International Trade and World Market

More stories

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Why didn’t the U.S. cut off Russia from SWIFT? It’s complicated.

    by

    President Biden said on Thursday that the United States and Europe were united in their efforts to confront Russian aggression toward Ukraine with aggressive sanctions. However, there was one area where he suggested disagreement: SWIFT.The Belgian messaging service, formally known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, connects more than 11,000 financial institutions around the world. It is viewed as a potential nuclear option in the world of sanctions because, if Russia was kicked off SWIFT, the nation would essentially be severed from much of the global financial system.But doing so would not be simple and could come with its own set of costly complications for countries outside Russia, many of which are dependent on the country for energy, wheat and other commodities. That has made some nations skittish about pulling the trigger.SWIFT is a global cooperative of financial institutions that began in 1973 when 239 banks from 15 countries got together to figure out how to best handle cross-border payments. It does not actually hold or transfer funds, but it allows banks and other financial companies to alert one another of transactions that are about to take place.Blocking Russia from SWIFT would curb its ability to conduct international financial transactions by forcing importers, exporters and banks to find new ways to transmit payment instructions. Because of Europe’s heavy reliance on Russian energy exports, analysts said, there is a reluctance among some euro area leaders to take that step and risk those purchases by making doing business with Russia more costly and complicated.The Financial Times reported on Thursday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain was pushing hard for Russia to be removed from SWIFT, while Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany said such a move should not be included in a European Union sanctions package.Mr. Biden made the case on Thursday that the sanctions the United States imposed on Russian financial institutions would be as consequential as excising Russia from SWIFT. He said kicking Russia off the platform remains “an option” but that most of Europe opposes such a move for now.“It is always an option,” Mr. Biden said. “But right now, that’s not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take.”The United States and Europe disagreed on whether to oust a country from SWIFT before, most recently in 2018, when the Trump administration wanted to cut Iran’s access. Ultimately, SWIFT cut ties to Iranian banks out of fear of being in violation of sanctions against that country.Still, sanctions experts said that SWIFT was often overhyped as a tool and that cutting access could actually backfire by forcing Russia to find alternate ways to participate in the global economy, including forging stronger ties with China or developing a digital currency.Russia’s Attack on Ukraine and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Ukraine Crisis: What Happens Next for the Rest of the World?

