從銀行破産到債務危機，美國國内正被自己混亂的經濟政策反噬。
令人遺憾的是，大多數相關報道都專注于這些危機對發達國家的影響。然而，如果發生全球性的經濟或金融危機，最受影響的可能是缺乏應對資源的開發中國家。
近日，南方中心南南合作和發展融資進階顧問李月芬在瑞士接受觀察者網專訪時，也談到了上述問題。李月芬曾擔任聯合國外債與人權問題獨立專家，并在聯合國貿易和發展會議工作了24年以上。
她認為，開發中國家應該采取資本管制措施，以應對西方國家加息造成的開發中國家資本外流。此外，她還分享了自己對目前工作、發展融資、債務問題、債務陷阱等問題的看法。
觀察者網采訪李月芬
以下為采訪實錄：
【采訪、翻譯/觀察者網 李澤西】
觀察者網：您目前擔任南南合作和發展融資進階顧問，這項工作最大的挑戰是什麼？
李月芬：我的工作重點在研究和分析上，主要關注世界上開發中國家的最新進展，特别是開發中國家在南南合作、經濟發展、發展融資領域面臨的挑戰。我們會編寫研究報告、政策簡報，并向駐日内瓦和紐約的各國代表團介紹一些最新情況。這是研究和分析部分。
我們還向駐日内瓦和紐約的外交使團提供咨詢服務，協助他們在貿易、金融、發展領域以及在世貿組織、聯合國貿易和發展會議、世界衛生組織、世界知識産權組織、人權等各種機構的談判，不過主要是在日内瓦。有時一些國家會就國内遇到的一些挑戰或者政策戰略想法咨詢我們的意見。這就是咨詢服務和談判部分。
我們還承包技術援助項目。例如，我們協助了一個成員國建立南南合作和三角合作機構。這是一個相當複雜的過程，需要做可行性研究，分析該國目前部門架構、該國在南南合作和三角合作方面的弱點和缺口。建立新機構時，還需要考慮其與現有機構和部門将如何銜接，考慮體制架構、法律、監管等方面的問題。這是一次複雜的技術援助項目。
2019年，李月芬在聯合國南南合作和三角合作分論壇緻辭（圖源：南方中心）
為了開展這些項目，我們經常與其他機構合作，如地區發展銀行和聯合國體系機構，去年我們還與糧食和農業組織合作實施了一個項目。我們正在進行不同類型的項目，有些可能很短，例如一次性的研讨會，有些可能需要耗費數年。
觀察者網：您提到了發展融資，我們知道開發中國家目前面臨的一個很大問題是資金不足。融資對于發展有多重要？開發中國家有哪些拓展融資的方式？
李月芬：毫無疑問，發展融資對開發中國家來說是極其重要的。對開發中國家來說，過去和未來都會有很大的資金缺口，具體大小衆說紛纭，有人認為開發中國家若想完成2030年可持續發展目标，每年需要一萬億美元，這個缺口是頑固且巨大的。對于開發中國家來說，要想通過自然經濟增長來創造所需資本是非常困難的，需要很長的時間，可能極大地推遲追趕發達國家的程序。
過去，一些開發中國家依靠官方發展援助，現在依賴程度有所減少。官方發展援助金額波動較大、不穩定，還經常被挪用于其他用途。它雖被稱為發展援助，但有時并沒有真正被引導到發展上。
一些最不發達國家曾經非常依賴這種官方發展援助，來盡可能填補他們的資金缺口。但是現在有各種各樣的“幹擾”和轉移。
例如，在俄烏沖突期間，發達國家将大量的官方發展援助用于安置來到本國的烏克蘭難民，意味着一定程度上，官方發展援助在發達國家内部被用于實作地緣政治目的，為捐助國的外交政策服務，而不是直接用于開發中國家的經濟發展。
2022年，烏克蘭與波蘭邊境的難民（圖源：歐盟）
從1996年起，我們有了重債窮國倡議（對一些開發中國家提供全面減債），後來主要發達債權國向國際金融機構提供資金，以減免多邊債務。在這兩個倡議實施後，主要發達捐助國開始大幅減少雙邊官方發展援助，一些國家還明确宣布自己不再是雙邊捐助國。
大約在同一時期，國際金融機構開始鼓勵開發中國家進入國際資本市場。信用評級機構也開始給開發中國家更高的主權等級，金融機構開始承擔更多的風險，甚至向沒有信用評級的國家提供風險投資。
可以看到，開發中國家進入資本市場有推和拉的雙向力量。一些缺乏資本但富有自然資源的最不發達經濟體，例如一些非洲國家，也開始首次發行自己的主權債券，在國際資本市場上大量借款。我此前在聯合國貿易和發展會議工作時，曾與一些非洲國家的财政部長會面。我告誡他們，大量借款時需要小心，需要考慮是否有能力償還這筆債務。但當時布雷頓森林機構還在鼓勵這些國家發展其金融市場，同時走向國際市場，是以很難阻止這種趨勢，很多國家開始大量借款。
