International Relations

More stories

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why What We Thought About the Global Economy Is No Longer True

    by

    While the world’s eyes were on the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and China, the paths to prosperity and shared interests have grown murkier.When the world’s business and political leaders gathered in 2018 at the annual economic forum in Davos, the mood was jubilant. Growth in every major country was on an upswing. The global economy, declared Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, “is in a very sweet spot.”Five years later, the outlook has decidedly soured.“Nearly all the economic forces that powered progress and prosperity over the last three decades are fading,” the World Bank warned in a recent analysis. “The result could be a lost decade in the making — not just for some countries or regions as has occurred in the past — but for the whole world.”A lot has happened between then and now: A global pandemic hit; war erupted in Europe; tensions between the United States and China boiled. And inflation, thought to be safely stored away with disco album collections, returned with a vengeance.But as the dust has settled, it has suddenly seemed as if almost everything we thought we knew about the world economy was wrong.The economic conventions that policymakers had relied on since the Berlin Wall fell more than 30 years ago — the unfailing superiority of open markets, liberalized trade and maximum efficiency — look to be running off the rails.During the Covid-19 pandemic, the ceaseless drive to integrate the global economy and reduce costs left health care workers without face masks and medical gloves, carmakers without semiconductors, sawmills without lumber and sneaker buyers without Nikes.Calverton National Cemetery in New York in early 2021, where daily burials more than doubled at the height of the pandemic.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesCaring for Covid patients in Bergamo, Italy, in 2020. Cost-cutting and economic integration around the globe left health care workers scrambling for masks and other supplies when the coronavirus hit.Fabio Bucciarelli for The New York TimesThe idea that trade and shared economic interests would prevent military conflicts was trampled last year under the boots of Russian soldiers in Ukraine.And increasing bouts of extreme weather that destroyed crops, forced migrations and halted power plants has illustrated that the market’s invisible hand was not protecting the planet.Now, as the second year of war in Ukraine grinds on and countries struggle with limp growth and persistent inflation, questions about the emerging economic playing field have taken center stage.Globalization, seen in recent decades as unstoppable a force as gravity, is clearly evolving in unpredictable ways. The move away from an integrated world economy is accelerating. And the best way to respond is a subject of fierce debate.Of course, challenges to the reigning economic consensus had been growing for a while.“We saw before the pandemic began that the wealthiest countries were getting frustrated by international trade, believing — whether correctly or not — that somehow this was hurting them, their jobs and standards of living,” said Betsey Stevenson, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration.The financial meltdown in 2008 came close to tanking the global financial system. Britain pulled out of the European Union in 2016. President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on China in 2017, spurring a mini trade war.But starting with Covid-19, the rat-a-tat series of crises exposed with startling clarity vulnerabilities that demanded attention.As the consulting firm EY concluded in its 2023 Geostrategic Outlook, the trends behind the shift away from ever-increasing globalization “were accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic — and then they have been supercharged by the war in Ukraine.”A view of the destruction in Bakhmut, Ukraine, in May.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesUkrainians lined up to receive humanitarian aid in Kherson last year. Trade and shared economic interests weren’t enough to prevent wars, as once thought.Lynsey Addario for The New York TimesIt was the ‘end of history.’Today’s sense of unease is a stark contrast with the heady triumphalism that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. It was a period when a theorist could declare that the fall of communism marked “the end of history” — that liberal democratic ideas not only vanquished rivals, but represented “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution.”Associated economic theories about the ineluctable rise of worldwide free market capitalism took on a similar sheen of invincibility and inevitability. Open markets, hands-off government and the relentless pursuit of efficiency would offer the best route to prosperity.It was believed that a new world where goods, money and information crisscrossed the globe would essentially sweep away the old order of Cold War conflicts and undemocratic regimes.There was reason for optimism. During the 1990s, inflation was low while employment, wages and productivity were up. Global trade nearly doubled. Investments in developing countries surged. The stock market rose.The World Trade Organization was established in 1995 to enforce the rules. China’s entry six years later was seen as transformative. And linking a huge market with 142 countries would irresistibly draw the Asian giant toward democracy.China, along with South Korea, Malaysia and others, turned struggling farmers into productive urban factory workers. The furniture, toys and electronics they sold around the world generated tremendous growth.China joined the World Trade Organization at a signing ceremony in 2001. ReutersThe favored economic road map helped produce fabulous wealth, lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and spur wondrous technological advances.But there were stunning failures as well. Globalization hastened climate change and deepened inequalities.In the United States and other advanced economies, many industrial jobs were exported to lower-wage countries, removing a springboard to the middle class.Policymakers always knew there would be winners and losers. Still, the market was left to decide how to deploy labor, technology and capital in the belief that efficiency and growth would automatically follow. Only afterward, the thinking went, should politicians step in to redistribute gains or help those left without jobs or prospects.Companies embarked on a worldwide scavenger hunt for low-wage workers, regardless of worker protections, environmental impact or democratic rights. They found many of them in places like Mexico, Vietnam and China.Television, T-shirts and tacos were cheaper than ever, but many essentials like health care, housing and higher education were increasingly out of reach.The job exodus pushed down wages at home and undercut workers’ bargaining power, spurring anti-immigrant sentiments and strengthening hard-right populist leaders like Donald Trump in the United States, Viktor Orban in Hungary and Marine Le Pen in France.In advanced industrial giants like the United States, Britain and several European countries, political leaders turned out to be unable or unwilling to more broadly reapportion rewards and burdens.Nor were they able to prevent damaging environmental fallout. Transporting goods around the globe increased greenhouse gas emissions. Producing for a world of consumers strained natural resources, encouraging overfishing in Southeast Asia and illegal deforestation in Brazil. And cheap production facilities polluted countries without adequate environmental standards.It turned out that markets on their own weren’t able to automatically distribute gains fairly or spur developing countries to grow or establish democratic institutions.Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said in a recent speech that a central fallacy in American economic policy had been to assume “that markets always allocate capital productively and efficiently — no matter what our competitors did, no matter how big our shared challenges grew, and no matter how many guardrails we took down.”The proliferation of economic exchanges between nations also failed to usher in a promised democratic renaissance.Communist-led China turned out to be the global economic system’s biggest beneficiary — and perhaps master gamesman — without embracing democratic values.“Capitalist tools in socialist hands,” the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said in 1992, when his country was developing into the world’s factory floor. China’s astonishing growth transformed it into the world’s second largest economy and a major engine of global growth. All along, though, Beijing maintained a tight grip on its raw materials, land, capital, energy, credit and labor, as well as the movements and speech of its people.Globalization has had enormous effects on the environment — including deforestation in Roraima State, in the Brazilian Amazon.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesDistributing food in Johannesburg in 2020, where the pandemic caused a significant spike in the need for assistance.Joao Silva/The New York TimesMoney flowed in, and poor countries paid the price.In developing countries, the results could be dire.The economic havoc wreaked by the pandemic combined with soaring food and fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine have created a spate of debt crises. Rising interest rates have made those crises worse. Debts, like energy and food, are often priced in dollars on the world market, so when U.S. rates go up, debt payments get more expensive.The cycle of loans and bailouts, though, has deeper roots.Poorer nations were pressured to lift all restrictions on capital moving in and out of the country. The argument was that money, like goods, should flow freely among nations. Allowing governments, businesses and individuals to borrow from foreign lenders would finance industrial development and key infrastructure.“Financial globalization was supposed to usher in an era of robust growth and fiscal stability in the developing world,” said Jayati Ghosh, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. But “it ended up doing the opposite.”Some loans — whether from private lenders or institutions like the World Bank — didn’t produce enough returns to pay off the debt. Others were poured into speculative schemes, half-baked proposals, vanity projects or corrupt officials’ bank accounts. And debtors remained at the mercy of rising interest rates that swelled the size of debt payments in a heartbeat.Over the years, reckless lending, asset bubbles, currency fluctuations and official mismanagement led to boom-and-bust cycles in Asia, Russia, Latin America and elsewhere. In Sri Lanka, extravagant projects undertaken by the government, from ports to cricket stadiums, helped drive the country into bankruptcy last year as citizens scavenged for food and the central bank, in a barter arrangement, paid for Iranian oil with tea leaves.It’s a “Ponzi scheme,” Ms. Ghosh said.Private lenders who got spooked that they would not be repaid abruptly cut off the flow of money, leaving countries in the lurch.And the mandated austerity that accompanied bailouts from the International Monetary Fund, which compelled overextended governments to slash spending, often brought widespread misery by cutting public assistance, pensions, education and health care.Even I.M.F. economists acknowledged in 2016 that instead of delivering growth, such policies “increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion.”Disenchantment with the West’s style of lending gave China the opportunity to become an aggressive creditor in countries like Argentina, Mongolia, Egypt and Suriname.A market in Buenos Aires. China has become an aggressive creditor to countries like Argentina. Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesSelf-reliance replaces cheap imports.While the collapse of the Soviet Union cleared the way for the domination of free-market orthodoxy, the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has now decisively unmoored it.The story of the international economy today, said Henry Farrell, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is about “how geopolitics is gobbling up hyperglobalization.”Old-world style great power politics accomplished what the threat of catastrophic climate collapse, seething social unrest and widening inequality could not: It upended assumptions about the global economic order.Josep Borrell, the European Union’s head of foreign affairs and security policy, put it bluntly in a speech 10 months after the invasion of Ukraine: “We have decoupled the sources of our prosperity from the sources of our security.” Europe got cheap energy from Russia and cheap manufactured goods from China. “This is a world that is no longer there,” he said.Supply-chain chokeholds stemming from the pandemic and subsequent recovery had already underscored the fragility of a globally sourced economy. As political tensions over the war grew, policymakers quickly added self-reliance and strength to the goals of growth and efficiency.“Our supply chains are not secure, and they’re not resilient,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said last spring. Trade relationships should be built around “trusted partners,” she said, even if it means “a somewhat higher level of cost, a somewhat less efficient system.”“It was naïve to think that markets are just about efficiency and that they’re not also about power,” said Abraham Newman, a co-author with Mr. Farrell of “Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy.”Economic networks, by their very nature, create power imbalances and pressure points because countries have varying capabilities, resources and vulnerabilities.Russia, which had supplied 40 percent of the European Union’s natural gas, tried to use that dependency to pressure the bloc to withdraw its support of Ukraine.The United States and its allies used their domination of the global financial system to remove major Russian banks from the international payments system.The Port of Chornomorsk near Odesa, last year. In 2021, Ukraine was the largest wheat exporter in the world.Laetitia Vancon for The New York TimesHarvesting grapes at a vineyard in South Australia. China blocked Australian exports of wine and other goods after the country expressed support for Taiwan.Adam Ferguson for The New York TimesChina has retaliated against trading partners by restricting access to its enormous market.The extreme concentrations of critical suppliers and information technology networks has generated additional choke points.China manufactures 80 percent of the world’s solar panels. Taiwan produces 92 percent of tiny advanced semiconductors. Much of the world’s trade and transactions are figured in U.S. dollars.The new reality is reflected in American policy. The United States — the central architect of the liberalized economic order and the World Trade Organization — has turned away from more comprehensive free trade agreements and repeatedly refused to abide by W.T.O. decisions.Security concerns have led the Biden administration to block Chinese investment in American businesses and limit China’s access to private data on citizens and to new technologies.And it has embraced Chinese-style industrial policy, offering gargantuan subsidies for electric vehicles, batteries, wind farms, solar plants and more to secure supply chains and speed the transition to renewable energy.“Ignoring the economic dependencies that had built up over the decades of liberalization had become really perilous,” Mr. Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said. Adherence to “oversimplified market efficiency,” he added, proved to be a mistake.While the previous economic orthodoxy has been partly abandoned, it is not clear what will replace it. Improvisation is the order of the day. Perhaps the only assumption that can be confidently relied on now is that the path to prosperity and policy trade-offs will become murkier.A solar farm in Yanqing district, in China. The country makes 80 percent of the world’s solar panels.Gilles Sabrié for The New York Times More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    As U.S. and Chinese Officials Meet, Businesses Temper Their Hopes

