How Will the Sino-U.S. Currency Battle End?

Published in Wenweipo
(China) on 7 May 2010
by Min Zhicai (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Crystal Jin. Edited by Celeste Hansen.
America is raising the RMB issue, pressuring China again this year, and China is adopting a strong attitude. Both parties are fighting fiercely, and a negative outcome for the two countries is inevitable. A U.S. diplomat said privately that the U.S. realizes that maintaining “face” is very important to China, so pressure could be counterproductive. Though China’s attitude remains tough, the rise in the RMB has already been obvious, which is the silver lining America really wants.

Since the beginning of this year, the U.S. has been exerting pressure on China from all sides, which makes us believe that America will not give up easily. At the same time, Chinese officials also have responded strongly. America knows better than any other country that the currency’s effect is very limited in adjusting Sino-U.S. trade. On the surface, America is launching an exchange rate battle, but the real motive is to achieve the following six goals.

First, in terms of the economy, America wants China to open up its market. During a previous currency battle in 2007, former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Henry Paulson accidentally revealed that the true intention was to open Chinese financial markets. Luckily, China withstood that pressure, or the current financial crisis would have had a greater impact on China.

Second, America wants to enhance the dollar’s hegemony. America once used the currency as a stick to beat Japan, which caused Japan to fall into economic depression for more than a decade. The currency weapon has withstood the test of time as a global strategy. In the financial crisis, everything is negotiable but the currency battle is unavoidable.

Third, America wants to divert the focus of the public away from the domestic arena to score political points. The U.S. fiscal deficits are huge and its economic policy achievements are scarce. The government is still searching for the right engine to drive the economy; deflation is still going on and the unemployment rate is rising, leading to domestic resentment. With the mid-term election around the corner, the Obama administration has to find a way to divert the public’s attention, and it hopes to score in terms of public opinion and image, with RMB as the victim.

Fourth, America wants to evade international debt obligations. The stable exchange rate between the RMB and the dollar renders America unable to gain the greatest advantage. In other words, America’s aim is to evade the debt by lowering the value of the dollar, thus redistributing global assets.

Fifth, America wants to hold the moral high ground on the economy. As America pressures China, it also can become the spokesperson for Europe, Japan and developing countries competing with China.

Sixth, America wants to control China. Since China joined the World Trade Organization, it has become an increasingly influential voice within the international community. America perceives this development as a threat to U.S. hegemony, which illustrates America’s containment mentality.

Dispute over the Exchange Rate “Front” Fuzzy

Despite powerful reasons for America and China to struggle over currency, divergence of opinion exists even within the two countries. The British Financial Times deemed the dispute over the exchange rate “front” fuzzy.

In America, Republicans and Democrats differ on this issue. The Republicans represent the interests of transnational corporations, most of which benefit from economic globalization. Their manufacturing factories are in China and other developing countries, while the products are mainly sold in America and other developed countries. Increasing customs duties, taxes and trade barriers would lower the dollar’s exchange rate, which would lead to a global trade war. This change in the global economic structure would have an enormous negative impact on transnational corporations.

Disagreements also exist within U.S. business circles. Wal-Mart and other large U.S. retailers understand that appreciation in the RMB will raise the prices of imported clothing and toys. Many U.S. companies rely on China to maintain their own economic growth. If the Obama administration labels China as a currency manipulator and Congress raises the tariff on Chinese products, the result would be a heavy blow to American transnational corporations, which are relying on the Chinese market to make up for weakness in domestic and European markets.

In China, opinions on whether the RMB should rise also differ. The Chinese Department of Commerce generally is against any policies that can make RMB rise or harm exportation. Analysts believe that China’s powerful National Development and Reform Commission will veto floating of the exchange rate, but will agree to the introduction of a more flexible exchange rate policy. The Bank of China, whose task is inflation control, also hopes the RMB becomes more flexible. With the government, academia and business interests so divided on this issue, the real risk of a “rate war” is greatly reduced.

