Embargoes and Sanctions

More stories

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Poor Nations Are Writing a New Handbook for Getting Rich

    by

    Economies focused on exports have lifted millions out of poverty, but epochal changes in trade, supply chains and technology are making it a lot harder.For more than half a century, the handbook for how developing countries can grow rich hasn’t changed much: Move subsistence farmers into manufacturing jobs, and then sell what they produce to the rest of the world.The recipe — customized in varying ways by Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and China — has produced the most potent engine the world has ever known for generating economic growth. It has helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, create jobs and raise standards of living.The Asian Tigers and China succeeded by combining vast pools of cheap labor with access to international know-how and financing, and buyers that reached from Kalamazoo to Kuala Lumpur. Governments provided the scaffolding: They built up roads and schools, offered business-friendly rules and incentives, developed capable administrative institutions and nurtured incipient industries.But technology is advancing, supply chains are shifting, and political tensions are reshaping trade patterns. And with that, doubts are growing about whether industrialization can still deliver the miracle growth it once did. For developing countries, which contain 85 percent of the globe’s population — 6.8 billion people — the implications are profound.Today, manufacturing accounts for a smaller share of the world’s output, and China already does more than a third of it. At the same time, more emerging countries are selling inexpensive goods abroad, increasing competition. There are not as many gains to be squeezed out: Not everyone can be a net exporter or offer the world’s lowest wages and overhead.Robotics at a car factory in China. Today, manufacturing accounts for a smaller share of the world’s output, and China already does more than a third of it. Qilai Shen for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen Urges Israel to Restore Economic Ties to West Bank

    by

    Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Tuesday that she had personally urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to increase commercial engagement with the West Bank, contending that doing so was important for the economic welfare of both Israelis and Palestinians.Ms. Yellen’s plea was outlined in a letter that she sent to Mr. Netanyahu on Sunday. It represented her most explicit public expression of concern about the economic consequences of the war between Israel and Hamas. In the letter, Ms. Yellen said, she warned about the consequences of the erosion of basic services in the West Bank and called for Israel to reinstate work permits for Palestinians and reduce barriers to commerce within the West Bank.“These actions are vital for the economic well-being of Palestinians and Israelis alike,” Ms. Yellen said at a news conference in Brazil ahead of a gathering of finance ministers from the Group of 20 nations.The letter came as the cabinet of the Palestinian Authority, which administers part of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, submitted its resignation on Monday in hopes that it could overhaul itself in a way that would enable it to potentially take over the administration of Gaza after the war there ends. Negotiations between Israel and Hamas are also resuming in Qatar this week as mediators from that nation, along with the United State and Egypt, work on a deal to release some hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza in exchange for Israel’s agreeing to a temporary cease-fire.Senior Biden administration officials have been trying to mediate a resolution to the conflict in Gaza, which health authorities there say has killed approximately 29,000 Palestinians. Ms. Yellen has largely been focused on tracking the economic implications of the war and managing the sanctions that the Treasury Department has imposed on Hamas and those who are involved in its network of finances.While the Biden administration has been concerned about the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza, it is increasingly worried that economic unrest in the West Bank could fuel violence and further deteriorate living standards there. The war has already taken a toll on Israel’s economy, which contracted by nearly 20 percent in the fourth quarter of last year.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    2 Years Into Russia-Ukraine War, U.S. Campaign to Isolate Putin Shows Limits