    by

    Europe faces a new refugee crisis, and harsh economic penalties to punish Russia are expected to reverberate worldwide.WASHINGTON — Much of the world woke up on Thursday to the specter of an all-out war in Europe after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered his troops to invade Ukraine. That left millions of people — in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, but also in the United States and elsewhere — wondering how the conflict would affect their lives.At least 40 Ukrainian solders were reported killed in the hours after the invasion, with estimates of tens of thousands of deaths over the course of the conflict. But beyond the anticipated bloodshed, economic penalties to punish Russia will reverberate worldwide.Rising energy costs and potentially slowing supply chains will take their toll on consumers. Russian cyberattacks could cripple electronic infrastructure. A new refugee crisis will require international assistance. And an era of relative calm in the West that has pervaded since the end of the Cold War might be coming to a close.Here is what might happen next on the military, economic and diplomatic fronts.More military forces head to NATO’s eastern borders.Many of the U.S. troops who arrived in Poland this month have been working with Polish forces to set up processing centers to help people fleeing Ukraine.Czarek Sokolowski/Associated PressNATO announced on Thursday that it was sending reinforcements to its eastern flank, joining some 6,500 U.S. troops the Pentagon has already dispatched to Eastern Europe and the Baltics.“We are deploying additional defensive land and air forces to the eastern part of the alliance, as well as additional maritime assets,” NATO said in a statement. “We have increased the readiness of our forces to respond to all contingencies.”The Pentagon is also repositioning about 1,000 troops in Europe. About 800 U.S. troops are moving to the Baltics from Italy; 20 Apache helicopters are heading to the Baltics from Germany, and 12 Apaches are going to Poland from Greece. Eight F-35 strike fighters are heading to Lithuania, Estonia and Romania from Germany, the Pentagon said.In addition, U.S. Army troops, including those from the 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions, are preparing to move closer to Poland’s border with Ukraine to help process people fleeing the country, an Army spokesman said on Thursday.Many of the 5,500 troops from the 18th Airborne Corps who arrived in Poland this month have been working with the State Department and Polish forces to set up three processing centers near the border to help deal with tens of thousands of people, including Americans, who are expected to flee Ukraine.In Jasionka, Poland, an indoor arena has been outfitted with bunk beds and supplies for up to 500 people; U.S. officials say that capacity could be quickly expanded. In Austria, Chancellor Karl Nehammer said on Wednesday that he was prepared to accept refugees. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development are funding relief organizations that are currently providing food, water, shelter and emergency health care to people in the region who have fled to escape the violence.In the days to come, the C.I.A. will assess what kind of assistance it can provide to Ukraine. If a Ukrainian resistance develops in parts of the country that Russia seeks to control, the agency could secretly supply partisan forces with intelligence and, potentially, armaments.“We need to support the resistance to the invasion and the occupation in all ways possible,” said Mick Mulroy, a former C.I.A. paramilitary officer and senior Pentagon official in the Trump administration. “Our special operations and intelligence assets with an extensive knowledge base from 20 years of fighting insurgencies should be put to immediate use.”‘Severe’ sanctions from the U.S. and Europe.The Treasury Department is likely to put one or more Russian state-owned banks on the agency’s list for the harshest sanctions.Natalia Kolesnikova/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPresident Biden on Thursday plans to announce “severe sanctions” against Russia to try to deter Moscow from carrying out further violence in Ukraine and to punish it for its actions, U.S. officials said.The next set of economic sanctions is expected to be much harsher than what U.S. officials had described as a first tranche that was imposed on Monday and Tuesday. Mr. Biden is likely to order the Treasury Department to put one or more large Russian state-owned banks on the agency’s list for the harshest sanctions, known as the S.D.N. list. That would cut off the banks from commerce and exchanges with much of the world and affect many other Russian business operations.The Biden administration said on Tuesday that it was imposing that kind of sanctions on two banks, VEB and PSB, but those are policy banks with no retail operations in Russia.Administration officials have studied how sanctions would affect each of the big banks, including Sberbank and VTB, Russia’s two largest banks. Sberbank has about a third of the assets in the country’s banking sector, and VTB has more than 15 percent. Some experts are skeptical that the administration would put those two banks on the S.D.N. list for fear of the consequences for the Russian and global economies. For now, U.S. officials are not ready to cut off all Russian banks from Swift, the important Belgian money transfer system used by more than 11,000 financial institutions worldwide.The Treasury Department has other sanctions lists that would impose costs while inflicting less widespread suffering. For example, it could put a bank on a list that prevents it from doing any transactions involving dollars. Many international commercial transactions are done in U.S. dollars, the currency that underpins the global economy.The Treasury Department is also expected to put more Russian officials, businesspeople and companies on the