與此同時，一些開發中國家也開始在國内借款，積累了大量的國内債務。一些低收入國家的債務中，國内債務占比約50%左右。
新興市場和發展中經濟體債務走勢（圖源：世界銀行）
觀察者網：然而西方媒體上卻經常炒作所謂的“中國債務陷阱”。中國外債的事實到底是什麼樣的？
李月芬：我在債務問題上工作了幾十年，親自目睹了這種輿論是如何被塑造出來的，以及如何被逐漸被糾正的。
所謂“中國債務陷阱”的說法，主要是始于西方媒體對斯裡蘭卡漢班托塔港事件的曲解和誤報。報道稱中國接管了該港口99年，對全世界、尤其從事債務問題的人來說，這是一個不小的沖擊。逐漸地，不少報道開始将其概括和定性為“中國利用債務手段奪取欠債國家的戰略資産”。輿論中也出現這樣的争議：中國是否一直在用債務手段服務其外交，為各國制造“債務陷阱”。
媒體的相關報道時常不符合實際情況。最近的兩三年内，許多基于實證研究的可靠論文非常明确地表明，目前沒有出現過中國接管或搶奪債務國資産的事例。斯裡蘭卡顯然不是這樣的情況，對他們來說，擷取資金來填補他們的缺口是非常重要的。我也看到了其他國家的一些相關報道和檔案，每一欄都指證沒有所謂的“債務陷阱”，媒體報告是錯誤的。
像中國這樣一個擁有不同貸款管道——包括私人、雙邊和公共貸款的國家，很難有目的地、有組織地制造“債務陷阱”。我不認為中國有這樣的能力，也沒有讀到中國關于“債務外交”的任何明确政策。
不過，中國對開發中國家的貸款形式還是有改進的餘地。例如，許多開發銀行、區域開發銀行、甚至世界銀行，面臨一個大項目時，他們會進行非常詳細的可行性研究，研究社會、文化、經濟和生态——包括氣候變化——因素。對中國來說，啟動基礎設施項目前，應該進行非常詳細的可行性研究，研究各種因素，分析對象國家的收支情況以及GDP趨勢，看該國是否有能力償還項目等貸款所産生的債務。
這裡面當然有改進的空間，比如提高透明度，但現在的讨論已經被地緣政治所影響。媒體的客觀分析報道對于經濟來說是極其重要的，尤其在涉及債務等問題時。我剛剛參加了世界銀行的春季會議，可惜仍未看到足夠的客觀分析。相關讨論有時會受地緣政治因素幹擾，這導緻更為重要的問題如債務國際架構的改革，被忽視或缺乏足夠重視。
漢班托塔港資料圖
觀察者網：開發中國家的很多問題往往是發達國家帶來的。過去一年間，為了打擊通貨膨脹、防止金融泡沫，許多發達國家央行——尤其是美國——在迅速加息。這對開發中國家有什麼影響？開發中國家可以做些什麼來對沖任何不利影響？
李月芬：這對開發中國家來說是一個非常重要的問題。首先，我認為貨币正常化（指打擊通脹）是必要的。然而，經濟大國應該更好地協調最近的快速加息程序，并與開發中國家進行溝通。快速加息對開發中國家的溢出效應是巨大的，當下，通貨膨脹已經沖擊了許多開發中國家，在一些國家達三位數，超過100%甚至200%。
與此同時，許多開發中國家經曆了大規模貨币貶值，意味着債務償還成本一直在大幅增加。是以，很多開發中國家正面臨着國際收支問題，财政狀況也在迅速惡化，一些國家的外匯存底已完全耗盡了，例如斯裡蘭卡，更多國家的外匯存底也在急劇減少。
開發中國家的人民同時還因物價上漲受苦，貧困人口也在增加。通貨膨脹觸及許多窮人每天必須消費的産品，如糧食。是以，這是導緻貧困加劇的一個主要原因。
2023年4月通脹率，委内瑞拉和辛巴維（威）超150%而未列入（圖源：JJLiu112）
溢出效應是廣泛且顯著的，我認為這對開發中國家是一個很大的挑戰，越來越多的國家也将面臨債務違約問題，将無法償還債務，不得不宣布主權債務破産。這将是一個全球系統性的挑戰。
面對這種情況，開發中國家可以做什麼？首先，經濟基本盤好的國家遭受的損失較小，而經濟基本盤薄弱的國家會陷入危機。對開發中國家來說，他們首先需要非常仔細地審視自己的财政狀況。我不建議采取緊縮開支政策，因為人們已經在遭受巨大的痛苦。我認為他們應該嘗試“先發制人”，在力所能及的範圍内維持國家的金融穩定。
資本管制是他們可以嘗試的一個手段。因為發達國家的加息，資本正在撤離開發中國家，回到了發達國家。隻要有必要且可行，資本管制是開發中國家可以用來減少或緩解國家金融波動的一個措施。
當然，社會保障也很重要。隻要财政狀況允許，政府應該考慮如何為國内的弱勢群體出台有針對性的社會服務。