    by

    Many nations insist on not taking sides in the war in Ukraine, while China, India and Brazil are filling Russia’s coffers.The Biden administration and European allies call President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a tyrant and a war criminal. But he enjoys a standing invitation to the halls of power in Brazil.The president of Brazil says that Ukraine and Russia are both to blame for the war that began with the Russian military’s invasion. And his nation’s purchases of Russian energy and fertilizer have soared, pumping billions of dollars into the Russian economy.The views of the president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, encapsulate the global bind in which the United States and Ukraine find themselves as the war enters its third year.When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, the Biden administration activated a diplomatic offensive that was as important as its scramble to ship weapons to the Ukrainian military. Wielding economic sanctions and calling for a collective defense of international order, the United States sought to punish Russia with economic pain and political exile. The goal was to see companies and countries cut ties with Moscow.But two years later, Mr. Putin is not nearly as isolated as U.S. officials had hoped. Russia’s inherent strength, rooted in its vast supplies of oil and natural gas, has powered a financial and political resilience that threatens to outlast Western opposition. In parts of Asia, Africa and South America, his influence is as strong as ever or even growing. And his grip on power at home appears as strong as ever.The war has undoubtedly taken a toll on Russia: It has wrecked the country’s standing with much of Europe. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for Mr. Putin’s arrest. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the invasion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Europe Eye Russian Assets to Aid Ukraine as Funding Dries Up