    by

    Chief executives in the U.S. have long pushed for closer ties between the two countries. Now they just hope a rocky situation won’t get worse.In a meeting in Beijing on Friday, China’s leader, Xi Jinping, traded warm smiles with Bill Gates and praised Mr. Gates as “the first American friend” he had met this year.The encounters in Beijing between Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and his Chinese counterparts, starting on Sunday, are likely to feel noticeably chillier.The high-level meetings are aimed at getting the U.S.-China relationship back on track, and many American business leaders have been pushing the Biden administration to try to restore some stability in one of the world’s most important bilateral relationships.But for business leaders, and for officials on both sides, expectations for the meetings appear modest, with two main goals for the talks. One is to restore communication between the governments, which broke down this year after a Chinese surveillance balloon flew into U.S. airspace and Mr. Blinken canceled a visit scheduled for February. The other is to halt any further decline in the countries’ relationship.There is already evidence of the impact of the fraying ties. Foreign direct investment in China has fallen to an 18-year low. A 2023 survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in China showed that companies still see the Chinese market as a priority, but that their willingness to invest there is declining.“The economic relationship has become so dismal that any sign of progress is welcome, though expectations are low for any sort of a breakthrough,” said Jake Colvin, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents multinational businesses.“The hope is that high-level dialogues like this can start to inject some certainty for business into an increasingly fraught and unpredictable trade relationship,” he said.Still, as one of the world’s largest consumer markets and home to many factories that supply global businesses, China exerts a powerful pull. This year, as it eased its travel restrictions after three years of pandemic lockdowns, a parade of chief executives made trips to China, including Mary Barra of General Motors, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone.On a visit to China this month, Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and owner of Twitter, described the American and Chinese economies as “conjoined twins” and said he opposed to efforts to split them. Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, traveled to China in March and lauded the company’s “symbiotic” relationship with the nation.Sam Altman, the leader of OpenAI, which makes the ChatGPT chatbot, appeared virtually at a conference in Beijing this month, saying American and Chinese researchers should continue to work together to counter the risks of artificial intelligence.The tech industry, which has forged lucrative relationships with Chinese manufacturers and consumers, has warily watched Washington’s aggressive approach to China. While industry groups acknowledge the importance of moves to safeguard national security, they have urged the Biden administration to carefully calibrate its actions.Wendy Cutler, a former diplomat and trade negotiator who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said the United States and China might announce some small steps forward at the end of the meetings. The governments might agree, she said, to increase the paltry number of flights between their countries or the visas they are issuing to foreign visitors.But both sides will have plenty of grievances to air, Ms. Cutler said. Chinese officials are likely to complain about U.S. tariffs on goods made in China and restrictions on U.S. firms selling coveted chip technology to China. American officials may highlight China’s deteriorating business environment and its recent move to bar companies that handle critical information from buying microchips made by the U.S. company Micron.“I’m not expecting any breakthroughs, particularly on the economic front,” Ms. Cutler said, adding, “Neither side will want to be smiling.”American officials hope Mr. Blinken’s visit paves the way for more cooperation, including on issues like climate change and the restructuring the debt loads of developing countries. Other officials, including Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, are considering visits to China this year, and Mr. Xi and President Biden may meet directly at either the Group of 20 meetings in Delhi in September or an Asia-Pacific economic meeting in San Francisco in November.In recent months, Biden officials have tried to mend the rift between the countries by arguing for a more “constructive” relationship. They have echoed European officials in saying their desire is for “de-risking and diversifying” their economic relationships with China, not “decoupling.”But trust between the governments has eroded, and Chinese officials appear to be skeptical of how much the Biden administration can do to restore ties.The extensive U.S. restrictions on the semiconductor technology that can be shared with China, which were issued in October, continue to rankle officials in Beijing. The United States has added dozens of Chinese companies to sanctions lists for aiding the Chinese military and surveillance state, or circumventing U.S. restrictions against trading with Iran and Russia.Biden administration officials are weighing further restrictions on China, including a long-delayed order covering certain U.S. venture capital investments. And the White House faces intense pressure from Congress to do more to crack down on national security threats emanating from Beijing.Not all companies are pushing for improved ties. Some with less exposure to China have tried to reap political benefits in Washington from the growing competition with the country. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has repeatedly raised concerns about TikTok, the Chinese-owned video app that has proved a formidable competitor to Instagram.“It’s really a dispute over the degree,” said James Lewis, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “How accommodating are you? How confrontational are you?”How aggressively companies are resisting the tensions with China, Mr. Lewis said, is linked to their exposure to the country’s market.“I think a lot of this has to do with your presence in China,” he said. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    TikTok, Shein and Other Companies Distance Themselves From China

    by

    Companies are moving headquarters and factories outside the country and cleaving off their Chinese businesses. It’s not clear the strategy will work.As it expanded internationally, Shein, the rapidly growing fast fashion app, progressively cut ties to its home country, China. It moved its headquarters to Singapore and de-registered its original company in Nanjing. It set up operations in Ireland and Indiana, and hired Washington lobbyists to highlight its U.S. expansion plans as it prepares for a potential initial public offering this year.Yet the clothing retailer can’t shake the focus on its ties with China. Along with other brands like the viral social app TikTok and shopping app Temu, Shein has become a target of American lawmakers in both parties. Politicians are accusing the company of making its clothes with fabric made with forced labor and calling it a tool of the Chinese Communist Party — claims that Shein denies.“No one should be fooled by Shein’s efforts to cover its tracks,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, wrote in a letter to other lawmakers this month.As relations between the United States and China turn increasingly rocky, some of China’s most entrepreneurial brands have taken steps to distance themselves from their home country. They have set up new factories and headquarters outside China to serve the United States and other foreign markets, emphasized their foreign ties and scrubbed any mention of “China” from their corporate websites.TikTok has set up headquarters in Los Angeles and Singapore, and invested in new U.S. operations that it says will wall off its American user data from its parent company, ByteDance. Temu has established a headquarters in Boston, and its parent company, PDD Holdings, has moved its headquarters from China to Ireland.Chinese solar companies have set up factories outside China to avoid U.S. tariffs on solar panels from China and limit their exposure to Xinjiang, a region that the United States now bars imports from because of its use of forced labor.JinkoSolar, a behemoth that produces one in 10 solar modules installed globally, has set up a supply chain entirely outside China to make goods for the United States.Other companies, including those that are foreign-owned, are building walls between their Chinese operations and their global businesses, judging that this is the best way to avoid running afoul of new restrictions or risks to their reputation.Sequoia Capital, the venture capital firm, said last week that it would split its global business into three independent partnerships, spinning off unique entities for China and India.Shein said in a statement that it was “a multinational company with diversified operations around the world and customers in 150 markets, and we make all business decisions with that in mind.” The company said it had zero tolerance for forced labor, did not source cotton from Xinjiang and fully complied with all U.S. tax and trade laws.A spokesperson for TikTok said that the Chinese Communist Party had neither direct nor indirect control of ByteDance or TikTok, and that ByteDance was a private, global company with offices around the world.“Roughly 60 percent of ByteDance is owned by global institutional investors such as BlackRock and General Atlantic, and its C.E.O. resides in Singapore,” said Brooke Oberwetter, a spokesperson.Temu did not respond to requests for comment.Analysts said companies were being driven out of China by a variety of motivations, including better access to foreign customers and an escape from the risk of a crackdown by the Chinese authorities.Some companies have more practical concerns, like reducing their costs for labor and shipping, lowering their tax bills or shedding the shoddy reputation that American buyers continue to associate with goods made in China, said Shay Luo, a principal at the consulting firm Kearney who studies supply chains.But a wave of tougher restrictions in the United States on doing business with China appears to be having an effect, too.Research by Altana, a supply chain technology company, shows that since 2016, new regulations, customs enforcement actions and trade policies that hurt Chinese exports to the United States were followed by “adaptive behavior,” like setting up new subsidiaries outside China, said Evan Smith, the company’s chief executive.For Chinese companies, going global is not a new phenomenon. The Chinese government initiated a “go out” policy at the turn of the century to encourage state-owned enterprises to invest abroad to gain overseas markets, natural resources and technology.Private companies like the electronics firm Lenovo, the appliance maker Haier and the e-commerce giant Alibaba soon followed, seeking investment targets and new customers.As tensions between the United States and China have risen in recent years, investment flows between the countries have slowed. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods put in place by President Donald J. Trump and maintained by President Biden encouraged companies to move manufacturing from China to countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and Mexico. The pandemic, which halted factories in China and raised costs for moving goods across the ocean, accelerated the trend.International companies are now increasingly adopting a “China plus one” model of securing an additional source of goods in another country in case of supply interruptions in China. Chinese companies, too, are following this practice, Ms. Luo said.In the 12 months that ended in April, the share of imports to the United States from China reached its lowest level since 2006.“It is definitely a rational strategy for these companies to offshore, to move manufacturing or their headquarters to a third country,” said Roselyn Hsueh, an associate professor of political science at Temple University.In addition to tariffs and the ban on products from the Xinjiang region, the United States has imposed new restrictions on trade in technology and tougher security reviews for Chinese investments.The Chinese government, too, is clamping down on the transfer of data and currency outside the country, and it has squashed some Chinese companies’ efforts to list their stocks on American exchanges because of such concerns.Beijing has detained and harassed top tech executives, and foreign consulting firms. And its draconian lockdowns during the pandemic made clear to businesses that they operate in China at the mercy of the government.“Companies like Shein and TikTok move overseas both to reduce their U.S. regulatory and reputational risk, but also to reduce the likelihood that their founders and staff get intimidated or arrested by Chinese officials,” said Isaac Stone Fish, the chief executive of Strategy Risks, a consultant on corporate exposure to China.But companies like Shein and Temu still source nearly all of their products from China, and it’s not clear that the changes the Chinese companies are making to their businesses have done much to lower the heat.The opposition to these companies in Washington is being fueled by an incendiary combination of legitimate concerns over national security and forced labor, and the political appeal of appearing tough on China. It also appears to be driven by the opposition of certain competitors to these services, which are now some of the most downloaded apps in the United States.Shou Chew, the chief executive of TikTok, was questioned at a House hearing in March over whether the social app would make U.S. user data available to the Chinese government.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesIn March, a group called Shut Down Shein sprang up to pressure Congress to crack down on the retailer. The group, which has hired five lobbyists with the firm Actum, declined to disclose who is funding its campaign.In a five-hour hearing in March, lawmakers grilled TikTok’s chief executive over whether it would make U.S. user data available to the Chinese government, or censor the information broadcast to young Americans. Legislation is being considered that could permanently ban the app.Some lawmakers are arguing that JinkoSolar’s U.S.-made panels should not be eligible for government tax credits, and, for reasons that have not yet been disclosed, the company’s Florida factory was raided by customs officials last month.State governments, which have often been more welcoming to Chinese investment, are also growing more hostile. In January, Glenn Youngkin, the Republican governor of Virginia, blocked a deal for Ford Motor to set up a factory using technology from a Chinese battery maker, Contemporary Amperex Technology, calling it a “Trojan-horse relationship.”A House committee set up to examine economic and security competition with China is investigating the ties that Temu and Shein have with forced labor in China, and lawmakers are calling for Shein to be audited before its I.P.O.“The message of our investigation of Shein, Temu, Adidas and Nike is clear: Either ensure your supply chains are clean — no matter how difficult it is — or get out of countries like China implicated in forced labor,” Representative Mike Gallagher, the Republican chair of the committee, said in a statement.An investigation by Bloomberg in November found that some of Shein’s clothes were made with cotton grown in Xinjiang. In a statement, Shein said it had “built a four-step approach to ensure compliance” with the law, including a “code of conduct, independent audits, robust tracing technology and third-party testing.Jordyn Holman More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Ukraine Grain Deal Raises Tensions for European Farmers

