Tag Archives: economic war

I Can’t Imagine Germany without China

Germany is struggling to pick sides in the escalating dispute between the U.S. and China over issues including trade and human rights, amid mounting American pressure and Beijing’s authoritarian drift. Of all advanced economies outside Asia, Germany has the deepest economic ties in both camps and would have the most to lose from a Cold War between Washington and Beijing.

Berlin’s snaking trade links with China and the U.S. have served Germany well in the past two decades, providing it with steady growth, near full employment and full public coffers that have allowed the deployment of more than €1 trillion ($1.13 trillion) in measures to support its economy during the pandemic.  Now, Germany’s reluctance to take sides is diluting Europe’s broader efforts to present a united front to China, undermining the bloc’s power to shape a new global architecture…

Germany’s export-oriented economic model means it can’t really choose at all. It needs both the US and China.  China is Germany’s largest trading partner; the U.S. its biggest export market. And they stand neck-and-neck: Last year, Germany exported €119 billion of goods to the U.S. and €96 billion to China….Around 28% of jobs in Germany are directly or indirectly linked to exports, and in manufacturing that figure is 56%, according to the German Ministry for Economic Affairs. Germany exports nearly as much as the U.S. despite having only one-quarter the population.

Germany’s world-beating engineering companies supplied the factory equipment and the infrastructure that powered China’s transformation into the world’s top manufacturer. Harnessed to the fast-growing giant, Germany rebounded strongly after the financial crisis and weathered the eurozone debt crisis…

“I can’t imagine Volkswagen without China,” said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, director of the Center Automotive Research at the University of Duisburg-Essen.  Volkswagen CEO Herbert Diess, who refers to China as his company’s “second home,” has recently praised China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. The company in May said it would pour $2 billion into China’s electric-car market….

Excerpts from Tom Fairless et al., U.S.-China Tensions Leave Germany Squirming in the Middle, WSJ, June 24, 2020

Shut-out, Cut-off and Suicidal: Aliens v. America

The United States leads the world in punishing corruption, money-laundering and sanctions violations. In the past decade it has increasingly punished foreign firms for misconduct that happens outside America. Scores of banks have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines. In the past 12 months several multinationals, including Glencore and ZTE, have been put through the legal wringer. The diplomatic row over Huawei, a Chinese telecoms-equipment firm, centres on the legitimacy of America’s extraterritorial reach.

America has taken it upon itself to become the business world’s policeman, judge and jury. It can do this because of its privileged role in the world economy. Companies that refuse to yield to its global jurisdiction can find themselves shut out of its giant domestic market, or cut off from using the dollar payments system and by extension from using mainstream banks. For most big companies that would be suicidal.

But as the full extent of extraterritorial legal activity has become clearer, so have three glaring problems.  First, the process is disturbingly improvised and opaque. Cases rarely go to court and, when they are settled instead, executives are hit with gagging orders. Facing little scrutiny, prosecutors have applied ever more expansive interpretations of what counts as the sort of link to America that makes an alleged crime punishable there; indirect contact with foreign banks with branches in America, or using Gmail, now seems to be enough. Imagine if China fined Amazon $5bn and jailed its executives for conducting business in Africa that did not break American law, but did offend Chinese rules and was discussed on WeChat.

Second, the punishments can be disproportionate. In 2014 bnp Paribas, a French bank, was hit with a sanctions-related fine of $8.9bn, enough to threaten its stability. In April ZTE, a Chinese tech firm with 80,000 employees, was banned by the Trump administration from dealing with American firms; it almost went out of business. The ban has since been reversed, underlining the impression that the rules are being applied on the hoof.

Third, America’s legal actions can often become intertwined with its commercial interests. As our investigation this week explains, a protracted bribery probe into Alstom, a French champion, helped push it into the arms of General Electric, an American industrial icon. American banks have picked up business from European rivals left punch-drunk by fines. Sometimes American firms are in the line of fire—Goldman Sachs is being investigated by the doj for its role in the 1mdb scandal in Malaysia. But many foreign executives suspect that American firms get special treatment and are wilier about navigating the rules.

America has much to be proud of as a corruption-fighter. But, for its own good as well as that of others, it needs to find an approach that is more transparent, more proportionate and more respectful of borders. If it does not, its escalating use of extraterritorial legal actions will ultimately backfire. It will discourage foreign firms from tapping American capital markets. It will encourage China and Europe to promote their currencies as rivals to the dollar and to develop global payments systems that bypass Uncle Sam…. Far from expressing geopolitical might, America’s legal overreach would then end up diminishing American power.

Excerpts from Tackling Corruption: Judge Dread, Economist, Jan. 19, 2019

Who is the Master of Mastercard? credit card blockades

A blockade on WikiLeaks payments processor DataCell by Visa, MasterCard and American Express is unlikely to violate EU competition rules.  MasterCard, Visa and American Express, among others, stopped processing payments for WikiLeaks when it started releasing about 250,000 secret US diplomatic cables in 2010. This made it hard to raise funds, and WikiLeaks has said the blockade resulted in a 95 percent donations reduction, which cost the organisation more than US$50 million.

DataCell, the company that processed WikiLeaks donations until the blockade started, last year filed a complaint with the European Commission, suggesting the blockade is a violation of European competition rules.  The Commission, however, does not think that is the case. “On the basis of the information available, the Commission considers that the complaint does not merit further investigation because it is unlikely that any infringement of EU competition rules could be established,” an official of the European Commission said in an email on Tuesday.

he Commission said it looked at the impact of the blockade on DataCell and at the impact on the markets in which it operates. “It appears that DataCell is not prevented from accepting card payments for its own services or for the benefit of other parties; it is only payments for the benefit of WikiLeaks that DataCell cannot process. It seems unlikely that this would lead to harmful effects to competition and to consumers on the payment services markets concerned,” the official said.  It is unclear when the Commission will issue a final decision. “We never announce that in advance,” the official said.

WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, was displeased with the news. “These companies should not have the power to impose an economic death penalty,” he said during a news conference that was available via a live video link in Brussels. Assange is in self-imposed political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid being extradited to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning related to accusations of committing sexual offenses…

While the European Commission is unlikely to decide the payment blockade against WikiLeaks violates competition laws, the European Parliament last week called for legislation to regulate credit card companies’ ability to refuse service to organizations such as WikiLeaks. The Parliament voted in favor of a text that “considers it to be in the public interest to define objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance.” [see European Parliament resolution of 20 November 2012 on ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’ (2012/2040(INI))

“Visa can set the rules of the market”  The Commission will be asked to consider the text for laws limiting the rights of credit card companies to refuse service.  “The Commission’s assessment to not even investigate is in total opposite direction of the political will,” said Andreas Fink, CEO of DataCell, in an email. Fink read the preliminary report send to him by the Commission.

“It basically sounds like they were hunting for an excuse to not have to investigate it,” he said. The Commission essentially reasoned that one less small player in the market doesn’t change the market mechanics, while the intention of competition rules is to avoid powerful, monopoly-like players like Visa dictating to the market, Fink said…. adding that when Visa ordered service providers to stop DataCell payments to WikiLeaks in Iceland, MasterCard and American Express transactions were automatically canceled as well.  “So Visa can set the rules of the market,” dictating to other credit card companies, Fink said. “This is competition control at its finest,” he said, calling the situation “absurd.”

Credit card blockade of WikiLeaks donations likely to be legal, EU says, Computerworld, UK, Nov. 28, 2012