sanctions lists.By Thursday afternoon in Russia, the nation’s stock market had fallen nearly 40 percent.The Commerce Department has been making plans to restrict the export of certain American technologies to Russia, a tactic that the Trump administration used to hobble Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications company. The controls would damage the supply chain for some Russian sectors. U.S. officials said their targets included the defense industry and the oil and gas industry.European officials are expected to announce sanctions similar to many of the ones planned by the United States, as they did this week. However, they have been more wary of imposing the harshest sanctions because of the continent’s robust trade with Russia.Although Mr. Biden has said he will contemplate any possible sanctions, U.S. officials for now do not plan big disruptions to Russia’s energy exports, which are the pillar of the country’s economy. Europe relies on the products, and surging oil prices worldwide would cause greater inflation and more problems for politicians. However, Germany announces this week that it would not certify Nord Stream 2, a new natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Western Europe. On Wednesday Mr. Biden announced sanctions on a subsidiary of Gazprom, the large Russian energy company, which built the pipeline and had planned to operate it.Understand Russia’s Attack on UkraineCard 1 of 7What is at the root of this invasion? More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    White House Prepares Curbs on Russia’s Access to U.S. Technology

    by

    Biden administration officials have warned Russia that it could face further restrictions on technology that is critical to its economy and military.The Biden administration warned on Wednesday that it had prepared additional measures aimed at cutting off Russia from advanced technology critical to its economy and military in the event of further aggression by President Vladimir V. Putin toward Ukraine.The United States on Tuesday announced sanctions on two Russian banks and curbs on Russia’s sovereign debt, effectively isolating the country from Western financing. President Biden also announced further sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline and its corporate officers.Export controls could ratchet up the pressure on Russia by preventing the country from obtaining semiconductors and other advanced technology used to power Russia’s aerospace, military and tech industries.“If he chooses to invade, what we’re telling him very directly is that we’re going to cut that off, we’re going to cut him off from Western technology that’s critical to advancing his military, cut him off from Western financial resources that will be critical to feeding his economy and also to enriching himself,” Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said on CNBC on Wednesday.The Biden administration has not clarified what specific restrictions it would impose on the products Russia imports. But the actions and statements of administration officials suggest they could repurpose a novel measure that the Trump administration turned to to cripple the business of Huawei, a Chinese telecom company, in 2020, export control specialists said.The tool, called the foreign direct product rule, allows U.S. officials to block more than just exports from the United States to Russia, which totaled just $4.9 billion in 2020. It also allows American officials to restrict exports to Russia from any country in the world if they use American technology, including software or machinery.Companies can seek licenses to sidestep the restrictions but they are likely to be denied.Daleep Singh, the deputy national security adviser, said on Friday that the administration was “converging on the final package” of sanctions and export controls, and suggested that those controls would target tech products.“We produce the most sophisticated technological inputs across a range of foundational technologies — A.I., quantum, biotech, hypersonic flight, robotics,” Mr. Singh said. “As we and our partners move in lock step to deny these critical technology inputs to Russia’s economy, Putin’s desire to diversify outside of oil and gas — which is two-thirds of his export revenue, half of his budget revenues — that will be denied.”“He’s spoken many times about a desire for an aerospace sector, a defense sector, an I.T. sector,” Mr. Singh said of Mr. Putin. “Without these critical technology inputs, there is no path to realizing those ambitions.”Kevin Wolf, a partner in international trade at Akin Gump who worked in export controls under the Obama administration, said the White House could tailor its use of export controls to target certain strategic sectors, for example companies in the aerospace or maritime industry, while bypassing products used by the Russian populace, like washing machines.“They’re making it clear they’re not trying to take action that harms ordinary Russians,” Mr. Wolf said.Andy Shoyer, co-lead of global arbitration, trade and advocacy for Sidley Austin, said the restrictions appeared likely to focus on semiconductors and semiconductor equipment. The novel export controls that the United States wielded against Huawei have a powerful reach when it comes to semiconductors, since even chips made abroad are mostly manufactured and tested using machinery based on American designs, he said.“It’s not just what’s physically exported from the U.S.,” Mr. Shoyer said. “It could encompass a substantial amount of production, because so much of the semiconductor industry relies on U.S. technology.”The global semiconductor industry, which has been roiled by shortages and supply chain disruptions throughout the pandemic, could face more disruptions given Ukraine’s role in the semiconductor supply chain.The Ukraine Crisis’s Effect on the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    What Russia's Conflict in Ukraine Means for the U.S. Economy