    by

    When Russia’s war blocked vitally needed grains at Ukrainian ports, officials succeeded in finding other routes out. But the solution brought its own problems.In Britain, food prices were up 19 percent last month from the previous year. In Spain, farmers are worried that a lack of rainfall will irreversibly damage wheat and barley production. And in West and Central Africa, record numbers of people are facing potentially dire food shortages.Nonetheless, a handful of European nations including Poland and Hungary have blocked the entry of farm products from Ukraine — one of the world’s biggest grain exporters — arguing that the flood of cheap imports is ruining local farmers. Now, to quell the rising discord, the European Union is considering a temporary ban on grain imports to five nations.The combination of spiraling prices for consumers in one part of the world and plummeting incomes for farmers in another illustrates the maddening complexities of the global food market.Long before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year, climate change, violent conflicts, supply-chain bottlenecks related to the pandemic and burdensome debts were contributing to food shortages and hunger around the world. But the war in Ukraine threatened to seriously worsen the crisis by reducing the country’s grain exports and driving up food and fertilizer prices.With sea shipments from Ukrainian ports blocked or restricted by Russian forces, the European Union suspended tariffs and quotas on food from Ukraine and rushed to transport as much as possible by rail and truck through neighboring countries. The idea was to create an alternate pathway that would funnel grain from Ukraine’s breadbasket to the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia, where it was most needed.The plan worked, at least to some degree, easing anxieties over shortages. Food prices have dropped by more than 20 percent from a peak in March 2022, according to a food price index calculated by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.Much of the Ukrainian grain was getting to far-off markets by traveling through Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary, as well as Bulgaria — but not all of it. And that is what has set off the tensions.“Enough makes its way to local markets, and makes it more difficult for European farmers to get the price they want,” said Monika Tothova, an economist with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.Trucks were lined up for more than 10 kilometers at the Ukrainian-Polish border on Tuesday.Yuriy Dyachyshyn/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe uproar in rural areas has created political headaches for government leaders.With a national election coming up in Poland, which has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki last week imposed a unilateral ban on Ukrainian grain and certain other farm imports, a violation of European Union rules.As early as last summer, some farmers in Romania were complaining about the glut of Ukrainian grain, saying it had pushed down prices for their own products at a time when the costs of fuel, pesticides and fertilizer were rising.Hoping to dampen the growing internal discord, the European Union promised on Wednesday to offer “comprehensive proposals” to address the concerns of the five Eastern and Central European countries and provide 100 million euros ($110 million) to compensate farmers.On Thursday, an E.U. official confirmed that one of the measures under consideration was a temporary ban on certain Ukrainian food exports to Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, if those five countries canceled any unilateral measures.It was not clear if the countries would all go along with the plan, which some European officials said did not go far enough.“We have to expand this product range,” the Hungarian agriculture minister, Istvan Nagy, wrote on Facebook late Wednesday, adding, “We must also apply restrictions on eggs, poultry and honey” coming in from Ukraine.The prohibitions on Ukrainian grain to neighboring countries come at the same time that Russia is threatening to back out of a deal brokered by the United Nations and Turkey to allow grain shipments to leave Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. That deal is set to expire on May 18, although talks about an extension are continuing.Even with the deal in place, though, passage through the Bosporus in Turkey is slow, uneven and expensive. Ukraine is already harvesting 40 percent less than it did before the war. High shipping fees add to the costs and may cause farmers to plant even less next year, and in turn further reduce food production.“There is no global food crisis,” Ms. Tothova said. “There are many crises in different countries. The problem last year was a problem of access. Grain was available but many did not have enough resources to buy it.”Even as Europe’s leaders skirmished over Ukrainian grain, Ukraine itself was given encouragement on Thursday that it would eventually be accepted into the European military fold.On a visit to Kyiv — his first since the Russian invasion over a year ago — Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO, said Ukraine’s “rightful place” was in the alliance.“I am here today with a simple message: NATO stands with Ukraine,” Mr. Stoltenberg said at a news conference with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Mr. Stoltenberg said the issue of Ukraine’s NATO membership would be “high on the agenda” at a NATO summit in Lithuania in July.Though Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the alliance has helped coordinate its requests for nonlethal assistance and supports deliveries of humanitarian aid. And some NATO members have provided major military assistance to help Ukraine fend off Russian forces.Even those NATO members who are open to the entry of Ukraine have made it clear that it is a long-term goal.But Mr. Zelensky, who has been invited to attend the NATO summit, said it was important that Ukraine be invited to join the alliance.“There is no objective barrier to the political decision to invite Ukraine into the alliance,” he said.On Thursday, Mr. Zelensky also tried to win over lawmakers from Mexico, which has said little publicly about the Russian invasion.“Ukrainians and Mexicans hurt equally when we see innocent lives taken by cruel violence, where true peace could reign,” he said, addressing them remotely.The Ukrainian president has spoken to dozens of legislatures over the past year, often using the occasions to ask for military aid. But speaking to the Mexican lawmakers, Mr. Zelensky seemed content just to ask for their support.Victoria Kim More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Russia Is Importing Western Weapons Technology, Bypassing Sanctions