    by

    Despite legal reservations, policymakers are weighing the consequences of using $300 billion in Russian assets to help Kyiv’s war effort.The Biden administration is quietly signaling new support for seizing more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets stashed in Western nations, and has begun urgent discussions with allies about using the funds to aid Ukraine’s war effort at a moment when financial support is waning, according to senior American and European officials.Until recently, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen had argued that without action by Congress, seizing the funds was “not something that is legally permissible in the United States.” There has also been concern among some top American officials that nations around the world would hesitate to keep their funds at the New York Federal Reserve, or in dollars, if the United States established a precedent for seizing the money.But the administration, in coordination with the Group of 7 industrial nations, has begun taking another look at whether it can use its existing authorities or if it should seek congressional action to use the funds. Support for such legislation has been building in Congress, giving the Biden administration optimism that it could be granted the necessary authority.The talks among finance ministers, central bankers, diplomats and lawyers have intensified in recent weeks, officials said, with the Biden administration pressing Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan to come up with a strategy by Feb. 24, the second anniversary of the invasion.The more than $300 billion of Russian assets under discussion have already been out of Moscow’s control for more than a year. After the invasion of Ukraine, the United States, along with Europe and Japan, used sanctions to freeze the assets, denying Russia access to its international reserves.But seizing the assets would take matters a significant step further and require careful legal consideration.President Biden has not yet signed off on the strategy, and many of the details remain under heated discussion. Policymakers must determine if the money will be channeled directly to Ukraine or used to its benefit in other ways.They are also discussing what kinds of guardrails might be associated with the funds, such as whether the money could be used only for reconstruction and budgetary purposes to support Ukraine’s economy, or whether — like the funds Congress is debating — it could be spent directly on the military effort.The discussions have taken on greater urgency since Congress failed to reach a deal to provide military aid before the end of the year. On Tuesday, lawmakers abandoned a last-ditch effort amid a stalemate over Republican demands that any aid be tied to a crackdown on migration across the U.S. border with Mexico.The Financial Times reported earlier that the Biden administration had come around to the view that seizing Russia’s assets was viable under international law.A senior administration official said this week that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to pay for more arms for Ukraine and aid to its government, eroding support for the war effort among Republicans and Ukraine’s increasingly precarious military position made it clear that an alternative source of funding was desperately needed.American officials have said that current funding for the Ukrainians is nearly exhausted, and they are scrambling to find ways to provide artillery rounds and air defenses for the country. With Europe’s own promise of fresh funds also stuck, a variety of new ideas are being debated about how to use the Russian assets, either dipping into them directly, using them to guarantee loans or using the interest income they earn to help Ukraine.“This amount of money that we’re talking about here is simply game-changing,” said Philip Zelikow, a State Department official in both Bush administrations and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “The fight over this money which is occurring is actually in some ways the essential campaign of the war.”Seizing such a large sum of money from another sovereign nation would be without precedent, and such an action could have unpredictable legal ramifications and economic consequences. It would almost certainly lead to lawsuits and retaliation from Russia.Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, referred to the discussions in a video address to his country last week, saying that “the issue of frozen assets was one of the very important decisions addressed” during his recent talks in Washington. He seemed to suggest that the funds should be directed to arms purchases, adding, “The assets of the terrorist state and its affiliates should be used to support Ukraine, to protect lives and people from Russian terror.”In a sign that some European countries are ready to move forward with confiscating Russian assets, German prosecutors this week seized about $790 million from the Frankfurt bank account of a Russian financial firm that was under E.U. sanctions.The Biden administration has said little in public about the negotiations. At the State Department on Tuesday, Matthew Miller, a spokesman, said: “It’s something that we have looked at. There remains sort of operational questions about that, and legal questions.” He said he did not have more information.Very little of the Russian assets, perhaps $5 billion or so by some estimates, are in the hands of U.S. institutions. But a significant chunk of Russia’s foreign reserves are held in U.S. dollars, both in the United States and in Europe. The United States has the power to police transactions involving its currency and use its sanctions to immobilize dollar-denominated assets.