在國際上，開發中國家應該團結起來，請求國際金融支援，例如由國際貨币基金組織發行新的特别提款權，以及調動來自區域銀行和私企的國際資源援助。在中央銀行之間建立或擴大必要的資金互換線也很重要，以盡可能地緩解金融波動，因為對開發中國家來說，目前存在的銀行互換線非常小。他們可以考慮各種措施，但需要“先發制人”來抵禦即将到來的危機。
觀察者網：部分因為加息，一些國際大銀行遇到了重大困難，包括這裡的瑞士信貸。您認為這将對開發中國家融資産生什麼影響？開發中國家應該如何應對，以及如何防止本國出現類似銀行危機？
李月芬：最近的銀行倒閉事件對其他國家的一個重要啟示是，銀行應該受到良好的監管，應該保持透明。當銀行把所有的雞蛋放在一個籃子裡的時候，卻沒有很好地管理風險，瑞士信貸和矽谷銀行等銀行應該對第三方風險始終保持清醒認識。
對矽谷銀行來說，破産的一個重要原因是他們的資産期限不比對，用短期存款來購買長期債券。利率上升時，就會出現擠兌銀行的情況。适當的監管和适當的透明度，可以使當局甚至普通公民了解情況，對銀行業和整個國家的金融業都非常重要。這是一個重要的教訓。
矽谷銀行3月10日宣布破産（圖源：Getty）
此外，通過發達國家救助這兩家銀行的過程，我們也可以看到開發中國家面臨的巨大挑戰。美國每天互換線金額是巨大的，這兩家銀行在兩三天内可以通過互換線籌集數千億美元。我參加華盛頓春季會議期間，就有開發中國家代表提到這一點，美國可以在三天内籌集數千億美元拯救銀行，而開發中國家一旦面臨财政困難，三年内都看不到進展。是以，我們可以看到發達國家與開發中國家資金情況的不對稱性，顯然差異巨大。
這是一個重要的問題，也表明了國際金融結構改革的必要性。我們顯然需要增加開發中國家在國際金融結構決策過程中的聲音，現在是提出這個問題的重要時機，因為很多開發中國家正面臨着很多問題。密切監管銀行業是非常重要的，這也為開發中國家敲響了警鐘，讓它們注意到可能發生在自己國内的類似問題。
觀察者網：最近幾周，“去美元化”的呼聲似乎日益高漲。俄羅斯總統普京最近承諾在俄羅斯與全球南方大部分國家之間使用人民币結算。在訪華期間，巴西總統盧拉公開質疑，“為什麼全世界一定要用美元”。甚至法國也首次以人民币結算了液化天然氣出售訂單。您認為是什麼在推動目前的“去美元化”？“去美元化”在短期内前景如何，中長期又如何？
李月芬：本國貨币成為國際儲備貨币的國家往往享有巨大的好處，比如美元。但最近的情況表明，人們越來越意識到過去幾十年的美元化有諸多問題，特别對開發中國家來說。
對其他國家來說，如果他們真的實施本國貨币美元化，實際上就失去了控制貨币政策的主權，而且是自己主動拱手讓出的。當經濟運作出現危機時，這是一個巨大的不利因素。
作為一名在金融領域工作的國際公務員，多年來我一直在讨論美元這個問題。當然，去美元化有很多挑戰，我希望人們不要過度指望去美元化迅速發生，因為現在的國際貿易和銀行部門的清算系統SWIFT，完全被美國所控制。當然，也有其他清算系統，但發揮的作用很小。清算系統是非常重要的，如果想要去美元化，但不能改變清算系統，去美元化就不會發生。
位于比利時布魯塞爾總部的SWIFT徽标（圖源：澎湃影像）
歐盟曾試圖建立另一個清算系統——INSTEX，發展了好幾年，一度取得了一定的進展，但是據我所了解，歐盟已經在2023年3月叫停了INSTEX，總之我沒有看到任何進展。
此外，還需要建立其他金融基礎設施，才能實作去美元化，這都需要時間。而最重要的因素是美國。我不認為美國會支援“去美元化”，他們會施加巨大的政治、經濟等各種阻力。我不便詳細闡述這些阻力的方式，大家可以想象一下，但我們都知道這種阻力的存在。
去美元化将面臨巨大的挑戰，我希望各國也能認識到去美元化所需的基礎設施，這需要投入大量的财力、人力和知識儲備。我希望各國能夠一起努力，克服重重阻力。去美元化絕非易事，但并不意味着不會發生。我們應準備好“長期奮戰”，因為去美元化需要很多年，肯定不會明年就發生。
英文原文：
Guancha: Ms Li, what has been the greatest challenge in your work as senior advisor on South-South corporation and development finance?
