scrutiny as it decides how to enforce a new ban on products made with forced labor in the Xinjiang region of China.A far-reaching bill aimed at barring products made with forced labor in China became law after President Biden signed the bill on Thursday.But the next four months — during which the Biden administration will convene hearings to investigate how pervasive forced labor is and what to do about it — will be crucial in determining how far the legislation goes in altering the behavior of companies that source products from China.While it is against U.S. law to knowingly import goods made with slave labor, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act shifts the burden of proof to companies from customs officials. Firms will have to proactively prove that their factories, and those of all their suppliers, do not use slavery or coercion.The law, which passed the House and Senate nearly unanimously, is Washington’s first comprehensive effort to police supply chains that the United States says exploit persecuted minorities, and its impact could be sweeping. A wide range of products and raw materials — such as petroleum, cotton, minerals and sugar — flow from the Xinjiang region of China, where accusations of forced labor proliferate. Those materials are often used in Chinese factories that manufacture products for global companies.“I anticipate that there will be many companies — even entire industries — that will be taken by surprise when they realize that their supply chains can also be traced back to the Uyghur region,” said Laura Murphy, a professor of human rights and contemporary slavery at Sheffield Hallam University in Britain.If the law is enforced as written, it could force many companies to rework how they do business or risk having products blocked at the U.S. border. Those high stakes are expected to set off a crush of lobbying by companies trying to ease the burden on their industries as the government writes the guidelines that importers must follow.“Genuine, effective enforcement will most likely mean there will be pushback by corporations and an attempt to create loopholes,” said Cathy Feingold, the international director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “So the implementation will be key.”Behind-the-scenes negotiations before the bill’s passage provided an early indication of how consequential the legislation could be for some of America’s biggest companies, as business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and brand names like Nike and Coca-Cola worked to limit the bill’s scope.The Biden administration has labeled the Chinese government’s actions in Xinjiang — including the detention of more than a million Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities, as well as forced conversions, sterilization and arbitrary or unlawful killings — as genocide.Human rights experts say that Beijing’s policies of moving Uyghurs into farms and factories that feed the global supply chain are an integral part of its repression in Xinjiang, an attempt to assimilate minorities and strip them of their culture and religion..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-1g3vlj0{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g3vlj0{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-1g3vlj0 strong{font-weight:600;}.css-1g3vlj0 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1g3vlj0{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0.25rem;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}In a statement last week, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said that Mr. Biden welcomed the bill’s passage and agreed with Congress “that action can and must be taken to hold the People’s Republic of China accountable for genocide and human rights abuses and to address forced labor in Xinjiang.” She added that the administration would “work closely with Congress to implement this bill to ensure global supply chains are free of forced labor.”Yet some members of the administration argued behind closed doors that the bill’s scope could overwhelm U.S. regulators and lead to further supply chain disruptions at a time when inflation is accelerating at a nearly 40-year high, according to interviews with more than two dozen government officials, members of Congress and their staff. Some officials also expressed concerns that an aggressive ban on Chinese imports could put the administration’s goals for fighting climate change at risk, given China’s dominance of solar panels and components to make them, people familiar with the discussions said.John Kerry, Mr. Biden’s special envoy for climate change, and Wendy R. Sherman, the deputy secretary of state, separately conveyed some of those concerns in calls to Democratic members of Congress in recent months, according to four people familiar with the discussions.Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and one of the bill’s lead authors, criticized those looking to limit its impact, saying that companies that want to continue to import products and officials who are reluctant to rock the boat with China “are not just going to give up.” He added, “They’re all going to try to weigh in on how it’s implemented.”A solar farm near Wenquan, China. The Xinjiang region’s substantial presence in the solar supply chain has been a key source of tension in the Biden administration.Gilles Sabrié for The New York TimesOne reason the stakes are so high is because of the critical role that Xinjiang may play in many supply chains. The region, twice the size of Texas, is rich in raw materials like coal and oil and crops like tomatoes, lavender and hops; it is also a significant producer of electronics, sneakers and clothing. By some estimates, it provides one-fifth of the world’s cotton and 45 percent of the world’s polysilicon, a key ingredient for solar panels.Xinjiang’s substantial presence in the solar supply chain has been a key source of tension in the Biden administration, which is counting on solar power to help the United States reach its goal of significantly cutting carbon emissions by the end of the decade.In meetings this year, Biden administration officials weighed how difficult it would be for importers to bypass Xinjiang and relocate supply chains for solar goods and other products, according to three government officials. Officials from the Labor Department and the United States Trade Representative were more sympathetic to a far-reaching ban on Xinjiang goods, according to three people familiar with the discussions. Some officials in charge of climate, energy and the economy argued against a sweeping ban, saying it would wreak havoc on supply chains or compromise the fight against climate change, those people said.Ana Hinojosa, who was the executive director of Customs and Border Protection and led the government’s enforcement of forced labor provisions until she left the post in October, said that agencies responsible for “competing priorities” like climate change had voiced concerns about the legislation’s impact. Companies and various government agencies became nervous that the law’s broad authorities could prove “devastating to the U.S. economy,” she said.“The need to improve our clean energy is real and important, but not something that the government or the U.S. should do on the backs of people who are working under conditions of modern-day slavery,” Ms. Hinojosa added.In a call with Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California this year, Mr. Kerry conveyed concerns about disrupting solar supply chains while Ms. Sherman shared her concerns with Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, according to people familiar with the conversations.Mr. Merkley, one of the lead sponsors of the bill, said in an interview that Ms. Sherman told him she was concerned the legislation was not duly “targeted and deliberative.” The conversation was first reported by The Washington Post.“I think this is a targeted and deliberative approach,” Mr. Merkley said. “And I think the administration is starting to see how strongly Republicans and Democrats in both chambers feel about this.”A State Department official said that Ms. Sherman did not initiate the call and did not express opposition to the bill. Whitney Smith, a spokeswoman for Mr. Kerry, said any accusations he lobbied against the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act were “false.” Ms. Pelosi declined to discuss private conversations.Nury Turkel, a Uyghur-American lawyer who is the vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, said the United States must “tackle both genocide and ecocide.”“Policymakers and climate activists are making it a choice between saving the world and turning a blind eye to the enslavement of Uyghurs,” he said. “It is false, and we cannot allow ourselves to be forced into it.”Administration officials have also argued that the United States can take a strong stance against forced labor while developing a robust solar supply chain. Emily Horne, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said that Mr. Biden “believes what is going on in Xinjiang is genocide” and that the administration had taken a range of actions to combat human rights abuses in the region, including financial sanctions, visa restrictions, export controls, import restrictions and a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Olympics in February.“We have taken action to hold the P.R.C. accountable for its human rights abuses and to address forced labor in Xinjiang,” Ms. Horne said, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China. “And we will continue to do so.”Farm workers picking cotton near Qapqal, China, in 2015. By some estimates, Xinjiang produces one-fifth of the world’s cotton.Adam Dean for The New York TimesThe law highlights the delicate U.S.-China relationship, in which policymakers must figure out how to confront anti-Democratic practices while the United States is economically dependent on Chinese factories. China remains the largest supplier of goods to the United States.One of the biggest hurdles for U.S. businesses is determining whether their products touched Xinjiang at any point in the supply chain. Many companies complain that beyond their direct suppliers, they lack the leverage to demand information from the Chinese firms that manufacture raw materials and parts.Government restrictions that bar foreigners from unfettered access to sites in Xinjiang have made it difficult for many businesses to investigate their supply chains. New Chinese antisanctions rules, which threaten penalties against companies that comply with U.S. restrictions, have made vetting even more difficult.The Chinese government denies forced labor is used in Xinjiang. Zhao Lijian, a government spokesman, said U.S. politicians were “seeking to contain China and hold back China’s development through political manipulation and economic bullying in the name of ‘human rights.’” He promised a “resolute response” if the bill became law.Lawmakers struggled over the past year to reconcile a more aggressive House version of the legislation with one in the Senate, which gave companies longer timelines to make changes and stripped out the S.E.C. reporting requirement, among other differences.The final bill included a mechanism to create lists of entities and products that use forced labor or aid in the transfer of persecuted workers to factories around China. Businesses like Apple had lobbied for the creation of such lists, believing they would provide more certainty for businesses seeking to avoid entities of concern.Lisa Friedman More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    As Humanitarian Disaster Looms, U.S. Opens Door for More Afghanistan Aid