    by

    Russia’s threatened invasion of Ukraine could have economic repercussions globally and in the United States, ramping up uncertainty, roiling commodity markets and potentially pushing up inflation as gas and food prices rise around the world.Russia is a major producer of oil and natural gas, and the brewing geopolitical conflict has sent prices of both sharply higher in recent weeks. It is also the world’s largest wheat exporter, and is a major food supplier to Europe.The United States imports relatively little directly from Russia, but a commodities crunch caused by a conflict could have knock-on effects that at least temporarily drive up prices for raw materials and finished goods when much of the world, including the United States, is experiencing rapid inflation.Global unrest could also spook American consumers, prompting them to cut back on spending and other economic activity. If the slowdown were to become severe, it could make it harder for the Federal Reserve, which is planning to raise interest rates in March, to decide how quickly and how aggressively to increase borrowing costs. Central bankers noted in minutes from their most recent meeting that geopolitical risks “could cause increases in global energy prices or exacerbate global supply shortages,” but also that they were a risk to the outlook for growth.The magnitude of the potential economic fallout is unclear, because the scope and scale of the conflict remain anything but certain. But a foreign conflict could further delay a return to normalcy after two years in which the coronavirus pandemic has buffeted both the global and U.S. economies. Tension between Russia and Ukraine is escalating when American consumers are already contending with quickly rising prices, businesses are trying to navigate roiled supply chains and people report feeling pessimistic about their financial outlooks despite strong economic growth.“The level of economic uncertainty is going to rise, which is going to be negative for households and firms,” said Maurice Obstfeld, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He noted that the effect would be felt most acutely in Europe and to a lesser degree in the United States.A major and immediate economic implication of a showdown in Eastern Europe ties back to oil and gas. Russia produces 10 million barrels of oil a day, roughly 10 percent of global demand, and is Europe’s largest supplier of natural gas, which is used to fuel power plants and provide heat to homes and businesses.The United States imports comparatively little Russian oil, but energy commodity markets are global, meaning a change in prices in one part of the world influences how much people pay for energy elsewhere.It is unclear how much a conflict would push up prices, but energy markets have already been jittery — and fuel prices have risen sharply — on the prospect of an invasion.If oil increases to $120 per barrel by the end of February, past the $95 mark it hovered around last week, inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index could climb close to 9 percent in the next couple months, instead of a currently projected peak of a little below 8 percent, said Alan Detmeister, an economist at UBS who formerly led the prices and wages section at the Fed.“It becomes a question of: How long do oil prices, natural gas wholesale prices stay elevated?” he said. “That’s anybody’s guess.”The $120-a-barrel mark for oil is a reasonable estimate of how high prices could go, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. That would translate to roughly $4 per gallon at the pump on average, he said. It might be difficult to determine how much of the change in energy prices is attributable to the budding conflict. Omair Sharif at Inflation Insights noted that oil and gas prices had already been going up this year.“I don’t know when you want to start the clock on Ukraine becoming a major headline,” Mr. Sharif said. Plus, from an American inflation perspective, how much the conflict matters “all depends on how much the United States gets involved.”Oil may be the major story when it comes to the inflationary effects of a Russian conflict, but it is not the only one. Ukraine is also a significant producer of uranium, titanium, iron ore, steel and ammonia, and a major source of Europe’s arable land.Trucks loaded with wheat at the port. Russia and Ukraine together make up nearly 30 percent of global wheat exports.Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesChristian Bogmans, an economist at the International Monetary Fund, said a conflict in Ukraine could further inflate global food prices, which were set to stabilize after skyrocketing last year.Russia and Ukraine together are responsible for nearly 30 percent of global wheat exports, while Ukraine alone accounts for more than 15 percent of global corn exports, he said. And many of Ukraine’s growing regions for wheat and corn are near the Russian border.The rising price of gas and fertilizer, as well as droughts and adverse weather in some regions, like the Dakotas, had already helped to push up the global price of wheat and other commodities. Ukraine is also a significant producer of barley and vegetable oil, which goes into many packaged foods.“In case of a conflict, production might be interrupted, and shipping may be affected as well,” Mr. Bogmans said. If other countries impose sanctions on Russian food items, that could further limit global supplies and inflate prices, he said.But because food costs make up a small portion of inflation, that may not matter as much to overall price data, Mr. Detmeister at UBS said. It is also hard to guess exactly how import prices would shape up because of the potential for currency movements.The Ukraine Crisis’s Effect on the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6A rising concern. More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    What’s at Stake for the Global Economy as Conflict Looms in Ukraine

