论文部分内容阅读
Every year， the G20 Summit brings to- gether the leaders of the world’s top 20 economies （19 countries and the EU） to discuss the most pressing fi nancial and trade issues facing their economies， their relations and global trade and financial governance. The 20 represent 75 percent of global trade and 85 percent of the world’s economic output.
The G20 though is more than just trade and finance. Money equals power and the most powerful countries in the world discussed and negotiated trade in the context of geopolitical changes， upheaval and realignments.
Though this year’s summit was held in Buenos Aires， Argentina， the first G20 Summit held in South America， the majority of the fi nancial and diplomatic problems that were dealt with were taking place on the other side of the world， in places like China， Russia， the EU， India and the Middle East， with U.S. involvement being a common denominator.
The dominant narrative this year is the state of global trade—the tariff wars， taking place globally and a world economy fueled by free trade， multilateral trade pacts and globalization versus one of closed economies， bilateral trade pacts and isolationism.
The agenda for the first two days consisted of meetings between finance ministers， central bank governors and foreign ministry representatives focused on economic issues and governance under the auspices of the Finance Track， an informal track for the G20. But the main attraction for most political， fi nancial， trade， business and diplomatic observers was the meetings of the heads of state.
High stakes
The highlight was the summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump， representing the world’s two largest economies. Few expected the talks to address and solve all the issues between China and the U.S.， but there was hope that a foundation for longterm negotiated solutions could be laid.
With the U.S. poised to increase tariffs on Chinese goods from 10 percent to 25 percent on January 1， 2019， the Xi-Trump summit had an extra sense of urgency. Since the U.S. launched its trade war against China （as well as the EU， Mexico and Canada） in March：
Global equity markets have shed hundreds of billions of dollars in value， and hundreds of billions more may be at stake；
China’s technology/retail/entertainment conglomerates have shed anywhere from 25 percent to 75 percent of the early 2018 valuations；
Companies around the world are pausing investment， expansion and growth due to uncertainty； American soybeans and other crops are piling up and rotting as sales to China have declined；
Consumer product process costs globally are on the rise due to more expensive raw materials and components；
China’s manufacturing sector has felt its share of pain； and
The world is operating in a state of constant uncertainty， which， if it continues， will drag down global economic growth in 2019.
The argument of the U.S.—and to which China is reacting—is the size （or perceived size） of the bilateral trade defi cit. But this is only a surface issue.
There is no doubt that the U.S. and China have very real trade and development disagreements， the defi cit being one of them. But more worryingly， the current trade confl ict seems to be the outer layer of what is purposefully developing into a negative political relationship between the two countries.
In a worst-case scenario， if the intent of the U.S. is to start a cold war with China， forcing the world into an “U.S. or them”choice and the world finds itself split into two conflicting and opposite spheres， we will have Cold War 2.0.
This is an unthinkable result. A decoupling of the two giant economies and the breakdown of business， diplomatic and cultural relations between the two would be disastrous for both and for the rest of the world.
Trade conflicts can often produce positive （negotiated） results for the parties involved if the conflict is seen as a zerosum game. Trade wars， on the other hand， have no winners， ever， and can lead to cold and hot wars. That is not speculation； that is what history has shown us.
The world is putting its hope and faith in the two countries being able to arrest the escalation of tensions and set the framework for a growing， globalized and prosperous world economy in which both global powers can prosper and provide engines of growth for the world.
The G20 though is more than just trade and finance. Money equals power and the most powerful countries in the world discussed and negotiated trade in the context of geopolitical changes， upheaval and realignments.
Though this year’s summit was held in Buenos Aires， Argentina， the first G20 Summit held in South America， the majority of the fi nancial and diplomatic problems that were dealt with were taking place on the other side of the world， in places like China， Russia， the EU， India and the Middle East， with U.S. involvement being a common denominator.
The dominant narrative this year is the state of global trade—the tariff wars， taking place globally and a world economy fueled by free trade， multilateral trade pacts and globalization versus one of closed economies， bilateral trade pacts and isolationism.
The agenda for the first two days consisted of meetings between finance ministers， central bank governors and foreign ministry representatives focused on economic issues and governance under the auspices of the Finance Track， an informal track for the G20. But the main attraction for most political， fi nancial， trade， business and diplomatic observers was the meetings of the heads of state.
High stakes
The highlight was the summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump， representing the world’s two largest economies. Few expected the talks to address and solve all the issues between China and the U.S.， but there was hope that a foundation for longterm negotiated solutions could be laid.
With the U.S. poised to increase tariffs on Chinese goods from 10 percent to 25 percent on January 1， 2019， the Xi-Trump summit had an extra sense of urgency. Since the U.S. launched its trade war against China （as well as the EU， Mexico and Canada） in March：
Global equity markets have shed hundreds of billions of dollars in value， and hundreds of billions more may be at stake；
China’s technology/retail/entertainment conglomerates have shed anywhere from 25 percent to 75 percent of the early 2018 valuations；
Companies around the world are pausing investment， expansion and growth due to uncertainty； American soybeans and other crops are piling up and rotting as sales to China have declined；
Consumer product process costs globally are on the rise due to more expensive raw materials and components；
China’s manufacturing sector has felt its share of pain； and
The world is operating in a state of constant uncertainty， which， if it continues， will drag down global economic growth in 2019.
The argument of the U.S.—and to which China is reacting—is the size （or perceived size） of the bilateral trade defi cit. But this is only a surface issue.
There is no doubt that the U.S. and China have very real trade and development disagreements， the defi cit being one of them. But more worryingly， the current trade confl ict seems to be the outer layer of what is purposefully developing into a negative political relationship between the two countries.
In a worst-case scenario， if the intent of the U.S. is to start a cold war with China， forcing the world into an “U.S. or them”choice and the world finds itself split into two conflicting and opposite spheres， we will have Cold War 2.0.
This is an unthinkable result. A decoupling of the two giant economies and the breakdown of business， diplomatic and cultural relations between the two would be disastrous for both and for the rest of the world.
Trade conflicts can often produce positive （negotiated） results for the parties involved if the conflict is seen as a zerosum game. Trade wars， on the other hand， have no winners， ever， and can lead to cold and hot wars. That is not speculation； that is what history has shown us.
The world is putting its hope and faith in the two countries being able to arrest the escalation of tensions and set the framework for a growing， globalized and prosperous world economy in which both global powers can prosper and provide engines of growth for the world.