    by

    The Treasury Department and the United Nations offered new protection for aid from sanctions meant to pressure the Taliban.Facing pressure to prevent a humanitarian and economic catastrophe in Afghanistan, the Biden administration on Wednesday took steps to allow more aid to flow into the Taliban-led country.The measures exempt aid groups from stringent economic sanctions that were imposed against the Taliban before they seized control of the government and have been strangling Afghanistan’s economy under its leadership. But diplomats and activists said that easing the restrictions might not be enough to rescue the country from what one U.N. official on Wednesday called “shocking” need and suffering.At the same time, some Republicans said the Biden administration risked legitimizing and even funding Taliban leaders.The U.S. actions and mixed response underscore the challenge that Afghanistan continues to pose for the Biden administration four months after the last American troops withdrew from the country. Administration officials have been struggling to address the dire humanitarian needs without empowering the Taliban.The United States fought a 20-year war against the Taliban and does not recognize them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. After the group’s takeover in August, the Biden administration halted most aid to Afghanistan, froze $9.5 billion of its foreign reserves and pressured the International Monetary Fund to delay emergency support.A combination of the coronavirus pandemic, a severe drought, the loss of foreign aid and frozen currency reserves have left Afghanistan’s fragile economy on the brink of collapse, with aid groups warning that the harsh winter could lead to mass starvation and a refugee crisis.After weeks of calls for swifter action, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday that it was issuing new “general licenses” that would make it easier for nongovernmental organizations, international aid groups and the U.S. government to provide relief to Afghans while maintaining economic leverage over the Taliban to prevent human rights abuses and terrorist activity..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-1g3vlj0{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g3vlj0{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-1g3vlj0 strong{font-weight:600;}.css-1g3vlj0 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1g3vlj0{margin-bottom:0;margin-top:0.25rem;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}The actions came soon after the United Nations Security Council passed a related resolution, sponsored by the United States, that exempts humanitarian activities in Afghanistan from international sanctions for a year.Biden administration officials note that the United States remains the world’s top provider of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, even after it cut off most assistance after the Taliban takeover.“We are committed to supporting the people of Afghanistan,” Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said in a statement.The department’s general licenses allow financial transactions involving the Taliban and members of the Haqqani network, who share power in the new Afghan government, as long as the money is used for purposes such as projects to meet basic human needs, civil society development, environmental and natural resource protection and similar efforts. The United States considers both groups terrorist organizations.The Treasury move expands the type of relief activity that can take place in Afghanistan and broadens the level of contact that international groups can have with the Taliban. It also allows the Taliban to collect taxes related to that assistance.Alex Zerden, the Treasury Department’s financial attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul from 2018 to 2019, called the move “absolutely a step in the right direction,” saying it addressed requests for clarity from private sector and nongovernmental organizations about how to operate in Afghanistan without violating U.S. sanctions and providing the Taliban with illegal revenue.But many close observers said far more remained to be done.“We need a bigger humanitarian response, but without a functioning economy and banking system, we are facing terrible odds,” David Miliband, the president and chief executive of the International Rescue Committee, wrote on Twitter. “Need massive economic stabilization package to stop the rip current.”The United States provided Afghanistan with $3.95 billion in foreign aid last year, about two-thirds of which was security assistance for the former government’s fight against the Taliban. U.S. humanitarian aid for the country and for Afghan refugees in the region has totaled nearly $474 million so far this year.“We’re very conscious of the fact that there is an incredibly difficult humanitarian situation right now, one that could get worse as winter sets in,” Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said in a news conference on Tuesday.He added that the United States was determined to ensure “that the Taliban make good on the expectations of the international community,” including by respecting women’s rights, not carrying out reprisals against political enemies and denying safe haven to international terrorist groups.Morgan Ortagus, a State Department spokeswoman during the Trump administration, condemned the U.S. actions as “extremely dangerous.” She said on Twitter that the Treasury Department licenses “send the signal that if you take over enough territory with enough people in it, you too can gain legitimacy.”The Security Council resolution, which was adopted unanimously, seeks to reduce the legal and political risks of delivering aid to Afghanistan. It exempts humanitarian activities such as payments and delivery of goods and services from U.N. sanctions for a one-year period, and requires updates to ensure that aid is not diverted to the Taliban.China on Monday blocked a narrower version drafted by the United States that would have allowed only case-by-case exemptions.After passage of the broader measure, China’s U.N. ambassador, Zhang Jun, said on Twitter that the new resolution “can only fix the faucet, but to keep the water running, the international community need to make joint efforts.”Citing “shocking levels of need and suffering,” the top U.N. official for emergency humanitarian efforts, Martin Griffiths, said the effect that the 160 aid organizations working in Afghanistan could have “depends on the cooperation of the de facto authorities in the country and on the flexibility of the funding we receive.”Governments and international organizations have been accelerating their efforts to provide assistance in recent weeks.The World Bank has said that the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund donors would transfer $280 million to UNICEF and the World Food Program by the end of the year to provide humanitarian aid.The Treasury Department this month issued a license allowing personal remittance payments to be sent to people in Afghanistan. And the United States on Wednesday announced that it would donate another million Covid-19 vaccine doses to Afghanistan, bringing the total U.S. contribution to 4.3 million doses.But the need remains enormous. Three former U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan and several former ambassadors and other officials this month signed a letter, published by the Atlantic Council, calling on the Biden administration to show “the courage to act” and expedite creative steps to prop up the Afghan economy and feed the hungry without benefiting the Taliban.“We believe the United States has a reputational interest and a moral obligation in vigorously joining efforts to help the Afghan people preserve at least some of the social and economic gains made over the last 20 years,” the authors wrote. “We believe that ways to do so can be found, while erecting barriers to assistance being diverted to purposes other than those for which it is intended.”Such admonitions came as Taliban officials pleaded for swift international relief, which they said was also in the West’s self-interest.“The impact of the frozen funds is on the common people and not Taliban authorities,” the Taliban’s deputy foreign minister, Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, said on Sunday, according to Reuters.Mr. Stanikzai warned that if “the political and economic situation doesn’t change,” Afghan refugees would pour into neighboring countries and Europe.Rick Gladstone More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s China Dilemma: How to Enforce Trump’s Trade Deal

    by

    The Biden administration must decide whether to enforce a Trump-era trade deal that has not fulfilled its promise.WASHINGTON — When he assumed the White House, President Biden promised to take a different approach to China than his predecessor, saying that the Trump administration’s trade war had hurt American farmers and consumers, and failed to address significant concerns about China’s economic practices.But nearly a year into his presidency, Mr. Biden is stuck with ensuring that China lives up to the promises it made to President Donald J. Trump in a trade deal signed in January 2020.China is expected to fall far short of the trade deal’s target for purchasing an additional $200 billion of American products, including energy, services, food and manufactured goods, over the course of 2020 and 2021.According to tracking by Chad P. Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, China is on pace to fulfill only 60 percent of the purchasing commitments it made in the trade deal by the end of 2022, after buying fewer airplanes, automobiles, crude oil and other American goods than anticipated.Chinese officials, in conversations with their American counterparts, have cited the global pandemic, factory stoppages and shipping disruptions as reasons for the shortfalls, according to people familiar with the talks. It is unclear how receptive the Biden administration is to that argument or whether the president will take action against China for not living up to its end of the deal.The text of the trade deal calls for further consultations if an “unforeseeable event outside the control of the parties delays a party from timely complying with its obligations.” It also allows the United States to take “remedial measures,” like imposing tariffs, if China violates the agreement and the governments cannot reach a consensus on how to move forward.But many U.S. businesses and consumer groups have been calling for the Biden administration to reduce the tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed on Chinese goods, which have driven up costs for American companies and consumers. The United States already has tariffs on roughly two-thirds of Chinese imports. Expanding tariffs to other goods could place a heavier burden on households and businesses at a time when prices are already rising.In a discussion with reporters last month, Katherine Tai, the U.S. Trade Representative, said that China’s “performance hasn’t been perfect, so what do we do about it?”“That’s the million dollar question. That’s the whole point of engaging with China right now.”