China

In his New York Times column today, Paul Krugman writes about the problem of macroeconomic imbalances between China and the United States.  Which is fine, except he wrote the exact same column last month.  Just like last month's column, this one makes some good points and fails to mention some important dynamics.  Beyond the inclusion of a useful footnote, however, there's nothing new here. 

As part of an ongoing public service to busy readers of Foreignpolicy.com, the hard-working staff here at the blog is ready to help you bypass the chore of having to read the same Krugman column time and again with this handy-dandy crib sheet.  My guess is that the next six months' worth of Krugman columns will boil down to the following assertions:

1. The root of macroeconomic imbalances is the Chinese (undervalued) peg to the dollar;
2. Obama and Geithner should be "tough" on China's dollar policy;
3. Concerns about incipient U.S. inflation are... er... inflated;
4. That goes double for long-term concerns about rising debt levels;
5. The February 2009 stimulus was too small;
6. The Republicans are blinkered;
7. The Obama administration should act in a more partisan and progressive manner. 

Now, let me stress that I agree with 1, 3, and 6 at this point, and I'm agnostic on 4 and 5, so it's not like Krugman is wrong in what he's saying.  It's just that he's saying the same damn thing over and over again. 

I'm late to this party, but two quick thoughts on Obama's Tokyo speech: 

1.  Last week a sharp foreign policy observer -- and a former campaign advisor for Obama -- made an interesing lexicographical observation to me about the Obama administration's foreign policy rhetoric to date.  They use the word "partnership" a hell of a lot more often than they use the word "alliance."  That's not terribly surprising, given their emphasis on talking with adversaries, forming great power concerts, etc.  Still, there are times when it's important to reach out more to one's allies than one's rivals. 

The Tokyo speech was one of those occasions, and I'm happy to report that Obama used "alliance" 12 times and "partnership" only 9 times.  Perhaps this says more about the lay of the land in the Pacific Rim than anything else, but it does suggest that the adminstration is sensitive to regional nuances.

2.  That said, I was underwhelmed with the trade outreach of the speech.  Some reports suggest that Obama announced that the U.S. would join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an APEC trade forum comprising, at the moment, of Brunei, Singapore, Chile and New Zealand (with Vietnam and Australia thinking about joining). 

What Obama actually said, however, was:  

The United States will also be engaging with the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries with the goal of shaping a regional agreement that will have broad-based membership and the high standards worthy of a 21st century trade agreement.

So what exactly does that mean?  Helene Cooper points out the ambiguities of that language in the New York Times: 

Although Mr. Obama did open the door during his speech in Tokyo on Asia policy, he did not explicitly say that the United States would join the pact. A formal announcement that the United States is beginning negotiations would undoubtedly kick off criticism from free-trade opponents in the United States and pushback from Congress.

Mr. Obama spoke, instead, of “engaging the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries with the goal of shaping a regional agreement that will have broad-based membership and the high standards worthy of a 21st century trade agreement.”

That line left many trade envoys already in Singapore scratching their heads: did Mr. Obama mean that the United States would begin formal talks to join the regional trade pact, which presently includes Singapore, Brunei and New Zealand, and could later include Vietnam — an addition that could lead to more Congressional pressure at home?

Many regional officials have been waiting for the United States to join the initiative as a demonstration that Washington will play a more active role in the region. But the Obama administration has yet to establish a firm trade policy, as it is still reviewing its options.

White House officials were not much clearer on what Mr. Obama meant when they were pressed on this after the speech. Michael Froman, an economics expert on the National Security Council, said that what Mr. Obama meant was that he would engage with the initiative “to see if this is something that could prove to be an important platform going further.”

Wow, that's some real enthusiasm coming from the G-20 sherpa.... not. 

For an administration that likes to pride itself as savvy in the ways of foreign policy subtleties, I still don't think they grasp the fact that trade policy is now embedded into foreign policy in the Asia/Pacific Region. 

