I’ve done several previous posts about FATCA, which forces foreign banks to reveal information about Americans to the IRS. The US and Eritrea are the only two countries crazy enough to tax people based on their citizenship, not their residency. As a result, Americans living overseas often have difficulty finding a bank willing to take their business. (We’ll see how Princess Markle copes with this.)
Of course FATCA is not the only way that America bullies other countries. The US is not satisfied with imposing sanctions on foreign countries. It insists that other countries adhere to our sanctions policy, even if experts both within and outside the US overwhelming oppose the policy (as with Iran sanctions.)
This has been a problem for many years, but it’s getting worse:
According to Gibson Dunn, a law firm, America’s reliance on sanctions to tackle terrorism, nuclear proliferation, human-rights abuses and corruption has ballooned since Mr Trump took office. Last year it put about 1,000 entities on its “blacklist”, almost 30% more than in Barack Obama’s final year (see chart). The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which enforces sanctions from Washington, has attracted unprecedented attention from Steven Mnuchin at the Treasury. “To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a treasury secretary so clearly enamoured with the sanctions tool,” says Gibson Dunn.
The US government insists that this is all done for idealistic reasons. But when the sanctions threaten to inconvenience American firms, there is suddenly much less concern about nuclear proliferation and peace in the Ukraine:
the Trump administration has, at times, imposed sanctions without appreciating the consequences of its actions. Its crackdown on Rusal, Russia’s biggest aluminium producer, in April was aimed at punishing Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who owns it through EN+, a company recently floated in London. But it caused immediate disruption of the world’s aluminium market, of which Rusal supplies about 6%.
Higher aluminium prices hurt carmakers, manufacturers of cans and other users of the metal, leading to a strong lobbying effort in Washington. Less than three weeks later, the Treasury watered down the sanctions by extending the “wind-down” period for firms to finish doing business with Rusal.
Another recent case involved ZTE, a Chinese tech firm accused of helping North Korea acquire important technology. Trump recently announced the sanctions on ZTE would be lifted, in exchange for dubious Chinese promises to buy more food and energy. (The Chinese have made similar promises in the past.) What happened to the North Korean threat?
In the past, the Europeans would stand up to the American bully, as in 1996 when they passed a law blocking EU firms from adhering to American sanctions on Cuba. More recently, Europe has become more timid, and seems likely to cave into American pressure on Iran. This partly reflects the increasing American tendency to use the dollar’s international role in business as a weapon. Not only are sanctioned firms unable to do business with American banks, they cannot do business with any foreign bank that does business in US dollars—which is virtually all major international banks.
Fortunately, the Chinese are beginning to stand up to America. According to The Economist, this is the only way to force a bully to back down:
“DONALD TRUMP is the sort of guy who punches you in the face and if you punch him back, he says ‘Let’s be friends’. China punched back and he retreated. The Europeans told him how beautiful he was, but they got nothing.” This is how an American official-turned-executive describes the latest twists in the Trump administration’s sanctions policy, which this year has roiled business from America to Europe, Russia, China and Iran. What business leaders see, analysts say, is a punitive approach that is capricious, aggressive and at times ill-prepared. But unless companies or their governments take the fight all the way to the White House, they have little choice but to abide by the long–and sometimes wrong–arm of American law.
(I wonder if that “American official-turned-executive” was Gary Cohn or Roy Tillerson?)
As the Chinese economy grows, the yuan may become more of an international currency, partly replacing the dollar. Countries will be able to evade sanctions by doing business using the yuan. Hopefully this will reduce the ability of America to bully other countries—which is currently doing a great deal of damage to the global economy, and making the world a less safe place. How ironic would if be if China’s government (which is also a bully at times) were to make the world a freer place by standing up to America.
PS. I’m not saying that all sanctions are misguided. Just as with the use of military force, there are a small number of justified examples of sanctions, and a large number of counterproductive abuses of power.
PPS. The First Lady speaks out against bullying:
READER COMMENTS
Todd Kreider
May 22 2018 at 1:59pm
This looks like hyperbole unless evidence of the amount of damage to the world economy is provided. What is the estimate of the U.S. bully factor (the FACTA part) on the drag on world growth and how can it be shown?
Gerald
May 22 2018 at 3:37pm
I am not convinced. I would much rather have a strong sanctions regime vis-a-vis Iran than the bloody conflagration that will occur at some point if Iran is not contained. At least on this point, it seems the Trump administration has got it right.