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at the Capitol this month. A Biden administration official said that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to send more aid to Ukraine, an alternative source of funding was still desperately needed.Kent Nishimura for The New York TimesThe bulk of the Russian deposits are believed to be in Europe, including in Switzerland and Belgium, which are not part of the Group of 7. As a result, diplomatic negotiations are underway over how to gain access to those funds, some of which are held in euros and other currencies.American officials were surprised that President Vladimir V. Putin did not repatriate the funds before the Ukraine invasion. But in interviews over the past year, they have speculated that Mr. Putin did not believe the funds would be seized, because they were left untouched after his invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. And bringing the funds home to Russia would have been another tipoff that an invasion was imminent, at a time Mr. Putin was vigorously denying American and British charges that he was preparing for military action.One Group of 7 official said the coalition had been considering a variety of options for how to use Russia’s assets, with the goal of putting forward a unified proposal around the second anniversary of the war, when many top officials will be gathering in Germany for the Munich Security Conference. The first debates have focused on what would be permissible under international law and under each nation’s domestic laws, as they consider Russia’s likely legal responses and retaliatory measures.Earlier in the year, American officials said they thought the frozen assets could be used as leverage to help force Russia to the negotiating table for a cease-fire; presumably, in return, Moscow would be given access to some of its assets. But Russia has shown no interest in such negotiations, and now officials argue that beginning to use the funds may push Moscow to move to the negotiating table.Among the options that Western countries have discussed are seizing the assets directly and transferring them to Ukraine, using interest earned and other profits from the assets that are held in European financial institutions to Ukraine’s benefit or using the assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine.Daleep Singh, a former top Biden administration official, suggested in an interview this year that the immobilized reserves should be placed into an escrow account that Ukraine’s Ministry of Finance could have access to and be used as collateral for new bonds that Ukraine would issue.If Ukraine can successfully repay the debt — over a period of 10 to 30 years — then Russia could potentially have its frozen assets back.“If they can’t repay, my hunch is that Russia probably has something to do with that,” said Mr. Singh, who is now the chief global economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “And so in that way, Russia has a stake in Ukraine’s emergence as a sovereign independent economy and country.”Settling on a solid legal rationale has been one of the biggest challenges for policymakers as they decide how to proceed.Proponents of seizing Russia’s assets, such as Mr. Zelikow and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, have argued that nations that hold Russian assets are entitled to cancel their obligations to Russia and apply those assets to what Russia owes for its breach of international law under the so-called international law of state countermeasures. They note that after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, $50 billion of Iraqi funds were seized and transferred through the United Nations to compensate victims in Iraq and other countries.Robert B. Zoellick, the former World Bank president, has been making the case to Group of 7 finance ministers that as long as they act in unison, seizing Russian assets would not have an impact on their currencies or the status of the dollar. He suggested that other countries were unlikely to rush to put their money into another currency, such as China’s renminbi.“With reserve currencies, it’s always a question of what your alternatives are,” said Mr. Zoellick, who was also a Treasury and State Department official.One of the obstacles in the United States for seizing Russian assets has been the view within the Biden administration that being able to lawfully do so would require an act of Congress. At a news conference in Germany last year, Ms. Yellen highlighted that concern.“While we’re beginning to look at this, it would not be legal now, in the United States, for the government to seize those statutes,” Ms. Yellen said. “It’s not something that is legally permissible in the United States.”Since then, however, Ms. Yellen has become more open to the idea of seizing Russia’s assets to aid Ukraine.Factions of Congress have previously tried to attach provisions to the annual defense bill to allow the Justice Department to seize Russian assets belonging to officials under sanction and funnel the proceeds from the sale of those assets to Ukraine to help pay for weapons. But the efforts have faltered amid concerns that the proposals were not thoroughly vetted.With Ukraine running low on funds and ammunition, the debate about how to provide more aid could shift from a legal question to a moral question.“One can understand the precedential point made by those who do not believe the assets should be seized,” said Mark Sobel, a former longtime Treasury Department official who is now the U.S. chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. “Given skirmishes and wars in many spots, one could easily argue such a precedent could get out of hand.”However, Mr. Sobel argued that the barbarity of Russia’s actions justified using its assets to compensate Ukraine.“In my mind, humanity dictates that those factors outweigh the argument that seizing the assets would be unprecedented simply because Russia’s heinous and unfathomable behavior must be strongly punished,” he said.Eric Schmitt More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why Are Oil Prices Falling While War Rages in the Middle East?