My latest column in The National Interest online is up, and it sounds a warning about the Obama administration's policy malaise on both the Asia/Pacific region and the #1 issue to countries in the Asia/Pacific region -- namely, trade:

Obama’s policy malaise on trade will not win him friends in a region hell-bent on deepening economic integration. U.S. policy on trade liberalization has stalled out so badly that rumors are swirling around the Beltway that U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk is contemplating resignation. Meanwhile, countries in the region are signing free-trade agreements with each other at a record pace. The European Union has inked a free-trade deal with South Korea, and is negotiating one with Japan. In contrast, the chances of the Korea-United States free trade agreement passing this Congress is hovering around zero. The comparison with China is particularly dispiriting....

The United States has not been eclipsed yet—the bevy of activity in the Pacific Rim is a lot more about hedging than balancing against the United States. Nevertheless, if President Obama wants to be taken seriously in the region, he needs to take the region’s issues more seriously. Trade is not merely about economics—it’s about foreign policy too. Just because Washington ignores a policy issue does not mean others do not think it important. As we are learning, some regions can bypass America altogether if they so choose. 

In a very disturbing sign of the times, I see that former State Department official Evan Feigenbaum has written something similar for the Financial Times: 

[T]he business of Asia is business. Without more vigorous trade engagement, such diplomatic efforts cannot secure America’s position in a changing Asia. The US could soon face a region less willing to accommodate its commercial and financial interests.

Many eons ago in graduate school Only recently Evan and I woul talk about the Asia/Pacific when we were matriculating in graduate school together -- and, more often than not, we disagreed with one another.  The only times we agreed was when some serious s**t was going down.  So take this consensus for what you will. 

The Financial Times' Edward Luce talks today about the ways in which U.S. perceptions of China have changed:

[N]o amount of dexterity can disguise the fact that Mr Obama’s visit to China crystallises a big shift in the global centre of gravity over the past few years. Just a decade ago Bill Clinton persuaded Capitol Hill that China’s membership of the World Trade Organisation would strengthen the forces of democracy within China.

Today, almost nobody in Washington even tries to make that case. Subsequent developments in China – and elsewhere – make it hard to sustain the argument that economic liberalisation leads necessarily to political liberty.

Hmmm..... really? 

I'm not saying Luce doesn't have a point.  China's been opening to the world for two decades now and Beijing's Freedom House score on accountability and public voice hasn't really budged (and stories like these don't help).  So anyone who thinks that economic liberalization will lead to political liberalization in the short-term is fooling themselves. 

That said, this isn't a short-term game that's being played.  Freedom House also acknowledges that, "Even though political institutions in China have not undergone major change, the degree to which Chinese can manage their own lives has increased substantially in the reform era."  Furthermore, as someone watching their foreign economic policy, I think it's safe to say that the current Chinese leadership is far more sensitive to domestic political pressures than was the case a decade ago (whether the Chinese public actually wants what Kantian liberals think they want is another matter entirely). 

China might be one of the toughest tests imaginable on the relationship between economic and political liberalization.  The country has a strong civilizational identity, but the leadership is acutely aware of the rebellious tendencies of some of its ethnic minorities.  The population is so huge that even after decades of double-digit economic growth, a lot of Chinese citizens are dirt poor.  It will likely take another decade for China's GDP per capita figure to rise to the level when most political science models would predict some push towards democratization. 

I certainly don't think U.S. policymakers can sit around and wait for China to democratize as the answer to policy problems in the Pacific Rim.  But neither am I convinced that China's domestic polity has reached its final steady state. 

Following up on my dollar post from earlier this week, I see that Paul Krugman is talking a related issue in his New York Times column today -- the refusal of the renminbi to depreciate against the dollar:

Many economists, myself included, believe that China’s asset-buying spree helped inflate the housing bubble, setting the stage for the global financial crisis. But China’s insistence on keeping the yuan/dollar rate fixed, even when the dollar declines, may be doing even more harm now.

