The G20 meeting was categorized as a bitter impasse by one report. A interesting read is from zerohedge.com; from which I note a few highlights:
As Bloomberg reports, at the heart of the disagreement are globalist (and mercantilist) powers such as Germany (and China) defending the existing rules-based system, on the other the U.S. is calling for a recognition that trade must be “fair” without however explicitly stating what that means. Chinese
Finance Minister Xiao Jie said in a Saturday statement that the G-20
should be “adamantly against” protectionism. According to reports,
China has been the most insistent on a commitment to the current system
that the World Trade Organization represents, which is understandable: together with such exporting powerhouses as Germany and South Korea, China has the most to lose from a dramatic overhaul of the status quo.
Yet while many had expected difference to emerge, the degree of immediate animosity and disagreement caught most by surprise. According to Bloomberg, negotiations were bogged down on Saturday with the U.S. rejecting the latest German compromise on wording over trade. Meanwhile, an earlier German suggestion that accommodated some U.S. concerns was rejected by delegations including France, the U.K., Italy, Brazil and the European Union.
French Finance Minister Michel Sapin told reporters on Friday “We don’t want a rollback on what was said before by the G-20.”
“We” don’t, but Trump does, and therein lies the rub.
Of course, if Trump is successful at overturning years of draft language in G-20 communiques, all those nations reliant on the status quo would be impacted.
And speaking of Sunday’s FX open, Bloomberg also notes that among the other language in the communique under review is a pledge to refrain from currency manipulation, which however is expected to remain unchanged from last year. Little time is being devoted to global banking regulations..
In a move that is set to infuriate environmentalists, the whole section on climate change is set to be dropped.
In any case, the focus remains trade:
“It makes sense that in this case the Chinese, who benefit from a rules-based trade system, are trying to preserve it. We just don’t have any firm ideas about what the alternative will be.”