    by

    Countries that depend on the region’s rich supply of energy, wheat, nickel and other staples could feel the pain of price spikes.After getting battered by the pandemic, supply chain chokeholds and leaps in prices, the global economy is poised to be sent on yet another unpredictable course by an armed clash on Europe’s border.Even before the Kremlin ordered Russian troops into separatist territories of Ukraine on Monday, the tension had taken a toll. The promise of punishing sanctions in return by President Biden and the potential for Russian retaliation had already pushed down stock returns and driven up gas prices.An outright attack by Russian troops could cause dizzying spikes in energy and food prices, fuel inflation fears and spook investors, a combination that threatens investment and growth in economies around the world.However harsh the effects, the immediate impact will be nowhere near as devastating as the sudden economic shutdowns first caused by the coronavirus in 2020. Russia is a transcontinental behemoth with 146 million people and a huge nuclear arsenal, as well as a key supplier of the oil, gas and raw materials that keep the world’s factories running. But unlike China, which is a manufacturing powerhouse and intimately woven into intricate supply chains, Russia is a minor player in the global economy.Italy, with half the people and fewer natural resources, has an economy that is twice the size. Poland exports more goods to the European Union than Russia.“Russia is incredibly unimportant in the global economy except for oil and gas,” said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist who was an adviser to President Barack Obama. “It’s basically a big gas station.”An underground gas storage facility in Kasimov, east of Moscow. Russia supplies nearly 40 percent of Europe’s natural gas.Andrey Rudakov/BloombergOf course, a closed gas station can be crippling for those who depend on it. The result is that any economic damage will be unevenly spread, intense in some countries and industries and unnoticed in others.Europe gets nearly 40 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil from Russia, and is likely to be walloped with spikes in heating and gas bills, which are already soaring. Natural gas reserves are at less than a third of capacity, with weeks of cold weather ahead, and European leaders have already accused Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, of reducing supplies to gain a political edge.And then there are food prices, which have climbed to their highest level in more than a decade largely because of the pandemic’s supply chain mess, according to a recent United Nations report. Russia is the world’s largest supplier of wheat, and together with Ukraine, accounts for nearly a quarter of total global exports. For some countries, the dependence is much greater. That flow of grain makes up more than 70 percent of Egypt and Turkey’s total wheat imports.This will put further strain on Turkey, which is already in the middle of an economic crisis and struggling with inflation that is running close to 50 percent, with skyrocketing food, fuel and electricity prices.And as usual, the burden falls heaviest on the most vulnerable. “Poorer people spend a higher share of incomes on food and heating,” said Ian Goldin, a professor of globalization and development at Oxford University.Ukraine, long known as the “breadbasket of Europe,” actually sends more than 40 percent of its wheat and corn exports to the Middle East or Africa, where there are worries that further food shortages and price increases could stoke social unrest.Lebanon, for example, which is experiencing one of the most devastating economic crises in more than a century, gets more than half of its wheat from Ukraine, which is also the world’s largest exporter of seed oils like sunflower and rapeseed.On Monday, the White House responded to Mr. Putin’s decision to recognize the independence of two Russian-backed territories in the country’s east by saying it would begin imposing limited sanctions on the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Biden would soon issue an executive order prohibiting investment, trade and financing with people in those regions.Analysts watching the unfolding conflict have mapped out a range of scenarios from mild to severe. The fallout on working-class families and Wall Street traders depends on how an invasion plays out: whether Russian troops stay near the border or attack the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv; whether the fighting lasts for days or months; what kind of Western sanctions are imposed; and whether Mr. Putin responds by withholding critical gas supplies from Europe or launching insidious cyberattacks.“Think about it rolling out in stages,” said Julia Friedlander, director of the economic statecraft initiative at the Atlantic Council. “This is likely to play out as a slow motion drama.”As became clear from the pandemic, minor interruptions in one region can generate major disruptions far away. Isolated shortages and price surges— whether of gas, wheat, aluminum or nickel — can snowball in a world still struggling to recover from the pandemic.“You have to look at the backdrop against which this is coming,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist for EY-Parthenon. “There is high inflation, strained supply chains and uncertainty about what central banks are going to do and how insistent price rises are.”Ukraine’s port of Mykolaiv. The Middle East and Africa are especially reliant on Ukraine’s exports of wheat and corn.  Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesThe additional stresses may be relatively small in isolation, but they are piling on economies that are still recovering from the economic body blows inflicted by the pandemic.What’s also clear, Mr. Daco added, is that “political uncertainty and volatility weigh on economic activity.”That means an invasion could have a dual effect — slowing economic activity and raising prices.In the United States, the Federal Reserve is already confronting the highest inflation in 40 years, at 7.5 percent in January, and is expected to start raising interest rates next month. Higher energy prices set off by a conflict in Europe may be transitory but they could feed worries about a wage-price spiral.“We could see a new burst of inflation,” said Christopher Miller, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and an assistant professor at Tufts University.Also fueling inflation fears are possible shortages of essential metals like palladium, aluminum and nickel, creating another disruption to global supply chains already suffering from the pandemic, trucker blockades in Canada and shortages of semiconductors.The price of palladium, for example, used in automotive exhaust systems, mobile phones and even dental fillings, has soared in recent weeks because of fears that Russia, the world’s largest exporter of the metal, could be cut off from global markets. The price of nickel, used to make steel and electric car batteries, has also been jumping.It’s too early to gauge the precise impact of an armed conflict, said Lars Stenqvist, the chief technology officer of Volvo, the Swedish truck maker. But he added, “It is a very, very serious thing.”“We have a number of scenarios on the table and we are following the developments of the situation day by day,” Mr. Stenqvist said Monday.The West has taken steps to blunt the impact on Europe if Mr. Putin decides to retaliate. The United States has ramped up delivery of liquefied natural gas and asked other suppliers like Qatar to do the same.A front line position in Luhansk Oblast, in eastern Ukraine, a scene of mortar attacks. “This is likely to play out as a slow motion drama,” said one analyst.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesThe demand for oil might add momentum to negotiations to revive a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Iran, which is estimated to have as many as 80 million barrels of oil in storage, has been locked out of much of the world’s markets since 2018, when President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the nuclear accord and reimposed sanctions.Some of the sanctions against Russia that the Biden administration is considering, such as cutting off access to the system of international payments known as SWIFT or blocking companies from selling anything to Russia that contains American-made components, would hurt anyone who does business with Russia. But across the board, the United States is much less vulnerable than the European Union, which is Russia’s largest trading partner.Americans, as Mr. Biden has already warned, are likely to see higher gasoline prices. But because the United States is itself a large producer of natural gas, those price increases are not nearly as steep and as broad as elsewhere. And Europe has many more links to Russia and engages in more financial transactions — including paying for the Russian gas.Oil companies like Shell and Total have joint ventures in Russia, while BP boasts that it “is one of the biggest foreign investors in Europe,” with ties to the Russian oil company Rosneft. Airbus, the European aviation giant, gets titanium from Russia. And European banks, particularly those in Germany, France and Italy, have lent billions of dollars to Russian borrowers.“Severe sanctions that hurt Russia painfully and comprehensively have potential to do huge damage to European customers,” said Adam Tooze, director of the European Institute at Columbia University.Depending on what happens, the most significant effects on the global economy may manifest themselves only over the long run.One result would be to push Russia to have closer economic ties to China. The two nations recently negotiated a 30-year contract for Russia to supply gas to China through a new pipeline.“Russia is likely to pivot all energy and commodity exports to China,” said Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics.The crisis is also contributing to a reassessment of the global economy’s structure and concerns about self-sufficiency. The pandemic has already highlighted the downsides of far-flung supply chains that rely on lean production.Now Europe’s dependence on Russian gas is spurring discussions about expanding energy sources, which could further sideline Russia’s presence in the global economy.“In the longer term, it’s going to push Europe to diversify,” said Jeffrey Schott, a senior fellow working on international trade policy at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. As for Russia, the real cost “would be corrosive over time and really making it much more difficult to do business with Russian entities and deterring investment.” More

  • 88 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Why Companies Struggled to Navigate Olympics Sponsorships

    by

    The debacle over Olympic sponsorship shows how the U.S.-China relationship has turned into a minefield for companies trying to do business in both countries.WASHINGTON — Companies usually shell out for Olympic sponsorship because it helps their business and reflects well on their brands. But this year, with the Olympics in Beijing, Procter & Gamble paid even more to try to prevent any negative fallout from being associated with China’s repressive and authoritarian government.The company, one of 13 “worldwide Olympic partners” that make the global sports competition possible, hired Washington lobbyists last year to successfully defeat legislation that would have barred sponsors of the Beijing Games from selling their products to the U.S. government. The provision would have blocked Pampers, Tide, Pringles and other Procter & Gamble products from military commissaries, to protest companies’ involvement in an event seen as legitimizing the Chinese government.“This amendment would punish P.&G. and the Olympic movement, including U.S. athletes,” Sean Mulvaney, the senior director for global government relations at Procter & Gamble, wrote in an email to congressional offices in August.Some of the world’s biggest companies are caught in an uncomfortable situation as they attempt to straddle a widening political gulf between the United States and China: What is good for business in one country is increasingly a liability in the other.China is the world’s biggest consumer market, and for decades, Chinese and American business interests have described their economic cooperation as a “win-win relationship.” But gradually, as China’s economic and military might have grown, Washington has taken the view that a win for China is a loss for the United States.The decision to locate the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing has turned sponsorship, typically one of the marketing industry’s most prestigious opportunities, into a minefield.Companies that have sponsored the Olympics have attracted censure from politicians and human rights groups, who say such contracts imply tacit support of atrocities by the Chinese Communist Party, including human rights violations in Xinjiang, censorship of the media and mass surveillance of dissidents.“One thing our businesses, universities and sports leagues don’t seem to fully understand is that, to eat at the C.C.P.’s trough, you will have to turn into a pig,” Yaxue Cao, editor of ChinaChange.org, a website that covers civil society and human rights, told Congress this month.The tension is playing out in other areas as well, including with regards to Xinjiang, where millions of ethnic minorities have been detained, persecuted or forced into working in fields and factories. In June, the United States will enact a sweeping law that will expand restrictions on Xinjiang, giving the United States power to block imports made with any materials sourced from that region.Multinational firms that are trying to comply with these new import restrictions have found themselves facing costly backlashes in China, which denies any accusations of genocide. H&M, Nike and Intel have all blundered into public relations disasters for trying to remove Xinjiang from their supply chains.Explore the Games Propaganda Machine: China has used a variety of tools such as bots and fake social media accounts to promote a vision of the Games that is free of controversy.Aussie Pride: Australia has won more medals than ever before at the 2022 Winter Games. Could the country turn into a winter sports wonderland?At High Speed: The ‘Snow Dream’ train line, built to serve the Winter Olympics, has been a source of excitement — and a considerable expense.Reporter’s View: A typical day in Beijing for our reporters may include a 5 a.m. alarm, six buses, a pizza lunch and lots of live-blogging. For some, it’s the first time back in China in a while.Harsher penalties could be in store. Companies that try to sever ties with Xinjiang may run afoul of China’s anti-sanctions law, which allows the authorities to crack down on firms that comply with foreign regulations they see as discriminating against China.Beijing has also threatened to put companies that cut off supplies to China on an “unreliable entity list” that could result in penalties, though to date the list doesn’t appear to have any members.“Companies are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to complying with U.S. and Chinese law,” said Jake Colvin, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents companies that do business internationally.President Biden, while less antagonistic than his predecessor, has maintained many of the tough policies put in place by President Donald J. Trump, including hefty tariffs on Chinese goods and restrictions on exports of sensitive technology to Chinese firms.The Biden administration has shown little interest in forging trade deals to help companies do more business abroad. Instead, it is recruiting allies to ramp up pressure on China, including by boycotting the Olympics, and promoting huge investments in manufacturing and scientific research to compete with Beijing. The pressures are not only coming from the United States. Companies are increasingly facing a complicated global patchwork of export restrictions and data storage laws, including in the European Union. Chinese leaders have begun pursuing “wolf warrior” diplomacy, in which they are trying to teach other countries to think twice before crossing China, said Jim McGregor, chairman of APCO Worldwide’s greater China region.He said his company was telling clients to “try to comply with everybody, but don’t make a lot of noise about it — because if you’re noisy about complying in one country, the other country will come after you.”Some companies are responding by moving sensitive activities — like research that could trigger China’s anti-sanctions law, or audits of Xinjiang operations — out of China, said Isaac Stone Fish, the chief executive of Strategy Risks, a consultancy.An NBC production crew in Beijing. An effort to prevent Olympic sponsors, like NBC, from doing business with the U.S. government was cut from a defense bill last year.Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York TimesOthers, like Cisco, have scaled back their operations. Some have left China entirely, though usually not on terms they would choose. For example, Micron Technology, a chip-maker that has been a victim of intellectual property theft in China, is closing down a chip design team in Shanghai after competitors poached its employees.“Some companies are taking a step back and realizing that this is perhaps more trouble than it’s worth,” Mr. Stone Fish said.But many companies insist that they can’t be forced to choose between two of the world’s largest markets. Tesla, which counts China as one of its largest markets, opened a showroom in Xinjiang last month.“We can’t leave China, because China represents in some industries up to 50 percent of global demand and we have intense, deep supply and sales relationships,” said Craig Allen, the president of the U.S.-China Business Council.Companies see China as a foothold to serve Asia, Mr. Allen said, and China’s $17 trillion economy still presents “some of the best growth prospects anywhere.”“Very few companies are leaving China, but all are feeling that it’s risk up and that they need to be very careful so as to meet their legal obligations in both markets,” he said.American politicians of both parties are increasingly bent on forcing companies to pick a side.“To me, it’s completely appropriate to make these companies choose,” said Representative Michael Waltz, a Florida Republican who proposed the bill that would have prevented Olympic sponsors from doing business with the U.S. government.Mr. Waltz said participation in the Beijing Olympics sent a signal that the West was willing to turn a blind eye to Chinese atrocities for short-term profits.The amendment was ultimately cut out of a defense-spending bill last year after active and aggressive lobbying by Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Intel, NBC, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others, Mr. Waltz said.Procter & Gamble’s lobbying disclosures show that, between April and December, it spent more than $2.4 million on in-house and outside lobbyists to try to sway Congress on a range of tax and trade issues, including the Beijing Winter Olympics Sponsor Accountability Act.Lobbying disclosures for Coca-Cola, Airbnb and Comcast, the parent company of NBC, also indicate the companies lobbied on issues related to the Olympics or “sports programming” last year.Procter & Gamble and Intel declined to comment. Coca-Cola said it had explained to lawmakers that the legislation would hurt American military families and businesses. NBC and the Chamber of Commerce did not respond to requests for comment.Many companies have argued they are sponsoring this year’s Games to show support for the athletes, not China’s system of government.In a July congressional hearing, where executives from Coca-Cola, Intel, Visa and Airbnb were also grilled about their sponsorship, Mr. Mulvaney said Procter & Gamble was using its partnership to encourage the International Olympic Committee to incorporate human rights principles into its oversight of the Games.“Corporate sponsors are being a bit unfairly maligned here,” Anna Ashton, a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said in an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.Companies had signed contracts to support multiple iterations of the Games, and had no say over the host location, she said. And the funding they provide goes to support the Olympics and the athletes, not the Chinese government.“Sponsorship has hardly been an opportunity for companies this time around,” she said. More

  • 88 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Administration Says China Failed Trade Commitments

    by

    In a new report, the administration detailed China’s violations of promises made both to the World Trade Organization and under a 2020 trade deal with the U.S.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration criticized China in a new report released Wednesday morning for failing to uphold a wide range of trade commitments, including promises it had made when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 and others in a trade deal signed with the Trump administration in 2020.In its annual assessment of China’s compliance with its obligations to the W.T.O., the Office of the United States Trade Representative excoriated the Chinese government for flouting the global trade body’s rules and its transparent, market-oriented approach. Instead, China expanded its state-led approach to its economy and trade, causing serious harm to workers and businesses around the world, particularly in industries targeted by its industrial plans, Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, said in a statement.“China has not moved to embrace the market-oriented principles on which the W.T.O. and its rules are based, despite the representations that it made when it joined 20 years ago,” Ms. Tai said.Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative, accused China of failing to embrace the market-oriented principles of the World Trade Organization, which it joined in 2001.Fabrice Coffrini/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe report also criticized the trade deal signed by the Trump administration, in one of the first written assessments the Biden administration has provided of China’s progress toward the terms set out in that deal.The Biden administration has said it intends to hold China to the terms of that agreement, while also calling for a different approach to trade. But it has not clarified just how assertively it would enforce a deal it has described as fundamentally flawed.The report said that the deal had failed to address the most fundamental concerns the United States has with China’s approach to trade, and that the United States had serious concerns with China’s implementation of several of its commitments. Those included pledges to purchase U.S. goods and services, as well as promised reforms related to agriculture, particularly biotechnology, and an assessment China promised to conduct on the use in swine and cattle of ractopamine, a feed additive widely used in the United States that Beijing has banned.The United States has raised concerns about China’s progress during regular meetings between officials at various levels of government, the report said.Data released this month showed that China fell far short of satisfying commitments it had made in the trade deal signed with the Trump administration to purchase an additional $200 billion of goods and services by the end of last year. The Biden administration said its patience with China was wearing thin, but it has not yet clarified what action, if any, it would take in response.The report echoed many of the criticisms of China issued under the prior administration, including spelling out the World Trade Organization’s shortcomings in disciplining China’s trade violations and calling for measures to take on China outside the organization.But the report also appeared to take issue with the Trump administration’s attempt to decouple from China, arguing that the United States needed to invest in American workers and infrastructure to compete with China in an integrated global economy.“We cannot build a wall between the United States and China and assume that it will address the problems posed by China,” the report said.Beyond efforts at the World Trade Organization, the United States was pursuing several strategies to hold China to account, the report said. They included bilateral dialogues with China, including over its progress toward the commitments of the 2020 trade deal; cooperation with allies like Japan and Europe; and efforts to repurpose and expand domestic trade tools, like using tariffs to encourage companies to reduce their carbon emissions.“It is also apparent that existing trade tools need to be strengthened, and new trade tools need to be forged,” the report said. “China pursues unfair policies and practices that were not contemplated when many of the U.S. trade statutes were drafted decades ago, and we are therefore exploring ways in which to update our trade tools to counter them.” More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Temporarily Bans Avocados From Mexico, Citing Threat

    by

    The move is a blow to the Mexican state of Michoacán, which exports roughly $3 billion worth of the fruit annually.Whether smeared on toast, added to a salad or topping a burrito, the avocado has become a staple in the diets of many Americans.But the creamy fruit could become more difficult to find. The United States decided late last week to temporarily block all imports of avocados from Mexico after a verbal threat was made to U.S. safety inspectors working in the country.The suspension will “remain in place for as long as necessary to ensure the appropriate actions are taken, to secure the safety of APHIS personnel working in Mexico,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a statement, referring to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.In the United States, where 80 percent of the avocados consumed come from Mexico and the average price of $1.43 an avocado was already nearly 11 percent higher than a year ago, analysts said even a two-week ban could sharply reduce availability and further increase prices.The move is a blow to the western state of Michoacán in Mexico, the only region approved in Mexico to send avocados to the United States. There, the green fruit is a big business, with annual exports totaling nearly $3 billion. The bulk of those avocados go to the United States.While details of the threat to agency employees were not made public, the avocado industry has attracted interest in the past decade from the drug cartels in the region, which have become more fragmented and sought ways to diversify their illicit income streams.“I had an interview with a cartel leader 10 years ago who was bragging about how much money he was making from avocados,” said Falko Ernst, a Mexico analyst with the nonprofit International Crisis Group. “You’ve got a concentration of economic wealth in the region, and the possibility to siphon part of that off has acted as a magnet for these groups.”Mexican gangs are also being blamed for limiting lime production and shipments in order to drive up prices.In a statement, the Association of Avocado Exporting Producers and Packers of Mexico, which represents 29,000 avocado farmers and 65 packing houses, said its board of directors had met to review security plans and protocols in order to continue to collaborate with Mexican and U.S. authorities and to resume exporting as soon as possible.The U.S. ban came during one of the avocado’s biggest events, the Super Bowl. And depending on how long it lasts, it could affect one of the industry’s other big days, Cinco de Mayo.In 1997, the U.S. began lifting a longstanding ban against Mexican avocados after weevils, scabs and other pests entered U.S. orchards from imported products.Now, U.S. inspectors in Mexico play a crucial role in the expansion of Mexico’s avocado market because they watch each step of the process — from the orchards to transportation systems to shipping areas — to make sure that the fruit imported to the United States is free from pests, said David Orden, a professor in the department of agricultural and applied economics at Virginia Tech.“This was a nice story about how a group of agribusinessmen and farmers used scientific methods to reduce pest risk and allow trade to occur where there wouldn’t normally be an opportunity,” Mr. Orden said. “It was a nice story until the drug cartels got involved.”California, which supplies roughly 15 percent of the U.S. avocado market, simply cannot produce enough to meet demand from consumers nibbling on chips and guacamole and putting avocados in smoothies. The per capita annual consumption of avocados has grown to nine pounds, from four pounds in 2010, and could exceed 11 pounds in the next five years, according to analysts at RaboResearch.The average price of an avocado in the United States is around $1.43, and prices were rising even before the recent ban.Linda Xiao for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Monica PieriniThe avocado industry has long benefited from clever marketing campaigns. In the 1980s, ads by the California Avocado Commission showed the actress Angie Dickinson in a white leotard, her legs stretching on forever, eating and extolling the diet and health benefits of the avocado. “Would this body lie to you?” she cooed.But the big marketing push has come during the Super Bowl. Avocados From Mexico began airing quirky commercials in the past decade, one featuring the comedian Jon Lovitz’s floating head and another with the 1980s actress Molly Ringwald as an infomercial host hawking pricey gear for your avocado, like a personal carrier or a yurt.On Sunday, Avocados From Mexico aired its latest ad during the game. It featured ancient Roman tailgaters at the Colosseum noshing on guacamole and dancing. Reviews online were mixed.Avocado farmers in the Michoacán region said even a ban that lasted a couple of months could have a huge negative impact on the local economy.“The growing season basically ends in May, and if we lose a couple of months to sell, we’ll end up with too much fruit to sell in two month’s time,” said Jose Humberto Solorzano Mendoza, a third-generation avocado grower who has created a digital platform for producers to share pricing information to improve transparency. “The produce will be worthless, and it will fall off the trees after May.”And a collapse in prices, he said, could lead to increased immigration from the area into the United States. “There are people who are living here because of the avocado,” he said. “They make their living from that. If we don’t have the avocado, they’ll move on.”Mr. Ernst of the International Crisis Group said that if the “warning shot” of a temporary ban turned into something more long term, it would affect the economy and make it easier for the criminal enterprises to attract recruits.“You have tens of thousands of hardworking, law-abiding families that depend on this industry,” Mr. Ernst said. “If you take away their livelihoods, you play into the hands of the criminal groups.” More