Although there has been a lot of doomsaying about the falling dollar, that decline is actually both natural and desirable. America needs a weaker dollar to help reduce its trade deficit, and it’s getting that weaker dollar as nervous investors, who flocked into the presumed safety of U.S. debt at the peak of the crisis, have started putting their money to work elsewhere.

But China has been keeping its currency pegged to the dollar — which means that a country with a huge trade surplus and a rapidly recovering economy, a country whose currency should be rising in value, is in effect engineering a large devaluation instead.

Krugman then goes on to excoriate the U.S. Treasury department for not upbraiding the Chinese more on this. 

Fair enough, but the thing is, the United States is not the country that's hurt the most by this tactic.  It's the rest of the world -- particularly Europe and the Pacific Rim -- that are getting royally screwed by China's policy.  These countries are seeing their currencies appreciating against both the dollar and the renminbi, which means their products are less competitive in the U.S. market compared to domestic production and Chinese exports. 

This leads to the title of this post.  Krugman presumes that the U.S. has the strongest incentive to talk to China about this issue.  If one thinks of the U.S. acting as the hegemon, that's possibly true.  As a matter of direct economic interest, however, why haven't the Europeans and East Asians been screaming bloody murder about this?  China's policies are forcing them to take actions they don't want to take -- so why aren't they complaining more loudly about this? 

Why? 

Your humble blogger has a rather long essay in the Fall 2009 issue of International Security.  What's a lowly IPE scholar doing publishing in a high and mighty security journal?  Assessing whether China's massive holdings of dollar-denominated assets is a big deal or not.  The title may or may not give away my argument:  "Bad Debts: Assessing China's Financial Influence in Great Power Politics."

Here's the abstract: 

Commentators and policymakers have articulated growing concerns about U.S. dependence on China and other authoritarian capitalist states as a source of credit to fund the United States' trade and budget deficits. What are the security implications of China's creditor status? If Beijing or another sovereign creditor were to flex its financial muscles, would Washington buckle? The answer can be drawn from the existing literature on economic statecraft. An appraisal of the ability of creditor states to convert their financial power into political power suggests that the power of credit has been moderately exaggerated in policy circles. To use the argot of security studies, China's financial power increases its deterrent capabilities, but it has little effect on its compellence capabilities. China can use its financial power to resist U.S. entreaties, but it cannot coerce the United States into changing its policies. Financial power works best when a concert of creditors (or debtors) can be maintained. Two case studies—the contestation over regulating sovereign wealth funds and the protection of Chinese financial investments in the United States—demonstrate the constraints on China's financial power.

Read it and weep. 

My latest column for Newsweek International is now available.  It looks at optimistic and pessimistic modes of thought with regard to China's future, and suggests that they can both be right: 

I belong to the third camp—the one that believes that the Bubblers and the Extrapolators can both be right. My camp looks at China and sees the parallels with America's rise to global economic greatness during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From an outsider's vantage point, America looked like a machine that could take immigrants and raw materials and spit out manufactured goods at will. By 1890, the U.S. economy was the largest and most productive in the world. As any student of American history knows, however, these were hardly tranquil times for the United States. Immigration begat ethnic tensions in urban areas. The shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy led to fierce and occasionally violent battles between laborers, farmers, and owners of capital. With an immature financial sector, recession and depressions racked the American economy for decades.

It is not contradictory for China to amass a larger share of wealth and power while still suffering from severe domestic vulnerabilities. From the perspective of the rest of the world, however, this is not a good thing.

As for why it's not a good thing, well, you'll have to read the whole article. 

When the Obama administraton announced the decision to slap a 35% tariff on Chinese tire imports, I was pretty sure that free traders would be incensed.  And I haven't been disappointed -- even the financial markets are freaking out over this one. 

We trade enthusiasts are an excitable lot, however, what with everything leading to the falling off of cliffs, crossroads being reached, and red zones being breached.  Seven years ago, the allegedly free-trade Bush administration imposed steel tariffs that were found to be WTO-inconsistent.  There was a lot of gnashing of teeth and wailing at the time about the end of the open economy as we knew it -- yet the world trade system proved to be pretty robust.  So maybe my trade compatriots are exaggerating things a wee bit, yes?  In all likelihood, won't this be resolved via the WTO dispute settlement mechanism about 18 months from now?

