China, Economic, Foreign Affairs, Japan, Society, United States

A bilateral trade agreement between Japan and America looms…

TRADE AGREEMENT

Intro: But why is this potential agreement being treated as a weapon? It shouldn’t be used to contain China

Congressional leaders in America rarely agree on anything, but last week some good news stemmed from Washington. A bipartisan bill has been presented to Congress which, if passed, would for the first time in many years give the president ‘fast-track’ authority when negotiating trade deals. A huge trade deal looms, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the bill would provide a major boost for its prospects. It would bind America with 11 economies (including Japan but not China) around the Pacific Rim. The TPP is being mightily embraced. As Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, heads to Washington for a much anticipated trip – including an invitation to address a joint session of Congress – Mr Abe claimed that America and Japan were close to agreeing the terms of a bilateral agreement on trade.

However, there are two major caveats. First, ‘fast track’, formerly known as Trade Promotion Authority, may still fall foul of Congress. And second, Japan may not make any serious cuts to tariffs that protect its farmers. Yet, underlying this potential trade agreement is that both have been too quick to cast the TPP as a weapon in its desire to contain China.

Flanked by Japan and America, the TPP would link countries which make up 40% of global GDP. That could boost world trade and output by as much as $220 billion a year by 2025. It is aimed at reforming difficult areas such as intellectual property, state-owned firms and environmental and labour standards. It would link economies that lie at different ends of the spectrum of development – from Vietnam to Australia.

But, crucially, the TPP will not happen without fast track, which forces Congress into a yes/no vote on any pending trade deal (avoiding the risk that it will be amended into oblivion). And the passage of fast track will no-doubt face a lot of scepticism from congressional Democrats. There are those who will be implacably opposed, whilst others will want America to have a bigger arsenal with which to fight against unfair traders. Driven by a conviction that China artificially holds its currency down and destroys American jobs, some, such as the New York senator Charles Schumer, remain determined that fast track should include a provision that would make sure any specific trade deal included sanctions on currency manipulation.

Attaching a currency-manipulation clause to trade deals is a poor idea. Not only are they hard to define but the addition of such clauses makes reaching an agreement less likely. But Mr Schumer’s demands are hard to ignore given that the Obama administration has already, mistakenly, directly pitched TPP as a counterbalance to an assertive China.

While Mr Abe has also committed his country to joining the TPP on strategic grounds, the same mistaken logic of counterbalancing China looks set to cause problems in Japan. For example, Mr Abe is a born admirer of free trade. When he first entered negotiations, some of his backers believed that, by playing the China card, Japan would be spared from making real concessions: that America would care more about a pact that excluded China than about prising open Japan’s most protected markets, particularly rice.

Japan will want to keep tariffs high. The best it may offer will be to allow in a fixed quota of tariff-free rice from the other TPP members (including America).

If the China-containment logic prevails and leads to a minimalist agreement, then the economic gains from TPP will be slim. That was never TPP’s aim, but by having real value to set high new standards for world trade. That requires the boldest possible agreement.

In the long run, the world must surely gain if China joins the pact. Yet, the rhetoric makes trade negotiations sound like a contest. It shouldn’t be that way. This is a battle where the more you give away the more you win.

Standard
China, Economic, Government, Politics

Economic (and political) reforms in China…

ONE

ECONOMIC DATA from China reveals that growth has slowed sharply and that deflation has set in. As China’s economy is being weighed down by both a property slump and weak factory production, many may conclude that the received wisdom over China belongs to the pessimists. Certainly, manufacturing output is at its weakest since the dark days of the global financial crisis. In the first three months of 2015, GDP grew at ‘only’ 7% year-on-year. Growth predictions suggest that this year will probably be China’s weakest in 25 years.

After three soaring decades, fears are rising that China is on the verge of an economic crash. That would be a disaster. China is the world’s second-largest economy and Asia’s pre-eminent rising power. Fortunately, however, the pessimists are missing something from their presumptive models which are not truly reflective of China today. China is not only more economically robust than they allow, it is also putting itself through a quiet (and welcome) financial revolution.

The robustness rests on several pillars. The vast bulk of China’s debts are domestic, and the government still has enough leverage to stop debtors and creditors getting into a panic.

The country has been steadily shifting the balance away from investment and towards consumption, which will help to put the economy on a more stable footing. With a boom in services, China generated over 13m new urban jobs last year, a record that makes slower growth acceptable. Given China’s huge economy, expected growth of 7% this year would boost the global economy by more than 14% (compared to 2007).

But the real reason to doubt the pessimists is China’s reforms. After more than a decade of dithering, the government is acting in three vital areas. First, in finance, it has started to loosen control over interest rates and the flow of capital across China’s borders. The cost of credit has been historically and artificially low, minimising the returns available to savers, as well as succouring inefficient state-owned firms and pushing up investment. Caps on deposit rates are becoming less relevant, thanks now to an explosion of bank-account substitutes that have attracted almost a third of household savings. The governor of China’s central bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, has said there is a ‘high probability’ of full-rate liberalisation by the end of this year.

China is also becoming more tolerant of cross-border cash flows. Slowly but surely, the yuan is becoming more flexible; international conglomerates and multinational firms are able to move revenues abroad far more easily than before. The government’s determined stance to get the IMF to recognise the yuan as a convertible currency before the end of 2015 should pave the way for bolder reforms.