    by

    Western technology goods are winding up in Russian missiles, raising questions about the efficacy of sanctions.Late last month, American and European Union officials traded information on millions of dollars’ worth of banned technology that was slipping through the cracks of their defenses and into Russian territory.Senior tax and trade officials noted a surge in chips and other electronic components being sold to Russia through Armenia, Kazakhstan and other countries, according to slides from the March 24 meeting obtained by The New York Times. And they shared information on the flow of eight particularly sensitive categories of chips and other electronic devices that they have deemed as critical to the development of weapons, including Russian cruise missiles that have struck Ukraine.As Ukraine tries to repel Russia from its territory, the United States and its allies have been fighting a parallel battle to keep the chips needed for weapons systems, drones and tanks out of Russian hands.But denying Russia access to chips has been a challenge, and the United States and Europe have not made a clear victory. While Russia’s ability to manufacture weaponry has been diminished because of Western sanctions adopted more than a year ago, the country is still gaining circuitous access to many electronic components.The result is devastating: As the United States and the European Union rally to furnish Ukrainians with weapons to keep fighting against Russia, their own technology is being used by Russia to fight back.American officials argue that the sweeping sanctions they have imposed in partnership with 38 other governments have severely damaged Russia’s military capacity, and raised the cost to Russia to procure the parts it needs.“My view is that we’ve been very effective in impeding Russia’s ability to sustain and reconstitute a military force,” said Alan Estevez, who oversees U.S. export controls at the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Commerce Department, in an interview in March.“We recognize that this is hard, hard work,” Mr. Estevez added. “They’re adapting. We’re adapting to their adaptations.”There is no doubt that the trade restrictions are making it significantly harder for Russia to obtain technology that can be used on the battlefield, much of which is designed by firms in the United States and allied countries.Direct sales of chips to Russia from the United States and its allies have plummeted to zero. U.S. officials say Russia has already blown through much of its supply of its most accurate weapons and has been forced to substitute lower-quality or counterfeit parts that make its weaponry less accurate.But trade data shows that other countries have stepped in to provide Russia with some of what it needs. After dropping off sharply immediately after the Ukrainian invasion, Russia’s chip imports crept back up, particularly from China. Imports between October and January were 50 percent or more of median prewar levels each month, according to tracking by Silverado Policy Accelerator, a think tank.Sarah V. Stewart, Silverado’s chief executive, said the export controls imposed on Russia had disrupted pre-existing supply chains, calling that “a really positive thing.” But she said Russia was “still continuing to get quite a substantial amount” of chips.“It’s really a supply chain network that is very, very large and very complex and not necessarily transparent,” Ms. Stewart said. “Chips are truly ubiquitous.”A Ukrainian serviceman holding an electronic unit of an unmanned aerial vehicle used by Russia against Ukraine, during a media briefing of the Security and Defense Forces of Ukraine in Kyiv last week.STR/NurPhoto, via Getty ImagesAs Russia has tried to get around restrictions, U.S. officials have steadily ratcheted up their rules, including adding sanctions on dozens of companies and organizations in Russia, Iran, China, Canada and elsewhere. The United States has also expanded its trade restrictions to include toasters, hair dryers and microwaves, all of which contain chips, and set up a “disruptive technology strike force” to investigate and prosecute illicit actors trying to acquire sensitive technology.But the illicit trade in chips is proving hard to police given the ubiquity of semiconductors. Companies shipped 1.15 trillion chips to customers globally in 2021, adding to a huge worldwide stockpile. China, which is not part of the sanctions regime, is pumping out increasingly sophisticated chips.The Semiconductor Industry Association, which represents major chip companies, said that it was engaging with the U.S. government and other parties to combat the illicit trade in semiconductors, but that controlling their flow was extremely difficult.“We have rigorous protocols to remove bad actors from our supply chains, but with about one trillion chips sold globally each year, it’s not as simple as flipping a switch,” the association said in a statement.So far, the Russian military appears to have been relying on a large stockpile of electronics and weaponry it accumulated before the invasion. But that supply may be drying up, making it more urgent for Russia to obtain new shipments.A report issued Tuesday by Conflict Armament Research, an independent group that examines Russian weaponry recovered from the battlefield, revealed the first known example of Russia’s making weapons with chips manufactured after the invasion began.Three identical chips, made by a U.S. company in an offshore factory, were found in Lancet drones recovered from several sites in Ukraine this past February and March, according to Damien Spleeters, who led the investigation for C.A.R.Mr. Spleeters said his group was not revealing the chip’s manufacturer while it worked with the company to trace how the product ended up in Russia.These chips were not necessarily an example of an export control violation, Mr. Spleeters said, since the United States did not issue restrictions on this specific type of chip until September. The chips were manufactured in August and may have been shipped out soon thereafter, he said.But he saw their presence as evidence that Russia’s big prewar stockpile of electronics was finally running out. “Now we are going to start seeing whether controls and sanctions will be effective,” Mr. Spleeters said.The parent company of the firm that designed the drone, the Kalashnikov Group, a major Russian weapons manufacturer, has publicly challenged the West’s technology restrictions.“It is impossible to isolate Russia from the entire global electronic component base,” Alan Lushnikov, the group’s president, said in a Russian-language interview last year, according to a translation in a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “It’s a fantasy to think otherwise.”That quote included “some bluster,” Gregory Allen, one of the report’s authors, said at an event in December. But he added: “Russia is going to try and do whatever it takes to get around these export controls. Because for them, the stakes are incredibly, incredibly high.”As the documents from the March meeting show, U.S. and European officials have become increasingly concerned that Russia is obtaining American and European goods by rerouting them through Armenia, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries.One document marked with the seal of the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security said that in 2022, Armenia imported 515 percent more chips and processors from the United States and 212 percent more from the European Union than in 2021. Armenia then exported 97 percent of those same products to Russia, the document said.In another document, the Bureau of Industry and Security identified eight categories of chips and components deemed critical to Russian weapons development, including one called a field programmable gate array, which had been found in one model of Russian cruise missile, the KH-101.The intelligence sharing between the United States and Europe is part of a nascent but intensifying effort to minimize the leakage of such items to Russia. While the United States has deeper experience with enforcing sanctions, the European Union lacks centralized intelligence, customs and law enforcement abilities.The United States and the European Union have both recently dispatched officials to countries that were shipping more to Russia, to try to cut down that trade. Mr. Estevez said a recent visit to Turkey had persuaded that government to halt transshipments to Russia through their free trade zone, as well the servicing of Russian and Belarusian airplanes in Turkish airports.Biden administration officials say shipments to Russia and Belarus of the electronic equipment they have targeted fell 41 percent between 2021 and 2022, as the United States and its allies expanded their restrictions globally.Matthew S. Axelrod, the assistant secretary for export enforcement at the Bureau of Industry and Security, said the picture was one of a “broad decrease.”“But still there are certain areas of the world that are being used to get these items to Russia,” he said. “That’s a problem that we are laser-focused on.”John Ismay More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Pressure Mounts on China to Offer Debt Relief to Poor Countries Facing Default

