New Articles

U.S. DOLLAR PROVIDES THE MUSCLE FOR ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

U.S. DOLLAR PROVIDES THE MUSCLE FOR ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

Money Talks

From drug kingpins to terrorists and from human traffickers to money launderers, the United States has nearly 8,000 economic sanctions in place, and the list is growing. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, the U.S. government has leveraged the global preeminence of the U.S. dollar to turn off spigots of funding for sinister activities and unwanted behaviors by state actors.

Among additional sanctions against Iran, Russia and Venezuela, The Trump administration earlier this month tightened travel restrictions to Cuba stating, “Cuba continues to play a destabilizing role in the Western Hemisphere…these actions will help to keep U.S. dollars out of the hands of Cuban military, intelligence, and security services.”

The muscle behind an array of U.S. financial sanctions derives from the reach and power of the U.S. dollar as the “lead currency” in the global economy. This status makes it possible to not only prevent U.S. individuals and companies from doing business directly with a sanctioned entity, it makes it risky to do business with third-country companies that do business with sanctioned entities. Acutely aware of their vulnerability, non-U.S. companies also frequently take steps to minimize their exposure to possible violations of U.S. sanctions lest they jeopardize their access to the U.S. financial system.

The U.S. Dollar Reigns

How strong is the dollar’s foothold in the global economy? The U.S. dollar was used in 88 percent of global foreign exchange transactions in 2016. For comparison, the euro was the medium of exchange in 31 percent of transactions in 2016, the Japanese yen in 22 percent, the British pound in 13 percent, and China’s renminbi in four percent (as two currencies may be involved in exchange, these numbers will add up to more than 100 percent).

Companies selling their goods and services outside the United States often accept dollars as payment because they can easily turn around and use dollars to pay for imported products and inputs. Or, they can hold onto their dollar revenues with confidence they are storing value.

Why is the Dollar Preferred?

The dollar is the world’s lead currency because it meets three key conditions.

First, the dollar is fully tradable and exchanged at relatively low costs. The U.S. government does not restrict the purchase or sale of the dollar.

Second, the dollar holds its value against other currencies. The United States is still considered a stable and open market economy, current tariff vagaries notwithstanding. At the end of last year, just under 62 percent of all central bank reserves were held in U.S. dollars.

Third, the United States is still the largest economy in the world, equivalent to 24 percent of global GDP. Below is a snapshot from the International Monetary Fund comparing the world’s largest economies. We have a large money supply, providing liquidity for the global economy.

Into the Arms of Another

Some have argued bad actors like North Korea will find always find ways to evade U.S. sanctions. Buyers of Iranian oil will seek alternative currencies for their transactions, both diluting the effect of sanctions and hastening reduced dependence on the dollar.

Several European countries developed a clearinghouse to enable companies to avoid the U.S. financial system in transactions involving Iran as part of their effort to salvage the nuclear pact the Trump administration pulled out of last year before restoring a slew of sanctions against Iran.

Despite initial discussions about a wider scope, Europe’s Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) will, at least for now, only facilitate trade in humanitarian goods such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices and agri-food products, all of which are already permissible under U.S. sanctions. Despite European government grumbling about being beholden to the U.S. dollar, there appeared to be little appetite on the part of European companies and commercial banks to risk U.S. penalties by using such a clearinghouse for other types of transactions.

Will the Euro or Renminbi Overtake the Dollar?

Not anytime soon.

The euro covers a large economic zone featuring sophisticated financial market institutions, but the politics surrounding continued support by members of the euro zone and unresolved debt discussions with southern states (we were talking about Grexit long before Brexit) are holding the euro back in overtaking the U.S. dollar.

Although the renminbi’s share in global transactions is still low, it should be noted that usage and overseas holdings of China’s currency by individuals, businesses and central banks has expanded in the last decade, enabling China to break through in 2016 to join the top five most-used currencies. The Chinese government is making a big push to internationalize its currency through global infrastructure investment funds associated with its Belt and Road initiative and through renminbi-denominated commodities futures contracts, among other initiatives.

China’s currency, however, is not freely convertible, its performance has been volatile, and the degree of state and private debt in China’s financial system remains murky.

The Dollar’s Achilles Heel

For the time being, most experts believe there’s no real threat to the U.S. dollar’s dominance. Europe would need to address skepticism regarding the monetary union’s future, China would need to implement significant reforms to its financial sector, and much-hyped cryptocurrencies still have long way to go to challenge the conventional system of global payments.

These are all big “ifs”. Instead, the dollar’s Achilles’ heel is of our own making. One of the biggest risks to the dollar’s long-term value is continued fiscal imbalances in the United States and the sustainability of our debt burden.