Currency Battle May End Peacefully

Obama hopes that Hu Jintao will visit America officially in June; until then the battle will not commence. Triggering a trade war to force a re-evaluation of the RMB would only hurt both sides. Compared to five years ago, both countries are more interdependent, and China is America’s biggest creditor, so stakes are high for the U.S. government.

There are signs that China is considering adjusting the RMB exchange rate. Douglas H. Paal, Vice President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said during an interview, "it seems increasingly likely that China will permit a small but significant one-time appreciation of the yuan pegged to the dollar after the phase out in favor of being pegged to a basket of currencies.” In this manner, China could retain autonomy and control currency reform without negative impacts to Chinese exportation and the job market. This move would also relieve political pressure on the U.S. mid-term election and serve as a mutually acceptable solution.


中美匯率戰如何收場?

[2010-05-07]

閔之才
 今年美國再次在人民幣問題上對中國全面施壓,中國也強硬應對,雙方交鋒激烈,但誰也不敢漠視兩敗俱傷的結局。一位美國外交官私下告訴筆者,美方已經認識到,中方非常看重「面子」,施壓只會有反效果,雖然目前中方口頭上仍不放鬆,不過人民幣升值的趨勢已經更為明顯,而這其實正是美方要的「裡子」。
今年以來,美國在人民幣問題上形成了全面施壓的態勢,大有人民幣不升值不善罷甘休之勢。與此同時,中國官方與專家也以強硬姿態給予回擊。其實美國比誰都明白,匯率在調整兩國貿易格局中作用非常有限,他們熱衷於發動匯率大戰,其實是醉翁之意不在酒。真實意圖,歸納起來,大致有六。
美國真實意圖有六
其一、從純經濟層面看,美國的真實意圖是逼迫中國開放市場。2007年美國對中國發動「匯戰」,當時前財長保爾森不小心道出了其真正的意圖,那就是要求中國開放金融市場。幸好當時中國頂住壓力,否則中國受到金融危機的衝擊將更大。

其二、鞏固美元霸權地位。美國的匯率「大棒」曾經在把日本掀落馬下後,使日本陷入長達十多年的經濟低迷。匯率大棒始終是其全球戰略中屢試不爽的重要武器。在金融危機中,一切尚可商量,如今美國經濟已無二次探底之憂,那麼中美之間在匯率領域的再次博弈將難以避免。

其三、轉移國內焦點,撈取政治分。美國透支了巨額財政赤字,經濟政策成果乏善可陳,至今經濟增長的引擎仍不知何在,通縮烏雲仍頭頂高懸,失業率依然高企,導致國內民怨沸騰。加之國會中期選舉在即,奧巴馬政府急需轉移矛盾,議員也藉機操縱議題,希望在輿論和形象上得分,人民幣也就成了其國內政治的替罪羊和出氣筒。

其四、逃避國際債務。美國逼迫人民幣升值的另一個原因在於,在美元本位制下,人民幣與美元的固定匯率掛機制,使得美國無法肆意獲得美元作為美國主權貨幣和世界貨幣的最大利益。換言之,目前美國想通過美元貶值逃脫國際債務,重新進行全球財富再分配,卻因人民幣匯率牽制而無法為所欲為。

其五、佔領經濟道德制高點。美國政客算定人民幣無論如何不可能大幅度升值,那人民幣就不能改變被指責和被拍打的命運。美國政客調高壓力的閥門,他們就可以成為歐洲、日本甚至是與中國有貿易競爭的發展中國家的代言人,站在經濟道德的制高點。

其六、美國此舉,仍然不乏對中國發展的遏制心態。中國加入WTO融入世界經濟之後,並沒有按照美國的預想實現「和平演變」,反而日益強大,在國際社會中影響加大,對美國的霸權形成挑戰,美國遏制心態是不言而喻的。
匯率之爭「戰線」模糊

儘管表面上看美方開戰理由言之鑿鑿,中方反駁理由也鏗鏘有力。然而,即便是中美兩國內部,有關人民幣之爭,也是意見不一。用英國《金融時報》的話說,人民幣之爭「戰線」模糊。