    by

    Energy markets have shrugged off the fighting between Israel and Hamas so far, focusing instead on forecasts of subdued demand.Intense fighting is underway in a region that holds much of the world’s petroleum resources. Yet, after a few days of anxiety following the bloody Oct. 7 raids by Hamas militants in Israel, energy markets have been slumping. Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, is selling for about $80 a barrel, cheaper than when the fighting started.Why aren’t prices higher? A main reason, analysts say, is that the fighting, no matter how vicious, has produced little disruption to petroleum supplies, leading traders to conclude that there is no immediate threat.“While traders realize there is an increased risk, that hasn’t led to a lot of precautionary buying,” said Richard Bronze, head of geopolitics at Energy Aspects, a London-based market research firm.With respect to the Middle East, the markets are “effectively dismissing that anything could go wrong,” said Raad Alkadiri, managing director for energy and climate at Eurasia Group, a political risk firm.Mr. Alkadiri said that traders are unlikely to bid up prices unless they see “actual barrels removed” from the market.Waning Demand in FocusThe market appears to have blocked the war out, and has returned to a mood of pessimism about future demand for petroleum, dominated by economic concerns about China, the largest oil importer, and other large consumers. Saudi Arabia and other producers have been trying to support prices by reducing their oil output.Forecasters are warning that 2024 could be a difficult year in the oil markets. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted this week that gasoline consumption in the United States would decline next year because of more efficient vehicle engines, growing numbers of electric cars, and reduced commuting as more people work hybrid schedules.The bearish sentiment drove down prices sharply before the Israel-Hamas conflict and it appears to be weighing on the market again, despite the risks of a broader war.Robust oil production in the United States has also reassured markets, with supplies from the world’s largest producer recently setting a monthly record, at just over 13 million barrels a day. “Strong oil market fundamentals are prevailing over any fears at the moment, “ said Jim Burkhard, vice president and head of research for oil markets, energy and mobility at S&P Global Commodity Insights.Haves and Have-NotsAs the fighting continues, traders have figured out that when it comes to oil there are haves and have-nots in the Middle East. Gaza produces no oil and Israel little. For there to be a material disruption in supply, the war’s effects would need to spread to the gigantic oil fields of Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran.Early in the conflict, Iran’s foreign minister called for an oil embargo against Israel, stirring memories of the oil embargo of 50 years ago. But times have changed: Given concerns about the role that fossil fuels play in climate change and their dependence on oil for revenues, any such move would risk backfiring on countries that imposed such a ban. Iran would risk alienating China, the Islamic Republic’s key customer.“The risk to supply is very unlikely to come from an independent decision to curtail oil sales by Iran or OPEC,” Eurasia Group said in a recent note. “Any such move would inflict as much — if not more — damage on producers as on consumers.”The Remaining RisksA disruption is not inconceivable. Four years ago, a missile attack on a key Saudi facility — for which American officials blamed Iran — temporarily knocked out about half of the kingdom’s oil production.In an extreme case, Iran, the key backer of Hamas, could try to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which huge volumes of oil flow to the rest of the world. “I still think that there is considerable risk that this spreads,” said Helima Croft, head of commodities at RBC Capital Markets, an investment bank.Ms. Croft said seeming complacency about the war’s impact could stem in part from traders’ having lost money when prices surged above $120 a barrel after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but then quickly fell.“The market just has no attention span for these kinds of issues anymore,” she said.Ms. Croft, a former analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, said the apparent success of the early days the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces eventually led to a conflict that dragged on for years. “We could still be caught by a nasty surprise in the Middle East,” she said.The Biden administration is trying to prevent a widening of the war. Regional oil powers, including Iran, would also prefer to keep tanker traffic moving through the Persian Gulf. Any halts would crimp their own export earnings, while price spikes would risk hurting and alienating their most valued customers.“It’s likely the conflict remains contained and doesn’t spill over into the big oil producers in the region or the key shipping lanes,” said Mr. Bronze of Energy Aspects. “The risks are more from miscalculation and misjudgment,” he added. More

  • 88 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Tightens China’s Access to A.I. Chips

    by

    The further limits on shipments could cripple Beijing’s A.I. ambitions and dampen revenues for U.S. chip makers, analysts said.The Biden administration on Tuesday announced additional limits on the kinds of advanced semiconductors that American firms can sell to China, shoring up restrictions issued last October to limit China’s progress on artificial intelligence.The rules appear likely to bring to a halt most shipments of advanced semiconductors from the United States to Chinese data centers, which use them to produce models capable of artificial intelligence. More U.S. companies seeking to sell China advanced chips, or the machinery used to make them, will be required to notify the government of their plans, or obtain a special license.To prevent the risk that advanced U.S. chips travel to China through third countries, the United States will also require chip makers to obtain licenses to ship to dozens of other countries that are subject to U.S. arms embargoes.The Biden administration argues that China’s access to such advanced technology is dangerous because it could aid the country’s military in tasks like guiding hypersonic missiles, setting up advanced surveillance systems or cracking top-secret U.S. codes.But artificial intelligence also has commercial applications, and the tougher restrictions may affect Chinese companies that have been trying to develop A.I. chatbots like ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, or the internet giant Baidu, industry analysts said. In the longer run, the limits could also weaken China’s economy, given that A.I. is transforming industries ranging from retail to health care.The limits also appear likely to cut into the money that U.S. chip makers such as Nvidia, AMD and Intel earn from selling advanced chips to China. Some chip makers earn as much as a third of their revenue from Chinese buyers and spent recent months lobbying against tighter restrictions.U.S. officials said the rules would exempt chips that were purely for use in commercial applications, like smartphones, electric vehicles and gaming systems. Most of the rules will take effect in 30 days, though some will become effective sooner.In a statement, the Semiconductor Industry Association, which represents major chip makers, said it was evaluating the impact of the updated rules.“We recognize the need to protect national security and believe maintaining a healthy U.S. semiconductor industry is an essential component to achieving that goal,” the group said. “Overly broad, unilateral controls risk harming the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem without advancing national security as they encourage overseas customers to look elsewhere.” In a call with reporters on Monday, a senior administration official said that the United States had seen people try to work around the earlier rules, and that recent breakthroughs in generative A.I. had given regulators more insight into how the so-called large language models behind it were being developed and used.Gina M. Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said the changes had been made “to ensure that these rules are as effective as possible.”Referring to the People’s Republic of China, she said, “The goal is the same goal that it’s always been, which is to limit P.R.C. access to advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers that are critical to P.R.C. military applications.”She added, “Controlling technology is more important than ever as it relates to national security.”The tougher rules could anger Chinese officials when the Biden administration is trying to improve relations and prepare for a potential meeting between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, in California next month.The Biden administration has been trying to counter China’s growing mastery of many cutting-edge technologies by pumping money into new chip factories in the United States. It has simultaneously been trying to set tough but narrow restrictions on exports of technology to China that could have military uses, while allowing other trade to flow freely. U.S. officials describe the strategy as protecting American technology with “a small yard and high fence.”But determining which technologies really pose a threat to national security has been a contentious task. Major semiconductor companies like Intel, Qualcomm and Nvidia have argued that overly restrictive trade bans can sap them of the revenue they need to invest in new plants and research facilities in the United States.Some critics say the limits could also fuel China’s efforts to develop alternative technologies, ultimately weakening U.S. influence globally.The changes announced Tuesday appear to have particularly significant implications for Nvidia, the biggest beneficiary of the artificial intelligence boom.In response to the Biden administration’s first major restrictions on artificial intelligence chips a year ago, Nvidia designed new chips, the A800 and H800, for the Chinese market that worked at slower speeds but could still be used by Chinese firms to train A.I. models. A senior administration official said the new rules would restrict those sales.In addition to those expanded restrictions, the United States will create a “gray list” that requires makers of certain less advanced chips to notify the government if they are selling them to China, Iran or other countries subject to a U.S. arms embargo.In a note to clients last week, Julian Evans-Pritchard, the head of China economics at the research firm Capital Economics, said the effects of the controls would become more apparent as non-Chinese companies rolled out more advanced versions of their current products and the amount of computing power needed to train A.I. models rose as their data sets grew larger.“The upshot is that China’s ability to reach the technological frontier in the development of large-scale A.I. models will be hampered by U.S. export controls,” Mr. Evans-Pritchard wrote. That could have broader implications for the Chinese economy, he added, since “we think A.I. has the potential to be a game changer for productivity growth over the next couple decades.” More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen Says U.S. Is Considering New Sanctions on Iran and Hamas