For the first eight months of the Obama administration, I've been resisting the urge to shout "protectionism" at the drop of the hat.  This time, however, there are four reasons why I'm feeling much more nervous: 

1)  This isn't your garden-variety protectionism.  Last month, Chad Bown explained the Financial Times why this decision was a very special kind of protectionism: 

[A] little-known loophole in the rules governing China’s 2001 WTO accession makes it easy for a global protectionist response to spread faster and further than that which took hold in 2002. Nowadays, once any one country imposes a China safeguard on imports, all other WTO members can immediately follow suit, without investigating whether their own industries have been injured.

So this trade dispute can metastasize more quickly than most. 

2)  Beijing is not lying down on this.  China's furious and swift reaction points to another problem:  the United States is not the only country feeling protectionist urges at the moment.  Economic nationalism in China is riding quite high at the moment, as Keith Bradsher suggests in the New York Times: 

The Chinese government’s strong countermove followed a weekend of nationalistic vitriol against the United States on Chinese Web sites in response to the tire tariff. “The U.S. is shameless!” said one posting, while another called on the Chinese government to sell all of its huge holdings of Treasury bonds....

China had initially issued a fairly formulaic criticism of the tire dispute Saturday. But rising nationalism in China is making it harder for Chinese officials to gloss over American criticism.

“All kinds of policymaking, not just trade policy, is increasingly reactive to Internet opinion,” said Victor Shih, a Northwestern University specialist in economic policy formulation.

Methinks Shih and Bradsher are exaggerating things a wee bit -- imagine for a moment if U.S. foreign policy was driven by people getting upset on the Internet -- but you get the point.   

The U.S. use of this provision is doubly troubling, because from Beijing's perspective their WTO accession negotiations were seen as a humiliating kowtow to the power of the West.  China is not going to be selling its bonds anytime soon, but Beijing has not quite mastered how to cope with these kinds of domestic pressures, so they could do something really, really stupid.

3)  Politically, Obama has boxed himself in.  As egregious as the Bush steel tariffs were, they were targeted at a sector and not a country.  Furthermore, the Bush administration responded to the hubbub very quickly by watering down the worst effect of the tariffs. 

The Obama administration's new tariff is expressly directed at China.  And I'm not saying that China is blameless here.  But because it's country-specific, the administration has less room to maneuver -- either the tariffs are applied against China or they aren't.  It can't walk this back without it looking like a flip-flop.  Which means that there's little room for concession or negotiation. 

4)  Obama's base scares me on trade.  When the Bush administration did what it did, it was fulfilling a campaign promise to the state of West Virginia steelwokers.  Fortunately, the rest of Bush's winning political coalition was not seeking trade relief.  So the protectionist instinct pretty much ended with the steel tariffs -- and everyone in the Bush administration knew that they'd be overturned by the WTO eventually. 

With the Obama administration, however, this feels like the tip of the iceberg.  Most of Obama's core constituencies want greater levels of trade protection for one reason (improving labor standards) or another (protecting union jobs).  This isn't going to stop.  "Trade enforcement" has been part and parcel of Obama's trade rhetoric since the campaign.  The idea that better trade enforcement will correct the trade deficit, however, is pure fantasy.  It belongs in the Department of Hoary Political Promises, like, "We'll balance the budget by cracking down on tax cheats!" or "By cutting taxes I can raise government revenues!"  It.  Can't.  Happen. 

If I knew this was where the Obama administration would stop with this sort of nonsense, I'd feel a bit queasy but chalk it up to routine trade politics.  When I look at Obama's base, however, quasiness starts turning into true nausea. 

Developing.... in a very, very scary way. 

UPDATE:  More from Brad DeLong, Dave Schuler, and Shadow Government's Phil Levy.