    by

    There was optimism at the spring meetings of the I.M.F. and World Bank that China will make concessions over restructuring its loans.WASHINGTON — China, under growing pressure from top international policymakers, appeared to indicate this week that it is ready to make concessions that would unlock a global effort to restructure hundreds of billions of dollars of debt owed by poor countries.China has lent more than $500 billion to developing countries through its lending program, making it one of the world’s largest creditors. Many of those countries, including several in Africa, have struggled economically in the wake of the pandemic and face the possibility of defaulting on their debt payments. Their problems have been compounded by rising interest rates and disruptions to supplies of food and energy as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine.The United States, along with other Western nations, has been pressing China to allow some of those countries to restructure their debt and reduce the amount that they owe. But for more than two years, China has insisted that other creditors and multilateral lenders absorb financial losses as part of any restructuring, bogging down a critical loan relief process and threatening to push millions of people in developing countries deeper into poverty.A breakthrough would offer an economic lifeline to vulnerable nations at a time of sluggish growth and uncertain financial stability, and it would signal a renewed interest from China in economic diplomacy.Economists and development experts are watching carefully to determine if China is serious about easing the loan forgiveness logjam and if its talk will be followed by action. By some calculations, the world’s poor countries owe around $200 billion to wealthy nations, multilateral development banks and private creditors. Leaders of the world’s advanced economies have been grappling in recent months with how to avert financial crises in teetering markets such as Zambia, Sri Lanka and Ghana.Africa’s private and public external debt has increased more than fivefold over the last two decades to about $700 billion and Chinese lenders account for 12 percent of that total, according to Chatham House, the London policy institute. Researchers for the Debt Relief for Green and Inclusive Recovery Project estimated in a recent report that 61 emerging market and developing economies were facing debt distress, and that more than $800 billion in debt must be restructured.Leaders of the world’s advanced economies have been grappling in recent months with how to avert financial crises in teetering markets such as Sri Lanka.Dinuka Liyanawatte/Reuters“China is facing increasing pressure from every quarter, including from other emerging market economies, to play a more constructive role in the negotiations over debt restructuring,” said Eswar Prasad, a former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China division, who said China’s intransigence had left it “increasingly isolated.”There were indications this week that China was prepared to end that isolation as top economic officials from around the world convened at the spring meetings of the I.M.F. and World Bank. Participants expressed optimism that representatives from Beijing appeared to be ready to back off its insistence that multilateral lenders such as the World Bank, which provides low-interest loans and grants to poor countries, accept losses in the debt restructuring.“My sense from the current context is we’re moving on to new steps,” David Malpass, the departing World Bank president, said at a news conference on Thursday, pointing to “progress on equal burden sharing.”Kristalina Georgieva, the I.M.F.’s managing director, said she was “very encouraged” that a “common understanding” had been reached that could accelerate relief for countries such as Zambia, Ghana, Ethiopia and Sri Lanka.“I always say the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” Ms. Georgieva said.To restructure a country’s debt, creditors generally must agree to a combination of lowering the interest rate on the loan, extending the duration of the loan or writing off some of what is owed. China, which has faced an array of domestic economic challenges over the last three years, has been reluctant to take losses on debt and has pushed for other lenders, such as the World Bank, to incur losses.The urgency for a resolution was palpable among countries that are most in need of relief. Zambia defaulted in 2020 and has been trying to restructure $8.4 billion that it owes through a program established by the Group of 20 nations. It owes about $6 billion to Chinese lenders, and its total debt to foreign lenders is approaching $20 billion.On Friday, Ghana’s finance minister, Ken Ofori-Atta, lamented that 33 African nations were saddled with interest payments that approached or exceeded what their governments spent on health and education.Yuri Gripas for The New York Times“Zambia urgently needs debt relief,” Situmbeko Musokotwane, Zambia’s finance minister, told The New York Times. “Delay on debt restructuring puts our currency under pressure, excludes Zambia from capital markets and makes it difficult to attract much-needed foreign direct investment.”Ghana appealed to the Group of 20 nations this year for debt relief through a fledgling program known as the Common Framework after securing preliminary approval for a $3 billion loan from the I.M.F. That money is contingent on Ghana’s receiving assurances that it can restructure the approximately $30 billion that it owes to foreign lenders. Officials from Ghana have been meeting with their Chinese counterparts about restructuring the $2 billion that it owes China.On Friday, Ghana’s finance minister, Ken Ofori-Atta, lamented that 33 African nations were saddled with interest payments that approached or exceeded what their governments spent on health and education and expressed disappointment that advanced economies had been slow to act.“Honestly, it is disheartening to watch Africa struggle in this way, especially considering the potential loss of productivity over the next decade should African economies buckle under the weight of suffocating debts,” Mr. Ofori-Atta said at an Atlantic Council event on Friday.But it remains uncertain how far China is willing to go.Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that it was not clear what financial terms Beijing would accept when restructuring debt but that it appeared to be taking a “positive step” that would remove “a financially unwarranted roadblock to any progress.”Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen at a farm in Zambia in January. She said this week that she would continue to press her Chinese counterparts to make the restructuring process work better.Fatima Hussein/Associated PressBut given the grinding pace of the talks, big investors in emerging markets are not counting on quick resolutions.“We are starting to see tokens of flexibility from China on their stance in sovereign debt restructuring, but complexities abound,” said Yacov Arnopolin, emerging markets portfolio manager at PIMCO. “Near term, we don’t expect a clear-cut solution on China’s willingness to take losses.”China’s reluctance has been another source of tension with the United States, which has expressed concern that Beijing’s onerous lending terms and refusal to renegotiate have amplified the financial problems that developing countries are facing. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said this week that she would continue to press her Chinese counterparts to improve the restructuring process but that she was encouraged that China had recently expressed a willingness to help Sri Lanka restructure its debt.People familiar with Chinese economic policymaking said domestic politics had made it hard for China to make difficult decisions last autumn and over the winter about accepting possible losses on its loans.In October, the Communist Party held its once-in-five-years national congress and chose a new team of senior party officials to work with Xi Jinping, the country’s top leader. Maneuvering then began to reshuffle the government’s senior ranks, which had been expected during the annual session of the National People’s Congress in early March, although some changes of financial policymakers were unexpectedly delayed.China is now ready to focus on addressing a wide range of economic issues, including international debt, the people said. However, Beijing still faces other challenges that may limit its willingness to bargain, including a commercial banking system that faces very heavy losses on loans to real estate developers and does not want to accept large losses on loans to developing countries at the same time.Chinese officials offered support for the debt relief initiatives in broad terms this week.Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Friday that China had put forward a three-point proposal that included calling for the I.M.F. to more quickly share its debt sustainability assessments for countries that need relief, and for creditors to detail how they will carry out the restructurings on “comparable terms.”After a meeting in Washington between Yi Gang, China’s central bank governor, and Mr. Musokotwane of Zambia, the Chinese central bank released a brief statement.“They exchanged views on issues of common concern including bilateral financial cooperation,” it said.Keith Bradsher More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Support Grows to Have Russia Pay for Ukraine’s Rebuilding