在美國國會中,兩黨議員在此問題上也有分歧。共和黨所代表的大跨國公司階層,大多是經濟全球化的受益者,他們的商品生產基地設在中國等發展中國家,商品大都銷售給發達國家,相當部分返銷回美國本土。如果增加關稅和貿易壁壘,降低美元匯率,並進而導致全球範圍的貿易戰,全球經濟格局將出現結構性調整,對於這些大的跨國公司而言,意味利益受到巨大的影響。

在美國工商界,也一直存在分歧。沃爾瑪等美國大型零售企業曾經明確反對人民幣升值,因為這將提高它們的進口服裝和玩具的成本。很多美國大公司現在都倚靠中國經濟保持增長。如果奧巴馬政府給中國貼上「匯率操縱國」的標籤,同時美國議員通過議案給中國產品增加新的關稅,這些舉動將會對美國跨國公司造成沉重打擊,它們正依靠中國市場彌補在國內和西歐的經濟頹勢。

在中國內部,對於人民幣是否升值也存在爭議。主管中國貿易事務的商務部雖然也負責進口領域,但它通常反對一切可能導致人民幣升值和傷害本國出口企業的措施。分析人士還認為,大權在握的中國國家規劃機構—國家發改委會動用否決權,否決一切取消人民幣盯住美元政策的舉措。此外,儘管發改委反對浮動匯率的設想,但它並不絕對反對實施更加靈活的匯率政策。而肩負控制通貨膨脹任務的中國人民銀行也希望人民幣匯率更靈活一些。

從政府、學界、工商界如此涇渭分明的分歧,注定將使得中美「匯率之戰」真正開戰的幾率大大降低。
匯率戰有望和平落幕
 何況,奧巴馬也希望今年6月胡錦濤能夠對美國進行正式國事訪問,至少在此之前,美國應不會在人民幣問題上大動干戈。
 逼迫人民幣升值引發貿易戰,只能是兩敗俱傷的結局。特別是如今兩國利益交織,互相依存度大於五年之前,加上中國是美國最大的債主,務實著稱的美國人也不得不考慮「匯戰」帶來的後果。

已有跡象表明,中國正在考慮調整人民幣匯率問題。卡內基國際和平基金會資深研究員包道格在接受採訪時猜測:「關於人民幣匯率問題,越來越大的可能性是,中國會允許人民幣一次性小幅升值,之後逐步解除盯住美元,轉而盯住一攬子貨幣。」如此,中國既可以主動、可控、漸進的原則自主改革匯率機制,又不至於對中國出口和就業帶來大的消極影響,還能適當緩解美國國會中期選舉的政治壓力,可謂雙方都可接受的方案。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump vs the Fed: Rocky Times Ahead

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

United Kingdom: Trump Is Angry with a World That Won’t Give Him Easy Deals

Nigeria: The Global Fallout of Trump’s Travel Bans

Topics

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

Sri Lanka: Gaza Genocide: Who Stands for Justice-and Who Stands in the Way?

Turkey: Europe’s Quiet Surrender

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Israel: In Washington, Netanyahu Must Prioritize Bringing Home Hostages before Iran

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

United Kingdom: Trump Is Angry with a World That Won’t Give Him Easy Deals

Nigeria: The Global Fallout of Trump’s Travel Bans

Related Articles

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

1 COMMENT

  1. I like how the quote described as a “sign… that China is considering adjusting the RMB exchange rate” comes from someone outside of the Chinese government. Ha ha, I’m sure it will rise, it’s just funny to me this is the only quote they could find.

    Ugh, I hate the argument that the US wants the RMB to rise to “evade” its debt responsibility. That’s so ridiculous. The US borrowed dollars from China, and it will repay in dollars. The exchange rate is irrelevant to the value of that money because China will have to use the dollars to buy things from the US for their value to be realized. If the US wanted to “evade” its debt, it would encourage domestic inflation, not a devaluation in the exchange rate.