TMC
May 22 2018 at 3:43pm
“Europe has become more timid, and seems likely to cave into American pressure on Iran.”
It used to be common to sanction terrorist states. Sound more like this is Europe returning to norms after allowing itself to be bullied by the Obama administration.
Scott Sumner
May 22 2018 at 7:21pm
Todd, One piece of evidence is that more and more people are giving up their US citizenship. The number of sanctions is increasing rapidly, and these clearly harm countries such as Cuba and Iran.
I can’t give you precise numbers, but the damage is certainly large.
Mark Z
May 22 2018 at 8:37pm
You’ll have a hard time convincing people (including me) to view countries like Iran, Cuba, China, and Russia as general *victims* of bullying, when they are clearly bullies themselves, not least to their own citizens.
You might argue that it’s wrong to punish the citizens of these countries for the sins of their governments, but a utilitarian might argue that the positive impact of discouraging bad behavior by foreign governments outweighs the disutility imposed on the people.
Kgaard
May 22 2018 at 8:42pm
Good article … though I think you are confusing “America” with those representatives of our parent state in the Middle East that RUNS America.
Todd Kreider
May 23 2018 at 1:55am
Scott,
I’m not saying your criticisms are wrong but neither one can be doing a “great deal of damage” to the growth of a world economy that is $135 trillion.
Scott Sumner
May 23 2018 at 2:01am
Mark, Two wrongs don’t make a right. Yes, the Cuban government is very bad, but that is no justification for economic sanctions against Cuba (which actually help their government). Should we have sanctions against governments because the violate human rights? If so, which ones?
In any case, this post was not so much about US sanctions, which are sometimes justified (as I indicated in the post), but rather our willingness to bully our allies into adopting our sanctions policies, even when most experts consider the sanctions to be foolish (as in the case of Iran).
mbka
May 23 2018 at 2:40am
Scott, Todd Kreider
Spot on, the hoops that US citizens abroad have to jump through are ridiculous – they’re hounded by their own government and they’re toxic to any financial institution that is being forced to enforce byzantine US law abroad (and yes, Todd Kreider, it is FATCA that is stopping a lot of things in their tracks).
But it’s not just US citizens – if you open a business bank account in Singapore you have to declare that you don’t own any US assets. The mere ownership of US assets by a non-US citizen makes them radioactive to the bank.
Example of other consequences, eTrade used to have offices in Hong Kong and Singapore – not anymore. And that is a large company one would think has resources for compliance.
So yes, Todd Kreider, this does have a significant effect on business and investment.
Todd Kreider
May 23 2018 at 6:20am
“So yes, Todd Kreider, this does have a significant effect on business and investment.”
Right, maybe tens of billions of dollars each year — in a $135 trillion economy.
Alan Goldhammer
May 23 2018 at 8:48am
Scott’s point about which countries the U.S. should have/had sanctions against is the key take home point. Sanctions against Cuba but not Pinochet’s Chile, nothing against Venezuela, Franco’s Spain; the list can go on.
The US track record is bizarrely myopic
Robert EV
May 23 2018 at 10:36am
https://www.americansabroad.org/aca/sdfcuaccounts-description-and-faqs/
Joe M.
May 23 2018 at 1:54pm
The U.S. isn’t forcing anyone to use the dollar. China, Japan and Europe use the dollar because without it, they wouldn’t be able to maintain massive trade surpluses with the U.S. If Trump wanted to go for the jugular, he could bring down China’s economy (and Japan and Germany too) by simply making it hard for these countries to obtain dollar financing. Of course, this would lead to a worldwide financial crisis that would hit the U.S. too. But these countries are more than happy to abuse their dollar privileges when it benefits them. They only whine about it when it costs them money. Maybe these countries deserve to be bullied.
Aleksander
May 23 2018 at 7:57pm
This is not true. Norway also taxes its citizens no matter where they live (although I don’t think they ask foreign banks to report Norwegians’ holdings).
E. Harding
May 24 2018 at 2:20pm
“PS. I’m not saying that all sanctions are misguided. Just as with the use of military force, there are a small number of justified examples of sanctions, and a large number of counterproductive abuses of power.”
For once, we are agreed. Also, relying on so-called “experts” to tell us which sanctions are justified will result in one’s beliefs on the matter being uncorrelated with reality.
Kgaard, agreed.
Comments are closed.