The Great Debate UK
from The Great Debate:
By Gordon Brown
The views expressed are his own.
Next week's 2011 G20 meeting has the power to write a new chapter in the response to the economic downturn. But every day, as nations announce currency controls, capital controls, new tariffs and other protectionist measures, the G2O’s room for maneuver is being significantly narrowed. Already the cumulative impact of a wave of mercantilist measures is threatening to turn decades of globalization into reverse, returning us to the economic history of the 1930s, and condemning at least the western parts of the world to a decade of low growth and high unemployment.
Three years ago when the financial crisis first hit, the G2O communiqués were explicit in warning of the dangers of a new protectionism. Led by the head of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Pascal Lamy, we embarked on a forlorn attempt to use the crisis to deliver a world trade deal -- and were frustrated by an irresoluble dispute on agricultural imports between two countries, India and the USA. But now, in the absence of any co-ordinated global action, member countries have been retreating into their national silos -- and the trickle of protectionist announcements threatens to become a flood. Switzerland led costly action to protect its overvalued currency and has been followed by currency interventions in Japan (with perhaps more to come), India, Indonesia, and South Korea. Brazil, which had itself warned of currency wars, then imposed direct tariffs on manufactured imports -- a hefty car tax designed to protect its own native auto industry against emerging market imports. Other countries are now considering mimicking them. Capital controls are also now in vogue, and of course the U.S. Senate has just voted to label China a “currency manipulator.”
The 2011 WTO report, just published, warns of divergences in regulatory frameworks in preferential trade agreements. And in the next few days the WTO will release its submission to the G20. It will note a rise in trade-restrictive measures and describe the outlook ahead as “less restraint in the adoption of new trade-restrictive measures and less determination to dismantle existing ones.” Perhaps as worrying is the growing resort to what I call “home country bias.” Today French banks are selling off their foreign assets and focusing their large portfolios on France itself. French banks have 8 trillion euros in total assets and if the plan is to run them down at 5 percent a year, then by 2014 we will see a 1.2 trillion-euro reduction in investments outside France. European bank liabilities are on the order of 32 trillion euros and when, as we can expect, the same mercantilist approaches to liquidating assets spreads to Germany, the Netherlands, and beyond, growth will be put at risk.
When in 2008 the financial crisis first hit us, money started to flow out of Eastern Europe, whose banking system is dominated by French, German, Italian, and Austrian banks. To soften the impact, we put in place a European Union/IMF guarantee that was sufficiently robust to prevent a massive outflow of bank funds. No similar guarantee is now available and, faced with capital flight, growth forecasts for Eastern Europe in 2012 are now half what they were.
Why are the U.S. and China trading blows about something as mundane as car tyres at a time when the world is trying to avoid slipping back into trade protectionism?
It's not purely about the $1 billion worth of tyres China sells to the U.S. every year. It has more to do with the $100 billion of automotive vehicles, parts and engines America buys from abroad. China is worried about the direction of U.S policy. Beijing fears that the administration may find ways to thwart China's future plans to ship vehicles to America.
China may not yet export cars to America, but it already exports a growing number of parts. Cars are in the pipeline. A recent spate of bids from Chinese companies such as Geely for failing U.S. and European auto brands have shown that it has the ambition to be the next Japan or Korea.
Auto sales are the only bright spot in U.S. consumer spending due to the Treasury-financed "cash for clunkers" program. Fears about stimulus dollars leaking abroad are one of the reasons the U.S. trade unions have been aggressively pushing for anti-dumping tariffs.
The worry is that the U.S. has imposed the tariffs under a law designed to protect domestic U.S. producers from being damaged by a sudden surge in imports from China. Determining whether this has occurred is a bureaucratic exercise in which experts determine whether such damage is occurring and propose remedies. But there is a political circuit breaker -- the president has discretion in whether to implement remedies.
At least four similar, so-called Section 421 petitions were filed during the presidency of George W. Bush, according to the international trade commentator, Scott Lincicome, but none were approved. In this case, Obama came down on the side of the union. This has raised fears in Beijing that there will be more cases in coming months.
The Chinese side seems to fear that Obama is bending too much to domestic constituencies such as union and producer interests. Washington needs to be careful about this. Since it wants to export its way out of recession, it should not agitate China, which is potentially a major purchaser of U.S. exports.
China does not want the Obama presidency to set a precedent by discriminating against Chinese goods at this time. Moreover, it is concerned that other countries might follow suit and start to target Chinese goods as well. Its reliance on exports is potentially the big weak link among China's recovery.
That's why Beijing, which has limited its protest mostly to words in recent years for fear of more retaliation, quickly spun into action this time. China's counterpunch is equally forceful. It is launching an anti-dumping investigation into imports of U.S. chicken products and vehicles.
The idea is presumably to raise the political cost for Obama of taking his pen out of his pocket every time a Section 421 case, which specifically targets China, is presented for his signature.
During the first half of this year, 89 percent of China's chicken imports came from America, representing a fifth of all U.S. chicken exports. In comparison, tyres account for just 0.4 percent of the value of goods what China sells to America each year and 0.07 percent of China's total exports.
While it is no secret that America subsidises its agriculture industry, China also spares no effort in helping exporters and putting up import barriers to protect domestic manufacturers. For example, China agreed in August to stop some discriminatory charges it imposed on imported U.S. auto parts after a World Trade Organization ruling from September 1.
After chicken, U.S. soybeans might be the next target. As much as 40 percent of China's soybean imports came from America last year. And this year, China's soybean imports increased by 28 percent.
The last time China took retaliatory measures was during the "garlic trade war" against Japan and South Korea in 2000-2001.
Washington and Beijing have vowed to cooperate in seeking to revive global economic growth, but the dispute over tyres has laid bare the two countries' continued friction over trade. This could spill into the G20 summit later this month and Obama's scheduled visit to China in November.
In previous meetings between the top leaders of the two countries, mostly the U.S. lectured and China listened. Now Beijing is more outspoken about expressing its own concerns and many at home are calling for more tit-for-tat policies.
It remains to be seen how the U.S. will react to a more assertive China.
from The Great Debate:
-- Paul Blustein is a journalist-in-residence at the Brookings Institution. He is writing a book on the World Trade Organization, which will be published in September. The views expressed are his own. --
Telling young people to abstain from sex is “not realistic at all" -- new mother Bristol Palin, 18.
from The Great Debate:
Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, and a man who believes that 2009 will be a "dangerous year", will be speaking on March 31st and has agreed to take questions from Reuters readers.
Zoellick has been outspoken during the current economic crisis predicting the first shrinking of the economy since the '30s, warning that increased government spending will simply create a 'sugar high' until banks' toxic assets are dealt with properly, and urging a tougher stand against protectionism.
from The Great Debate:
The foreplay to next month's G20 summit is degenerating into a buck-passing exercise rather than crafting a Grand Bargain to save the world economy and regulate capitalism.
The industrialized powers do not agree on how to arrest the steep slide in output, how to handle collapsing banks, how much market regulation is needed, how to reach a world trade deal and prevent protectionism, or how to redistribute power to emerging nations in exchange for their money.