The second area is fiscal. In the early 1990s, reforms gave local government bodies greater responsibility for spending, but few and limited sources of access to revenue. China’s problem of too much investment since then largely stems from those policies. Stuck with a flimsy tax base, cities have relied on sales of land to fund their operations and have engaged in reckless off-balance-sheet borrowing.

The finance ministry insists it has a plan in place to sort out this mess by 2020. Part of those plans include central government transferring funds to the provinces for social priorities, while local government agencies are being promised more in tax revenues. A pilot programme has already been launched in an attempt to clear up local-government debt. This will lay the ground for a municipal-bond market – which, despite the risks, will likely be much better than today’s opaque funding for provinces and cities.

The third area of reform is administrative. At the start of his premiership in 2013, Prime Minister Li Keqiang pledged that he would cut red tape and bureaucracy by making life easier for private companies. Since then, there has been a boom in the registration of private firms: 3.6m were created last year, almost double the number registered in the previous year.

 TWO

IN TIME, the cumulative effects of these reforms will lead to capital being allocated more efficiently. Lenders will price risks more accurately, with the most deserving firms being given funding options and savers earning decent returns. This will have the effect of slowing China’s economy down – how could it not? – but gradually and without breaking the system.

Dangers will remain. Liberalisation breeds instability. When countries ranging from Thailand to South Korea dismantled capital controls in the 1990s, their asset prices and external debts surged, which ultimately led to the then banking crises of south east Asia. China has strong defences but nonetheless its foreign borrowing is rising and its stockmarket is up by three-quarters in just six months.

How politics changes in China is also important. Whilst the economic reforms the country proposes have high-level backing, the anti-corruption campaign of President Xi Jinping means that Chinese officials live in a state of constant fear of state investigators. Many officials dare not engage in local experiments for fear of offending someone powerful.

Political reforms matter, too, because there is a pressing need to end the dire system of hukou, or household registration, which relegates some 300m people who have migrated to cities from the countryside to second-class status and hinders their ability to become empowered consumers. Similarly, farmers and ex-farmers need the right to sell their houses and land, or they will not be able to share in China’s transformation.

Standard
Saudi Arabia, United Nations, United States, Yemen

War and conflict in Yemen…

YEMEN

THE RAGING WAR in Yemen is a paradigmatic dispute in a faraway country between people of whom the world knows very little. But sometimes, however, its internal power struggles become entangled in wider geopolitical issues of the day. In the 1960s, for instance, the rivalry between monarchists and Arab nationalists split the Arab world. Then, Egypt intervened on the side of the nationalist republicans against the loyalists of the Zaydi imamate, backed by Saudi Arabia. Today, the great line of demarcation is the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which feeds the ravage sectarianism between Sunnis and Shias respectively. Now Saudi Arabia and Egypt are allies, often intervening to support Sunnis against the Houthis (a northern Zaydi militia, that is backed and supported by Tehran).

The conflict in Yemen is escalating. Three weeks into the air campaign, and with civilian casualties growing, there is little sign that the Saudi-led coalition has much of a political or military strategy. The difference in strengths couldn’t be starker: the poorest country in the Arab world is being bombed by one of the richest.

For the United States, which is backing the Saudi operation with logistical support and intelligence, Yemen presents two dangers. First, it is a fertile breeding ground for transnational jihadists (AQAP: al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is the most dangerous of the group’s branches), and secondly, it offers Iran an opportunity to extend its influence and nurture a Shia ally (which some fear might become akin to Hezbollah in Lebanon). Both risks are being piqued by the chaos.

The Houthis fought repeated conflicts with the Yemeni government led by the former strongman, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Following a popular uprising and coup, the president stepped down in 2011 and power passed to a transitional government led by Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi. But the Houthis, now allied to the hip with Mr Saleh, took the capital, Sana’ a, last September and then marched on Aden, to which Mr Hadi had fled.

Sectarianism is not particularly strong in Yemen, and there is uncertainty about how much support Iran provides the Houthis. But, in a rhetorical sense, Iran’s backing has become strident. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, said Saudi attacks in Yemen amount to genocide. Using the social networking site Twitter, he has mocked the recently enthroned King Salman, particularly his son and defence minister, Prince Muhammad, who is in his thirties: ‘inexperienced #youngsters have come to power & replaced composure w barbarism.’ (sic)

Amid the chaos, AQAP has taken over Mukalla, a Yemeni port – although it has suffered a setback when a US drone killed one of its leaders on April 15th.

Certainly, Saudi action might have prevented the Houthis from taking all of Aden, but they are still making steady gains. Air strikes alone will not defeat them, but the ground option is receding after Pakistan rebuffed a Saudi request to send troops. Egypt is in no rush to send soldiers to Yemen, either.

The question does loom as to whether the time has come for a political deal. There are increasing calls for a ceasefire and negotiations. On April 14th the UN Security Council passed a resolution placing an arms embargo on the Houthis and Mr Saleh’s family. It also recognised the Saudi call for UN-mediated talks in Riyadh, a condition that the Houthis cannot agree to. The Saudis are pushing for the restoration of Mr Hadi, but he is an unpopular ally, not least because he fled the country. Mr Hadi has appointed Khaled al-Bahah as his deputy. A former prime minister, Mr Bahah is seen as just about the only unifying figure in Yemen. Still, Saudi Arabia has set out no clear political objectives. Whether that leads to the annihilation of the Houthis, or by allowing Iran to act as peacemaker, is yet to become clear.

Appendage:

Graphical and geographic depiction of who controls Yemen.

Graphical and geographic depiction of who controls Yemen.

Standard