Andrea Durkin is the Editor-in-Chief of TradeVistas and Founder of Sparkplug, LLC. She is a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and an adjunct fellow with CSIS. Ms. Durkin previously served as a U.S. Government trade negotiator and has proudly taught International Trade for the last fourteen years as an Adjunct Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service program.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.

Update on Russia: Restrictions Expanded to New Actors, Industries

Since the beginning of August 2018, the United States has taken multiple actions that will affect U.S. trade with Russia.  The actions cover exports to Russia, doing business with Russian partners, and potential Russian investment in the United States.  These actions have added to the already challenging landscape of conducting business in and with Russia.

 

Economic Sanctions in Place Since 2014 Are Expanded Again

The United States has maintained targeted economic sanctions on Russia since 2014.  Most of these sanctions are administered by the U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

These sanctions ensnare many prominent Russian individuals and entities.  They have also ensnared prominent U.S. companies: see our July 2017 blog post on penalties imposed against Exxon for Russia sanctions violations.  For an example of how sanctions have been periodically and consistently extended, see our September 2016 blog post.

There are also more recent examples.

First, in Executive Order 13,848, issued on September 12, 2018, President Trump established a process to investigate and impose sanctions against foreign parties and their agents that interfere in U.S. elections.  Under the Order, no later than 45 days after an election is concluded, if there is an indication of actions taken to interfere with the outcome of the election, an assessment must be conducted.

When the assessment is concluded, the outcome must be reported to the President, the Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, State, and Treasury.  Within 45 days of receiving that assessment, the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security must report on whether there was foreign interference in the election.  Any party deemed to have been involved in that interference can be designated as a Specially Designated National (SDN).  As a general matter, U.S. persons cannot conduct any business with an SDN.

In addition, the Order authorizes the imposition of sanctions against the largest business entities licensed or domiciled in a country whose government authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported election interference, including at least one entity from each of the following sectors: financial services, defense, energy, technology, and transportation (or, if inapplicable to that country’s largest business entities, sectors of comparable strategic significance to that foreign government).

While the Executive Order does not say so specifically, it is safe to conclude that the Order is directed at least in substantial part toward Russia.

Second, sanctions were imposed pursuant to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).  (More information about CAATSA is available in our August 2017 blog post.)  Under CAATSA, among other things, the U.S. government designates parties that are affiliated with the Russian government’s defense or intelligence sectors, and can impose sanctions against persons that transact with those designated parties.

On September 20, 2018, the U.S. State Department designated 33 such parties and added them to the list of 39 parties designated previously.  Those 72 parties are listed on the CAATSA section 231 List of Specified Persons (the LSP).

There is no outright prohibition on conducting business with these 72 parties.  However, any person – regardless of nationality – that engages in a “significant transaction” with a party on the LSP is subject to sanctions, including designation by OFAC as an SDN.

What constitutes a “significant transaction” is not well-established in OFAC regulations or guidance.  But some insight was offered on September 20.  On that day, acting in concert with the State Department, OFAC designated one Chinese individual and one Chinese entity as SDNs for involvement in a significant transaction with parties on the LSP.

The designations, and additional trade restrictions imposed on these two Chinese parties by the State Department, were made because the Chinese parties were involved in a transfer to China from Russia of combat aircraft and surface-to-air missile system-related equipment. The State Department characterized this as a significant transaction which triggered designation under CAATSA, though State did not specify whether the size of the transaction, the nature of the equipment transferred to Russia, and/or other factors rendered this a significant transaction.

 

New Export Restrictions Announced Under Chemical and Biological Weapons Law

On August 6, the State Department announced its determination that the government of Russia used chemical weapons in England in an effort to assassinate Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, and his daughter.  The determination was made pursuant to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (the CBW Act).

On August 27, acting in accordance with the CBW Act, the State Department announced the following restrictions on Russia:

-Termination of sales to Russia of defense articles and defense services, including termination of existing licenses for exports of such articles and services, except for exports in support of government and commercial space activities; and

-The prohibition on exports to Russia of commercial products and technology (e., items controlled for export under the Export Administration Regulations) subject to national security controls, with exceptions for certain exports specifically authorized under new licenses and specific license exceptions.

The State Department also imposed limits on certain financial assistance and aid for Russia.

The restrictions, which will remain in place for at least one year, augment existing restrictions on exports to Russia of certain oil and gas exploration equipment and exports to military end-users and for military end-uses.

 

Russian Investment in United States Likely to Be Subject to Greater Scrutiny

In August 2018, President Trump signed the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) into law. FIRRMA expands the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review more types of transactions for potential national security concerns.

Much attention has understandably been paid to the impact that FIRRMA will have on investment from China. The impact on investment from Russia is likely to be significant, too.

