Substantially. That single word, left out of the IMF’s assessment of China’s undervalued currency, laid bare the tricky internal politics that govern even its most routine interactions with the world’s newest economic power.
IMF staff, under pressure for years from member countries to tell it like it is when assessing a country’s economic health, said China’s yuan was “substantially” undervalued.
However, by the time the final assessment passed through the IMF’s 24-member board of shareholder countries last Monday, that word had fallen victim to disagreements between those who put faith in Beijing to let its currency rise more rapidly and those among the G7 rich nations who doubt much progress would be made.
The board statement simply called the yuan “undervalued” with several countries questioning the accuracy of IMF staff projections of a major increase in China’s current account surplus over the next several years.
On the one side are emerging market economies, like Brazil, which stood behind China, and on the other the G7 old-line powers who believe the yuan is still too cheap but did not say so.
“The G7 wants more flexibility in how the currency is managed, but at the same time they want to do that diplomatically,” said Domenico Lombardi, a former IMF board member now at the Brookings Institution.
Still, Lombardi said calling the yuan undervalued, regardless of whether it is substantial or not, sent a strong signal to Beijing that it needs to revalue the currency.
reevaluation
“It is clear the board adopted a diplomatic stance. They tried to do their best not to upset the Chinese authorities but in the end preserved the substance of the IMF staff’s message by concurring the exchange rate was undervalued,” he added.
The outcome reflects not only muscle-flexing on the part of China but some softening of the US position.
US President Barack Obama’s administration has toned down some of the rhetoric former US president George W. Bush’s administration used when describing the extent to which China’s yuan is undervalued.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said repeatedly it is “China’s choice” to decide how and when to let market forces play a larger role in determining the yuan’s value, even as he emphasized it was in China’s interest to do so.
As recently as a week ago, he praised Beijing’s recent move to free the yuan from a dollar peg and described that as a helpful move toward easing global trade imbalances, even though the yuan has risen less than 1 percent since China did so.
“What matters to us is how fast and how far they let it go,” Geithner said, a gentle reminder that while Washington likes Beijing’s policy direction, it is also monitoring its effectiveness.
In contrast, the Bush administration grew frustrated with efforts to convince China to let its currency rise faster and pressured the IMF unsuccessfully to label China a currency manipulator.
While the IMF never bowed to that pressure, it did change its currency surveillance rules to say that member countries should stay away from policies that result in “external instability,” in addition to avoiding currency manipulation and intervention.
external instability
Beijing accused the IMF of not being even-handed and stalled the IMF’s process for reviewing its economy for two years. IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has overturned that rule, saying it made discussions with member countries less open.
In another twist, China — supported by other emerging market economies — took umbrage with a footnote in the IMF staff report estimating that the yuan was undervalued by somewhere between 5 percent and 27 percent.
The footnote was removed at China’s behest before the staff documents were published on Thursday.
Such estimates are not unusual and fall well within the IMF’s area of expertise. They have, however, always been a thorny issue because of the broad disagreement among economists on how best to determine whether currencies accurately reflect a country’s economic fundamentals.
To be fair, all IMF member countries have a say in what is published and what is not in reviews of their economies.
“The Chinese looked at the whole report to assess whether it’s a fair and balanced report and also if we had reflected their views correctly in the report,” IMF mission chief to China Nigel Chalk told reporters on a conference call.
Eswar Prasad, a former IMF official and trade professor at Cornell University, said China’s surprisingly quick agreement to release the report reflected Beijing’s growing confidence it is in control of the global debate over its currency.
While the staff report had some tough language on the need for further currency reforms, it also praised Beijing’s recent announcement that it would move to a more flexible exchange rate, even though there has been little actual movement in the yuan.
China was further emboldened by the board’s at best lukewarm support for the IMF staff’s relatively hard-line position on the currency issue, Prasad said.
He said the staff report, which contains the authorities’ views, shows Beijing pushing back on all of the staff’s analysis and assertions used to support the finding of a substantially undervalued exchange rate.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers