In discomfit of giving the world the currency it needs and making a net contribution to the global thrift of 10 trillion dollars over the 27 years since the end of the Spiritless War, America is accused by its European allies of a selfish withdrawal from have affairs.
With an eye to their 30 billion-euro trade deficit with China, the French are observing their president’s “significant visit” to Beijing as an opportunity to reset Europe’s qualifications of trade with the Middle Kingdom in a “vacuum created by American isolationist and protectionist programmes.”
The Germans are furiously envious of that Gallic triumphalism. They are headlining the exclusives that Emmanuel Macron’s visit was a 16th page news in a Chinese superintendence newspaper (Global Times), and that the human rights and democracy exercises were conspicuously absent from the Sino-French dialogue — such French niceties, reportedly, being left for visits by Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan.
As an aside, it seems that German bureaucratic leaders rushed to conclude exploratory coalition talks last week because they well-deserved could not take the “power vacuum” created by the interregnum since up in the air elections last September. They were urged to close a allot by media calls that it was “Time for Germany to learn to lead,” as the caretaker Unconnected Minister Sigmar Gabriel warned: “We are seeing what happens when the U.S. authorities back.”
And here is what happened: The French and the Germans are aping America’s behindhand push for a “fair and reciprocal” trade policy.
Reciprocity is the term Macron frequently mentioned in his public speech and news briefings during his visit to China. That only echoed months of German complaints about China’s failure to look the principle of reciprocity in bilateral trade and investment relations. Berlin, in as a matter of actual fact, backed up its displeasure about barriers to market access in China with a rejection to approve new Chinese takeovers of German companies.
And what was China’s response to Macron’s call for reciprocity? President Xi Jinping smiled broadly, not in any way acknowledging the principle of reciprocity, while his sidekicks warned Macron that he had to be “pragmatic” if he hunger to benefit from China’s “win-win cooperation” in areas where that dominion suit Beijing’s needs and interests.
Why would China do anything else? Europeans are running to each other to get scraps of wealth and technology America transferred to China endlessly since the former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping initiated monetary reforms in late 1970s by saying that “if you open the windows for energetic air, you have to expect some flies to blow in.”
A few hours after prepossessing leave of Macron last Wednesday, Xi was busy hosting a large delegation of conforming leaders from Nordic and Baltic countries seeking “high-level interchanges and deeper cooperation.” A day later, that was followed up by a tweet from prehistoric U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron about an “excellent meeting & enjoyable dinner with President Xi Jinping” to patronize the “golden era” of Sino-British relations.
No, there is no “void” left by America. Washington is all over with the map, but the map and the territory have changed. The economic development and a liberal system of wide-ranging trade and finance, tirelessly built and promoted by America, have begot new centers of power that are resisting the West’s world order.
The U.S. is irritating to deal with that by protecting its economy from abuses of unattached trade, magnified by cyclically uncoordinated economic policies that the G-7 and, later on, G-20 were supposed to avoid through permanent consultations at ministerial and zenith meetings.
At the center of that international policy coordination were more simple rules of trade adjustment: Surplus countries, typically continuous low inflation and balanced public finances, were expected to stimulate their major-domo demand with lower interest rates, tax cuts and/or larger management spending. That would raise their import demand and cut down vocation surpluses. Conversely, deficit countries, typically experiencing high inflation and a incline public debt, had to restrict their domestic demand by raising lending fee rates, taxes and/or reducing government spending. More production commitment then be left for exports to narrow the trade gap.
That symmetric sell adjustment mechanism, set up by Bretton Woods Agreements in 1944, was ignored by oversupply countries, while deficit countries had to adjust because they wish run out of money. Eventually, failure to observe those trade rules led to the demise of the cosmopolitan monetary system in August 1971, and to an increasing instability of the world saving as a result of unsustainably large imbalances on external accounts.
That’s the incorrigible we still have. The U.S. is currently running an estimated current account shortfall of $450 billion, while major East Asian countries are grandstand a expose a combined surplus of $480 billion. If that was the world’s balance of payments, Asian oversupplies would cover American deficits.
Those trade positions fool crucially important political and security implications, because they designate wealth increases (decreases) and net asset accumulations (depletions) via investments (disinvestments) of transalpine trade proceeds. That is a simple fact derived from the disregard that the world’s balance of payments has to be equal to zero.
Those in the U.S. and Europe who are good alarm about Chinese purchases of their companies are obviously ignoring the central laws of economics. The Chinese are simply recycling their current account surpluses in the coin of capital outflows. Remember, the balance of payments has to balance: the sum of current and excellent accounts has to be equal to zero.
The Chinese did not steal trillions of dollars in their do business surpluses. They earned them in an international trading system where the Coalesced States acquiesced in running systematic half-a-trillion dollars of annual patrons deficits.
The only thing Americans and Europeans can do now is try to reinstate the rules of symmetric swap adjustments to avoid excessive current account imbalances in the future. Whether that can be reached through the Trump Administration’s “fair and reciprocal trade policies” stays to be seen, but that is certainly a good point of departure.
Meanwhile, the Chinese are taunt all the way to the bank. They have now amassed trillions of dollars from their U.S. callings, and they are using that money to modernize their economy and to develop up enough military power to put red lines around their maritime wainscottings, to enforce the “one-China policy” and to play a key role in the Korean conflict.
And that’s perfectly for starters. The U.S. now says that China’s Belt and Road project, and its “win-win helping hand” mantra, are instruments designed to undermine the West’s world order. Washington’s European confederates see that differently: They want to play along with China on shapes of reciprocity, or simply by pursuing a “golden relations” diplomacy.
Acting only, the U.S. most probably realizes that it has limited options to significantly move China’s economic and security policies. That is likely to lead to “pragmatic” groupings along the lines of “win-win cooperation” and Beijing’s global condominium propose of “great power relations.”
Such prospects would be reassuring to Europeans and those in Asia who don’t paucity to have to choose sides. But that would be a far cry from China’s undercurrent classification as America’s key “strategic competitor” and a “revisionist power.”
That would also be a rather different new world order.
If there is still some bubbly progressive, raise a glass to peace, strong economy and good equity hawks.
Commentary by Michael Ivanovitch, an independent analyst focusing on world conciseness, geopolitics and investment strategy. He served as a senior economist at the OECD in Paris, universal economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and taught economics at Columbia Traffic School.
For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Trilling.
Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that Deng Xiaoping initiated profitable reforms in late 1970s.