For one, FIRRMA specifically contemplates scrutiny of investments originating in countries of “special concern.” In addition, the new law anticipates careful review of transactions that could create or expose U.S. cybersecurity vulnerabilities, including if the acquisition could facilitate election interference.

Russia is one of the countries that will be most impacted by these new provisions. Moreover, Russian investment in the United States will likely trigger CFIUS interest simply given how aggressively the Trump Administration has used national security as a basis for implementing trade restrictions. (In one particularly obscure example, OFAC recently emphasized how North Korea is using a large number of North Korean laborers in Russia to evade U.S. sanctions.)

 

Conclusion

We do not foresee the U.S. government easing trade restrictions on Russia anytime soon. To the contrary, we believe the U.S. government will continue to expand restrictions on Russia using mechanisms such as those described in this article.

It is therefore essential for companies to fully understand the scope of their Russia business. Screen transaction parties against the U.S. government restricted and prohibited parties lists, including – now – the LSP. Recognize that many U.S. exports to Russia are restricted based on the recipient or end-use of the product. Beware that Russian investment in the United States may face extra scrutiny.

Unfortunately, due diligence on Russian counterparts presents unique challenges. The ownership and organizational structures of such entities can be convoluted and obscure.  Accordingly, if a company has any reason to think a Russian business partner is affiliated in any way with a sanctioned entity, it is essential to enlist expert assistance to fully tease out ownership and control before proceeding.

Thad McBride is a partner in Bass, Berry & Sims PLC’s Washington, D.C. office in the firm’s International Trade Practice Group. They focus on counseling clients on compliance with economic sanctions and embargoes, US export regulations (ITAR and EAR), and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). He may be reached at tmcbride@bassberry.com.

 

 

Moscow Targets McDonald’s Charity Operation

Los Angeles, CA – Ronald McDonald House Charities is the latest target of Moscow’s campaign of investigations into the Russian operations of global fast food giant McDonald’s.

Russian authorities are reportedly preparing to level tax evasion and money laundering charges against the charity, which operates a sports facility for physically and mentally disabled children in Moscow, and a residential facility near a children’s hospital in Kazan, 450 miles east of Moscow.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Russian Duma legislator Andrei Krutov said, “They use donations from ordinary Russians, so that is why we want to know how this money is spent. I am talking only about financial aspects of their activities, and technical questions about their work. We do not want you to think that we have political reasons for doing this.”

In August, Russia’s consumer protection agency ordered four of the company’s largest restaurants to suspend operations over a host of alleged hygiene violations and shortly afterwards added another five to the list.

Since then, 12 restaurant in Russia have been closed for alleged “sanitary reasons” while more than 200 unscheduled hygiene and safety “inspections” have been carried out.

Last week, nine more McDonald’s outlets – four in Moscow, two in Yekaterinburg, two in Volgograd and one in Sochi – were “temporarily” shut-down.

The latest move subjects more than half the McDonald’s franchises in Russia to government scrutiny.

McDonald’s Russia issued a statement on its website over the weekend saying that, “Right now, more than 200 probes have been initiated,” adding that a Russian court had extended the government’s temporary closure of the initial nine restaurants and added that it would appeal against the decision.

The company, which opened its first restaurant in Russia in 1990, has 450 restaurants across the country, more than 100 of which are in Moscow and the surrounding region. More than 60 are in St Petersburg and the surrounding region, the country’s second big metropolitan area.

Moscow’s investigation campaign is seen in the West as a slap-back at the economic and financial sanctions and executive orders put in place earlier this year by the US in response to Russia’s seizure of the Crimea and continued incursions into neighboring Ukraine.

10/20/2014

Exporters to Russia Face Increased Payment Risks

Los Angeles, CA -Russia is currently experiencing a slowdown in economic growth, and the situation is most likely to deteriorate further as a result of the newly imposed sanctions, according to a new country analysis report issued by The Atradius Group, the Netherlands-based global risk management firm.

Atradius is observing an impact across all sectors in the form of decreasing domestic demand, a weaker ruble exchange rate, a rise in inflation, limited access to external financing and international capital outflow.

Exporters to Russia “could experience an increase in payment delays and defaults with some sectors expected to be more affected than others,” the report said.

Russian sanctions on imports of food and agricultural products “will hit the food sector, in particular the fish, meat and dairy subsectors, with a negative impact on the whole value chain, while sectors dependent on consumer demand, such as the consumer durables and consumer electronics sectors are also expected to see further slowdown,” it said.

In addition, the report said, US and EU sanctions on financing are expected to put a toll on Russian businesses dependent on financing.