    by

    Although U.S. officials have cautioned against seizing Russia’s reserves in foreign banks, others say it’s “crazy” not to after Moscow’s war of aggression.When the World Bank released its latest damage assessment of war-torn Ukraine this week, it announced that the price of recovery and rebuilding had grown to $411 billion. What it didn’t say, though, was who would pay for it.To Ukraine, the answer seems obvious: Confiscate the roughly $300 billion in Russian Central Bank assets that Western banks have frozen since the invasion last year. As the war grinds on, the idea has gained supporters.The European Union has already declared its desire to use the Kremlin’s bankroll to pay for reconstruction in Ukraine. At the urging of a handful of Eastern European and Baltic nations, the bloc convened a working group last month to assess the possibility of grabbing that money as well as frozen assets owned by private individuals who have run afoul of European sanctions.“In principle, it is clear-cut: Russia must pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine,” said Sweden’s prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, who holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union.At the same time, he noted, turning that principle into practice is fraught. “This must be done in accordance with E.U. and international law, and there is currently no direct model for this,” Mr. Kristersson said.The working group, which has a two-year mandate, is scheduled to meet in Brussels next week.Other top officials, in the United States and elsewhere, have sounded more skeptical. After visiting Kyiv last month, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen reiterated her warnings of formidable legal obstacles. The Swiss government declared that confiscating private Russian assets from banks would violate Switzerland’s Constitution as well as international agreements.The legal debate is just one skein in the tangle of moral, political and economic concerns that the potential seizure of Russia’s reserves poses.Departing a Mass in Lviv, Ukraine. Some U.S. officials worry about side effects from seizing assets in order to rebuild the country. Maciek Nabrdalik for The New York TimesMs. Yellen and others have argued that seizing Russia’s accounts could undermine faith in the dollar, the most widely used currency for the world’s trade and transactions. Foreign nations might be more reluctant to keep money in U.S. banks or make investments, fearing that it could be seized. At the same time, experts worry that such a move could put American and European assets held in other countries at higher risk of expropriation in the future if there is an international dispute.There are also concerns that seizure would erode faith in the system of international laws and agreements that Western governments have championed most vocally.But Russia’s pummeling of Ukraine’s infrastructure, charges of war crimes against President Vladimir V. Putin, and the difficulty of squeezing Russia economically when demand for its energy and other exports remains high have helped the idea gain ground.Also, there is the uncomfortable realization that the cost of rebuilding Ukraine once the war is over will far outstrip the amount that even wealthy allies like the United States and Europe may be willing to give.The United States, the European Union, Britain and other allies have funneled billions of dollars into Ukraine’s war effort, as well as tanks, missiles, ammunition, drones and other military equipment. And this week the International Monetary Fund approved its biggest loan yet — $15.6 billion — just to keep Ukraine’s battered economy afloat.But public support for continued funding is not inexhaustible.“If it’s difficult to get funding now for maintaining the infrastructure or housing, why is it going to be easier to get funding later?” asked Tymofiy Mylovanov, the president of the Kyiv School of Economics and a former government minister.It’s hard enough for Ukraine to get money and equipment “while we are being killed,” Mr. Mylovanov said. “Once we’re not being killed, we’ll have difficulty getting anything.”Laurence Tribe, a university professor of constitutional law at Harvard, has argued that a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, gives the U.S. president the authority to confiscate sovereign Russian assets and repurpose them for Ukraine.The U.S. authorities previously seized Iraqi and Iranian assets and redirected them to compensate victims of violence, settle lawsuits or provide financial assistance.Mr. Tribe concedes that calculations about the ripple effect on the dollar or invested assets will ultimately matter more to policymakers than legal ones. But he finds those broader political concerns unpersuasive.“It’s crazy to argue that it’s more destabilizing to have assets seized than to have wars of aggression,” Mr. Tribe said in an interview on Friday. “The survival of the global economy is far more threatened by the way Russia behaved” than by any financial retaliation.And, he added, taking billions of dollars is much more meaningful either as a deterrent or punishment than bringing war crime charges.A destroyed garage in Hostomel, a Kyiv suburb. Prominent Americans like Laurence Tribe and Lawrence Summers argue that seizing Russian assets would be the right thing to do.Emile Ducke for The New York TimesOther prominent voices in the United States have endorsed the notion. Lawrence H. Summers, a former Treasury secretary; Robert B. Zoellick, a former president of the World Bank and U.S. trade representative; and Philip D. Zelikow, a historian at University of Virginia and a former State Department counselor, made their case this week in an opinion piece in The Washington Post.“Transferring frozen Russian reserves would be morally right, strategically wise and politically expedient,” they wrote.A few countries in addition to Ukraine have taken steps to pry loose foreign assets owned by Russian individuals and entities and use the money for reconstruction. In December, the Canadian government began the process of seizing $26 million owned by the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich after passing a law easing the forfeiture of private Russian assets from individuals who are under sanctions.A federal judge in Manhattan gave the go-ahead last month to confiscate $5.4 million from another Russian businessman facing sanctions, Konstantin Malofeev. And Estonia is also seeking to pass legislation that would give the government there similar powers.But Mr. Tribe, Mr. Summers and others argue that the main focus should be not on seizing private assets, which would be legally much more complicated and time-consuming, but on the hundreds of billions owned by Russia’s central bank.Wherever the money comes from, the bill keeps growing. Over the past year, Ukraine’s economy has shrunk by a third. The war has pushed more than seven million people into poverty, the World Bank reported, and reversed 15 years of development progress. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Europe Angle for New Deal to Resolve Climate Spat