    by

    Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Wednesday that the Israel-Gaza war was a potential concern for the global economy and signaled that additional U.S. sanctions could be coming in response to the attack on Israel by Hamas.Questions about the economic impact of the war were growing as Ms. Yellen offered a forceful defense of Israel and pushed back on the notion that U.S. sanctions against Iran — a key backer of Hamas — have become too lenient. Ms. Yellen said the Treasury Department continued to review its sanctions on Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group that is also a longtime adversary of Israel.“We have not in any way relaxed our sanctions on Iranian oil,” Ms. Yellen said at a news conference on the sidelines of the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Marrakesh, Morocco. “We have sanctions on Hamas, on Hezbollah, and this is something that we have been constantly looking at and using information as it becomes available to tighten sanctions.”She added: “We will continue to do that.”The Treasury secretary also did not rule out reversing a decision made last month — to unfreeze $6 billion of Iranian funds in exchange for the release of American hostages — if it is determined that Iran was involved in the attack by Hamas.At the time of the exchange, the United States informed Iran that it had transferred about $6 billion in Iranian oil revenue from South Korea to a Qatari bank account. The money is supposed to be used only for food, medicine and other humanitarian goods.“These are funds that are sitting in Qatar that were made available purely for humanitarian purposes, and the funds have not been touched,” Ms. Yellen said, adding: “I wouldn’t take anything off the table in terms of future possible actions.”The crisis in Israel poses a new challenge for the world economy and the Biden administration, which has spent the last year working to combat inflation in the United States and to corral energy prices that have become volatile because of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Another war in the Middle East complicates those efforts by threatening to constrain oil supplies and send prices higher.Ms. Yellen said geopolitical “shocks” continued to pose risks to the world economic outlook.“Of course, the situation in Israel poses additional concerns,” she said.Economic officials across the Biden administration are closely tracking developments in global oil markets this week. Global oil prices jumped on Monday after the terrorist attacks in Israel but were falling slightly on Wednesday. Administration officials are concerned that a sustained increase in the cost of crude could hurt economic growth and dent Mr. Biden’s approval rating, by pushing up the price of gasoline for American drivers.Ms. Yellen said she continued to believe that the U.S. economy could achieve a so-called soft landing — where inflation eases without a recession — but was closely watching for any economic fallout from the new conflict in the Middle East.“While we’re monitoring potential economic impacts from the crisis, I’m not really thinking of that as a major driver of the global economic outlook,” Ms. Yellen said. “We will see what impact it has. Thus far, I don’t think we’ve seen anything suggesting it will be very significant.”International policymakers gathered in Morocco for a week of meetings, as the global economic recovery is losing momentum. The prospect of a new regional conflict gave other policymakers more reason to feel anxious about a sluggish world economy that has been battered by war, a pandemic and inflation in recent years. Central banks around the globe have been raising interest rates to tame rapid inflation, and investors had begun to hope that a recent slowdown in price gains could signal an end to those rate increases.“I think central bank governors are concerned about what might happen to energy prices if the Israel-Gaza conflict were to turn into a bigger regional conflict and have implications for supply of oil on markets,” Gita Gopinath, the first deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said in an interview on Wednesday.Ms. Gopinath added that higher oil prices could elevate prices more broadly, complicating interest rate decisions for central bankers. She suggested that it was too soon to say how the economic impact of the conflict in the Middle East might compare with the effects of the war in Ukraine, but that overlapping crises were a headwind.“The geopolitical risks are certainly piling up in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and we’re seeing now in Israel and Gaza,” she said.That sentiment was echoed on Wednesday by Ajay Banga, the World Bank president, who said at a news conference that he now expected interest rates to be “higher for longer” despite signs that inflation was cooling.“I believe that wars are completely and extremely challenging for central banks who are trying to find their way out of a very difficult situation,” Mr. Banga said.It is not yet clear what steps the Biden administration would take to contain oil prices if the Israel-Gaza war intensifies or how that might affect its efforts to curb Russia’s oil revenues.Ms. Yellen suggested on Wednesday that the “price cap” policy that the Group of 7 devised last year, which forbids Russia to sell oil over $60 a barrel using Western banking and insurance services, had been successful.“Global energy prices have been largely unchanged while Russia has had to either sell oil at a significant discount or spend huge amounts on its alternative ecosystem,” she said.Jim Tankersley More

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Russia’s Economy Is Increasingly Structured Around Its War in Ukraine