The oil and gas industry “is still performing well thanks to high commodity prices, but businesses in other strategic sectors such as metals and mining are suffering, and may not be able to refinance their large debts. While the Russian government is ready to provide financial support, its reserves, though ample, are limited.”

Some sectors, however, such as the pharmaceuticals sector, “are expected to be less impacted and local agricultural production could even benefit from restrictions on food imports,” the report said.

“In case of price controls, however, business profits may be hit with higher costs that cannot be transferred to consumers in such cases,” the report concluded.

09/23/2014

 

 

All-Out Ban Urged on Russian Seafood Imports

Los Angeles, CA – A number of companies from Alaska’s $6 billion seafood industry are voicing their support for a ban on Russian seafood imports to the US, while urging Moscow to rescind its August ban on US food imports.

Such a move, they say, “would not only further squeeze Russia’s faltering economy as Russia threatens European stability, but would support America’s sustainable, high-quality fisheries.”

Companies calling for the action reportedly include some of the largest seafood producers in the Pacific Northwest including Alaska General Seafoods, Alyeska Seafoods, Icicle Seafoods, North Pacific Seafoods, Ocean Beauty Seafoods, Peter Pan Seafoods, Trident Seafoods, Westward Seafoods, and UniSea Inc., all based in Washington state, as well as the entire membership of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers Association.

The proposed US ban, the group says, would remain in effect “until Russia rescinds its ban on US imports, and would include mechanisms to prohibit all seafood imports of Russian origin, including Russian-caught seafood that is transferred through other countries such as China before reaching the US.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars of Russian seafood imports are sold in the US every year, with much of the imported Russian fish coming through China.

The Alaska seafood industry is seeking support from the state’s Congressional delegation for the ban, as well as from the Office of the US Trade Representative, while also seeking diplomatic efforts to immediately end Russia’s ban on US seafood products.

Russia has been a major market for US seafood products such as salmon roe, hake, Alaskan pollock, and others, while the US has been an important market for Russian products including crab, Russian pollock, salmon, and caviar.

According to the US Department of Commerce, sales of food and agricultural products to Russia amounted to $1.3 billion in the first five months of this year with more than $86.5 million of that was from US seafood, including shrimp, hake, sole and sardines. The majority of that — $46.4 million — was salmon roe, used for Russian red caviar.

“We did not start this fight, and we hope the Russians will call off their embargo,” said Terry Shaff, president & CEO of Washington-headquartered seafood producer UniSea Inc.

But, he said, “a US ban will signal to President Putin that America will not sit idly by while Russia disregards international law and tries to coerce the world into ignoring its transgressions through retaliatory actions,”

09/19/2014

USCOC, NAM Oppose More Sanctions on Russia

Washington, DC – In a major policy shift, the US Chamber of Commerce (USCOC)  and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), two of the largest business groups in the US, have publicly come out in opposition to the sanctions imposed by the White House on Russia following that country’s February military incursion into neighboring Ukraine.

The groups ran newspaper advertisements last week in several publications including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, asserting that “the only effect” of additional sanctions would be “to bar US companies from foreign markets and cede business opportunities to firms from other countries.”

Both groups had, previously, confined their opposition to the sanctions in a series of private meetings with Obama Administration officials.

The ads ran under the headline, “America’s Interests Are at Stake in Russia and Ukraine“.

Its text read: “With escalating global tensions, some US policymakers are considering a course of sanctions that history shows hurts American interests. We are concerned about actions that would harm American manufacturers and cost American jobs. The most effective long-term solution to increase Americas global influence is to strengthen our ability to provide goods and services to the world through pro-trade policies and multilateral diplomacy.”

Jay Timmons, NAM president and CEO, wrote, “History shows that unilateral sanctions don’t work. President Reagan recognized this reality three decades ago when he lifted the ineffective grin embargo on the Soviet Union.”

The only effect of such sanctions, Timmons said, “is to bar US companies from foreign markets and cede business opportunities to firms from other countries. It’s time to put American jobs and growth first.”

US workers and industries, wrote USCOC President and CEO, Thomas J. Donohue, “pay the cost of unilateral economic sanctions that have little hope of increasing the United States ability to achieve its foreign policy goals.”

Both the US and European Union have imposed penalties against Russian companies, as well Ukrainian supporters of the separatists with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening to retaliate against US and European companies if broader sanctions are imposed.

US officials have said that the current sanctions now in place have fueled a record $60 billion capital outflow in the first quarter of this year, as well as losses in Russia’s stock market and currency.

The Ukrainian government, the US and its European Union allies say Russia is fueling the conflict by providing manpower and weapons including tanks and anti-aircraft missiles to separatist rebels in Ukraine.

07/08/2014