“We’re working on it,” she added.The decision illustrates the perils for Mr. Biden of succeeding a president with a penchant for one-upmanship and a love of big round numbers.Mr. Trump received political credit, at least from his supporters, for signing the deal, which was arguably the most economic concessions the United States had secured from the Chinese government since it joined the World Trade Organization 20 years ago. But it is Mr. Biden and his deputies who now must decide the path forward — and incur the political risk — when the deal’s terms are not fully met.Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy, declined to discuss the negotiations, but said in a statement that the economic and trade relationships between the two countries were “essentially mutually beneficial.”“Issues in bilateral economic and trade relations should be properly dealt with in the spirit of mutual respect and equal-footed consultation,” he added.Trade experts say it’s not particularly surprising that China has failed to meet such ambitious purchasing targets. According to Mr. Trump’s own telling, some of the targets in his “big beautiful monster” of a trade deal with China were basically made up.Discussing the origin of the agricultural targets in a cabinet meeting in October 2019, Mr. Trump said he had pushed for China to commit to between $60 billion and $70 billion a year in farm purchases, before settling on a figure of between $40 billion and $50 billion.“My people had $20 billion done, and I said, ‘I want more.’ They said, ‘The farmers can’t handle it.’ I said, ‘Tell them to buy larger tractors. It’s very simple,’” Mr. Trump said to laughter.“I want the farmers to come tell me, ‘Sir, we can’t produce that much,’” he added.When Mr. Trump signed the trade deal with China in January 2020, those estimates became enshrined as the word of the U.S. government. And though Mr. Biden and his deputies have criticized the trade deal for failing to address many of the most pressing trade issues that the United States has with China, they have since promised to uphold it.In a call last month with President Xi Jinping of China, President Biden underscored the importance of China fulfilling the commitments, and his desire for “real progress” in conversations between Ms. Tai and her counterpart, Vice Premier Liu He, a senior administration official said.Both Chinese and American officials have stressed that purchasing commitments are just one component of the trade deal. The deal also contained promises to streamline China’s import process for U.S. farm goods, ramp up penalties for intellectual property infringement and ease barriers for American financial firms doing business in China, among other reforms.Ms. Tai has said she is pressing Chinese leaders on those other commitments, as well as on important trade issues that were not covered in the deal, like China’s use of industrial subsidies to bolster its industries.But she called the trade deal, which is often referred to as Phase 1, “a living agreement.”“This is the commitment that we bring as an administration to the agreements that the United States enters into with our trading partners, which is, yes, we are holding them accountable,” Ms. Tai said.China has come closest to satisfying its target commitments on agriculture, fulfilling 83 percent of the purchases it was expected to have made by the end of October under the deal, according to tracking by Mr. Bown.Corn and pork sales to China have been particularly strong, after an epidemic of African swine fever decimated China’s pig herds. But exports of American soybeans, lobster and other products appear to have fallen short, according to Mr. Bown’s estimates.For manufactured goods, including Boeing airplanes, cars, medical instruments, pharmaceuticals and industrial machinery, China had purchased only 60 percent of what it promised to buy by the end of October, Mr. Bown said. In that category, aircraft and automotive sales have disappointed, in part because of the grounding of Boeing’s 737 Max airplane. But China’s purchases of American semiconductors and medical products to fight coronavirus, which are also included in that category, have been stronger.At the end of October, China had purchased 37 percent of the energy products it should have purchased under the deal, following slow sales of crude oil, coal and refined energy products. But Mr. Bown said the targets in that particular sector were “astronomically large.”China has also made commitments on services, but Mr. Bown said the United States did not publish clear monthly data on services exports, making Beijing’s progress difficult to evaluate.“Even from the earliest months of the phase one agreement, China was not on track,” Mr. Bown said. “Obviously the pandemic started early in 2020, but a big chunk of it was just that the targets were unrealistic to begin with.”The Biden administration has sought to de-emphasize the purchases, saying they are developing other more important trade policies related to China.Several trade agreements with Europe that were announced in recent months show how the administration plans to pursue its China trade strategy beyond Mr. Trump’s deal. American and European leaders have announced that they plan to strengthen their trade ties in technology, civil aircraft and steel, setting new standards that benefit free-market democracies and welcoming more like-minded countries to join their trading club.Last week, the Biden administration announced a partnership with several other countries meant to control the export of sensitive technologies to authoritarian countries, and encourage other like-minded countries to adopt sanctions for corruption and human rights offenses.Daniel H. Rosen, a founding partner at Rhodium Group, a research group that focuses on China, said the U.S.-China trade deal was serving as a foundation for the relationship while the Biden administration works on recruiting allies to press for more important structural changes to China’s economy.“They’re trying to work with it, this thing that they inherited,” he said. More