    by

    The nation’s finances have proven resilient, despite punishing sanctions, giving it leeway to pump money into its military machine.“Everything needed for the front,” Russia’s finance minister declared, echoing a Soviet slogan from World War II as he talked about the government’s latest spending plans.The government still calls its invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation,” but the new budget figures make clear that the economy is increasingly being restructured around war.Nearly a third of the country’s spending next year — roughly $109 billion — will be devoted to “national defense,” the government announced late last month, redirecting money that might otherwise have flowed to health care, education, roads and other sectors. More tellingly, 6 percent of the nation’s total output is being funneled toward Russia’s war machine, more than double what it was before the invasion.Since Russia sent soldiers across the border in February 2022, its economy has had to adapt to dramatic changes with astonishing speed. The European Union, its biggest trading partner, quickly broke economic relations, upending well-established supply chains and reliable sources of income from abroad. The United States used its financial might to freeze hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian assets and cut the country off from the global financial system.Nineteen months later, the economic picture is decidedly mixed. The Russian economy has proved to be much more resilient than many Western governments assumed after imposing a punishing string of sanctions.Moscow has found other buyers for its oil. It has pumped money into the economy at a rapid pace to finance its military machine, putting almost every available worker into a job and raising the size of weekly paychecks. Total output, which the Russian Central Bank estimates may rise as much as 2.5 percent this year, could outpace the European Union and possibly even the United States.Yet that is only part of the story. As Laura Solanko, a senior adviser at the Bank of Finland Institute for Economies in Transition, said: “When a country is at war, gross domestic product is a fairly poor measure of welfare.” Producing bullets adds to a country’s growth rate without necessarily improving the quality of life.The insistent demand for foreign currency — to pay for imported goods or provide a safe investment — has also caused the value of the ruble to sink at a precipitous pace. Last week, it fell to a symbolic break point of 100 to the dollar, further fueling inflation and raising anxiety levels among consumers.Shoppers buying meat at the central market in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, in 2021. Inflation in Russia has driven up the price of meat and other products since the start of the war in Ukraine.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesThe spike in government spending and borrowing has seriously stressed an already overheated economy. The central bank rapidly raised interest rates to 13 percent over the summer, as annual inflation continued to climb. Higher rates, which make it more expensive for businesses to expand and consumers to buy on credit, is likely to slow growth.Consumers are also feeling the squeeze for daily purchases. “Dairy products, especially butter, meat and even bread have gone up in price,” said Lidia Adreevna as she shopped and examined prices at an Auchan supermarket in Moscow. She blamed the central bank.“Life changes,” she offered, “nothing stays forever, not love, or happiness.”Other pensioners at the store also spoke about increases in meat and poultry prices, something almost half of Russians have noticed in the past month, according to survey data from the Moscow-based Public Opinion Foundation published Friday. Respondents also noted increases in the price of medicine and construction materials.Moscow imposed a temporary ban on diesel and gasoline exports last month in an effort to ease shortages and slow rising energy prices, but the restrictions further reduced the amount of foreign currency coming into the country.The exodus of funds is so worrying that the government has warned of reinstating controls on money leaving the country.With a presidential election scheduled in March, President Vladimir V. Putin acknowledged last month that accelerating inflation fueled by a weakened ruble was a major cause of concern. Getting a handle on price increases may discourage the government from embarking on its usual pre-election social spending.Lower standards of living can be “uncomfortable even for an authoritarian government,” said Charles Lichfield, deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Geoeconomics Center.Since Russia imports a wide range of goods — from telephones and washing machines to cars, medicine and coffee — he said a devalued ruble makes “it more difficult for consumers to buy what they’re used to buying.”A Karachi Port Trust security guard keeping watch over the Clyde Noble, a Russian crude oil tanker berthed at the Karachi Port in Pakistan in June. Pakistan received discounted Russian crude oil as part of a new deal between Islamabad and Moscow.Rehan Khan/EPA, via ShutterstockThe United States, the European Union and countries allied with Ukraine have doggedly tried to cripple Russia with sweeping sanctions.The impact was swift and sharp in the spring of 2022. The ruble tumbled, the central bank increased rates to 20 percent to attract investors, and the government imposed strict controls on capital to keep money inside the country.But the ruble has since bounced back and interest rates come down. Russia found eager buyers elsewhere for its oil, which was selling at vastly discounted prices; liquefied natural gas; and other raw materials. More recently, Russia has become adept at evading the $60 per barrel price cap on oil imposed by the Group of 7 nations as global oil prices have once again started to rise.China is among the nations that have stepped up to buy energy and sell goods to Russia that they previously might have exchanged with European nations. Trade with China rose at an annual rate of 32 percent in the first eight months of this year. Trade with India tripled in the first half of the year, and exports from Turkey rose nearly 89 percent over the same period.Meanwhile, the war is gobbling up other parts of Russia’s budget aside from direct military spending. An additional 9.2 percent of the budget is slated for “national security,” which includes law enforcement. There is money for injured soldiers and for families of those killed in battle, and for “integrating new regions,” a reference to occupied territory in Ukraine.Sergei Guriev, a Russian economist who fled the country in 2013 and is now provost at Sciences Po in Paris, said accurately assessing the Russian economy is difficult. The existing economic models were designed before the war and based on different assumptions, and the published budget figures are incomplete.What that means for Russian households on a daily basis is harder to discern.“Overall, it’s very hard to compare quality of life before and after the war,” Mr. Guriev said. “It’s hard to know what Russians think. People are afraid.”Valerie Hopkins More