    by

    American and European officials are trying to reach agreement on the outlines of a limited trade deal that could help resolve a major rift over America’s new climate legislation.WASHINGTON — American and European officials meeting in Washington this week are trying to agree on the outlines of a limited trade deal that would allow European companies to qualify for some of the benefits of the Biden administration’s new climate legislation, in a bid to assuage a major source of tension between the allies.The governments hope to announce their intention to begin negotiations over such an agreement as soon as Friday, when President Biden is set to meet with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, at the White House.American officials have also been carrying out similar conversations with the governments of Japan and the United Kingdom to see if some type of limited new agreement could be struck that would also offer Japanese and British companies certain benefits under the law.At the center of the debate is the Inflation Reduction Act, a $370 billion bill that President Biden signed last year to try to mitigate climate change by transforming U.S. power generation and the car industry. The bill offers generous tax credits to American consumers to purchase new and used electric vehicles, but it imposes tough restrictions on the types of vehicles that can benefit from these rules, in ways that disadvantage foreign carmakers.The law specifies that, to receive a tax credit, cars must be assembled in North America and source the material for their batteries from North America, or from countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. Despite close ties, the United States does not have a free-trade agreement with the European Union, Japan or the United Kingdom.The passage of the law has prompted harsh criticism from allies, who say companies in their countries will be penalized. European officials have been particularly outspoken, arguing that the bill comes at a delicate time for a European economy that is already contending with disruptions from the war in Ukraine and skyrocketing energy prices.The dispute has raised the prospect of a subsidy war between the United States and the European Union, and threatened to strain relations at a time when both sides are trying to maintain a united front against Russia.“I don’t think U.S. government officials anticipated this level of pushback and this level of disdain against this massive climate bill,” said Olga Khakova, the deputy director for European energy security at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center. But she said emotions had now subsided a bit. “We are in this mode right now where we want to find a solution.”An electric Volkswagen at a factory in Germany. Despite close ties, the United States and the European Union do not have a free-trade agreement.Jens Schlueter/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe rift has set off a scramble within the U.S. government to try to scrape together some type of new trade deal that could be signed with allied governments to allow their companies to benefit from some of the law’s tax credits. With such an agreement, for example, a company based in the European Union could help to supply lithium, nickel or other battery materials for electric vehicles made in North America.A Treasury official said that any new trade agreements would be evaluated during a rule-making process to ensure that they comply with the critical mineral requirements in the legislation. The official pointed to Chinese control over critical mineral extraction as a reason for the need to make the supply chains of the United States and like-minded partners strong.A U.S. official said that the administration had been engaged in ongoing consultations with Congress, and that those briefings, and conversations with unions and private industry, would continue in the coming weeks.The Treasury Department, in a white paper published in December, said that the Inflation Reduction Act did not define the term “free trade agreement,” and that the Treasury secretary could identify additional free-trade agreements for the purposes of the critical-minerals requirement going forward.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said last month that the Biden administration was considering limited trade deals focused on critical minerals as a solution, and she suggested that these could be done without the approval of Congress. She emphasized that the intent of the law was not for the United States to steal jobs from Europe and that the law was meant to be aligned with the administration’s “friend-shoring” agenda..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“I think the word ‘free trade’ was meant to mean reliable friends and partners with whom we can feel we have secure supply chains,” Ms. Yellen said on the sidelines of the Group of 20 finance ministers meetings in India last month. “We’ve been very clear with Europe that this is not a subsidy war.”With input from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, officials from the Treasury Department have prepared a document spelling out what kind of deal would constitute a “free-trade agreement” for the purposes of the legislation, according to people familiar with the plans.It is not clear how quickly the solution could be completed, however, as the white paper said the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service would seek public comment on “what criteria should be used to identify free-trade agreements for the purposes of the critical-minerals requirement.”In a briefing on Friday, a European official said Europe and the United States could announce by the end of this week a commitment to forge a new limited trade deal, most likely focused on supply chains for critical minerals. Unlike a traditional free-trade agreement, which entails reducing barriers to trade between partners, this agreement would not involve lowering tariffs on either side, and the parties would aim to flesh out the agreement in days or weeks, rather than months, the European official said.“I think the word ‘free trade’ was meant to mean reliable friends and partners with whom we can feel we have secure supply chains,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said at the Group of 20 meeting last month.Aijaz Rahi/Associated PressThe official added that the agreement would need to be legally binding, and would still involve seeking some type of approval from European Union member states. In the United States, the agreement could come in the form of an executive order from the Biden administration, and without requiring the approval of Congress, the official suggested.One irony is that neither the European Union nor the United States is a major source of the critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries. But some officials have suggested that the partnership would form a foundation for a group that could be expanded over time to include countries with larger supplies of lithium, cobalt, nickel and other minerals.While analysts said a new deal with Europe could in practice satisfy the requirements of the law, it would not really resemble a free-trade agreement, as such agreements have come to be understood.Free-trade deals are legal agreements that the World Trade Organization defines as covering “substantially all trade” between countries, including a broad range of goods and, typically, services. They usually take years to negotiate and, in the United States, require the approval of Congress.Scott Lincicome, the director of general economics at the Cato Institute, said that the Biden administration’s authority to strike such trade pacts was questionable but that it was unlikely that anyone would try to mount a legal challenge to them.“Everyone in the room knows that this is not kosher, but there’s not really anything anybody can do about it,” Mr. Lincicome said.Political appetite for striking new free-trade deals has diminished in the United States in recent years, in part because of a perception that such pacts have helped multinational corporations move factories and jobs offshore.Efforts to strike expansive trade deals with Europe and a group of Asian countries during the Obama administration fizzled, in part because of that political opposition. During the Trump administration, the United States signed a series of limited trade deals with South Korea, Japan and China that were carried out through executive orders, not by congressional approval.Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the limited deal would mollify the Europeans, and that U.S.-E.U. economic relations were too important “to not allow the Europeans under the tent in some way or another.” But it could escalate complaints from other trading partners, like South Korea, that don’t feel as though their concerns have been taken care of, he said.South Korea already has a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the United States, but it has other criticisms of the climate law, centering on how the current terms exclude electric vehicles made by Hyundai from receiving tax credits. “Once you make accommodations for one, the pressure grows to make accommodations for others,” he said.It remains unclear how Congress will respond. Lawmakers have expressed concerns that the administration is not adhering to the law’s original intent of promoting U.S. manufacturing. Many also disapprove of efforts by the executive branch to bypass congressional authority in approving trade deals.But Democrats may also be sympathetic to the effort to smooth over relations with Europeans, and reluctant to reopen debate over their signature climate legislation. And at least one key lawmaker, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has said he didn’t realize that the European Union lacked a free-trade agreement with the United States in the first place.Still, the dispute has elicited some criticism that American officials are going to great lengths to mollify Europeans, especially given that the European Union imposes some trade barriers on the United States, like a relatively high tariff on imported U.S. cars.John G. Murphy, the senior vice president for international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said it was his group’s view that the Biden administration should fight against various E.U. policies that discriminate against American companies “with the same doggedness European officials have brought to their complaints about the I.R.A.” More