Li Yuefen:Well, I think the emphasis of my work is still on research and analysis. That is, to follow the recent, most up to date developments in the world, especially in the developing countries, and also the challenges facing the developing countries in terms of South-South cooperation, economic development, development finance. As you've heard, we prepare research papers, policy briefs and brief delegations in Geneva, sometimes New York, on the most recent developments. That's regarding research and analytics.
We also provide advisory services to the diplomatic corps in Geneva and sometimes in New York, which means we assist them in their negotiations in the areas of trade, finance, development and in various institutions in WTO, in the United Nations conference on trade and development, in WHO, WIPO and human rights, on various fronts, mostly in Geneva. Sometimes countries would approach us for advice on some of their national challenges, the strategies they are discussing, and the advice they would like to seek. That's advisory service and negotiations.
We also implement and undertake technical assistant projects. For instance, we assisted one member country to set up the South-South and triangular cooperation institution in their country. That's quite a complicated process, because we need to do the feasibility study, analysis of their current institutional setup, the current weaknesses and gaps in the country on the front of South-South and triangular cooperation, and also help them to design, if they want to set up an institution, what interfaces would be required with other institutions, other ministries in the country, and within what legal and regulatory framework, as well as various related issues. This was a complicated technical assistant project.
And for these projects, we very often cooperate with other institutions like regional development banks and United Nations system institutions. For instance, last year we implemented a project with the Food and Agricultural Organization based in Rome. We have different kinds of projects ongoing, sometimes it could be very short, like a one-off seminars.
Guancha: You mentioned development financing. We know that one issues developing countries are faced with is the lack of financing. How important is financing for development? What are some ways developing countries have worked to grow financing?
Li Yuefen:I think development financing is extremely important for developing countries because of their development stages. There has been, and I think will be a big financing gap for developing countries. There are various kinds of assessment of the size of the gaps, some say developing countries would require one trillion dollars a year in order to fulfill or implement the SDGs. The financing gap is inherent and it is huge. For developing countries to create or mobilize financial resources via organic economic GDP growth, it would be very difficult, it would take a very long period of time and it would really delay tremendously the catching up process with the developed countries.
Traditionally, to a lesser extent now, countries relied on official development assistance. We call that in brief ODA, which goes through fluctuations and volatility, as well as various kinds of diversions. It's called development assistance, but it may not really be channeled to development.
In the past, especially some least developed countries rely a lot on this ODA and we call that aid reliance of these countries. They depend on ODA for filling their financing gap as much as possible. But we know nowadays there are various kinds of ODA diversions. For instance, with the Ukraine war, the developed countries use a lot of ODA for accommodating refugees in their own countries, which means ODA actually is spent within the developed countries for, to some extent, geopolitical purposes, it's not directly for economic development of developing countries at all.
From 1996, when we had the heavily indebted developing countries debt relief initiative, followed by another initiative where the major donor countries provided funds to the international financial institutions to provide multilateral debt relief. After that, there was a tremendous change from the donor countries. Major donor countries basically stopped or drastically reduced their bilateral ODA. Some countries pronounce very clearly we are no longer bilateral donors.
About the same time, international financial institutions encouraged developing countries to tap into the international capital market. The credit rating agencies also started to give higher sovereign ratings to developing countries, and financial institutions started to take on more risks, to lend to countries, even to those without a credit rating.
With the great push and pull for tapping into the private capitals, some of the frontier economies, for instance, African countries, they've started to float sovereign bonds, starting to borrow heavily at the international capital market. At that time I was working in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. I had meetings with some of the ministers of finance of African countries. I said, you need to be careful when you borrow so heavily, you need to think about whether or not you would have the capacity to service this debt. But that was the time when the Bretton Woods institutions encouraged these countries to develop their financial market and also go international. It's difficult to resist the trend, many countries started to borrow heavily.
Some developing countries have also started to borrow domestically, so they've accumulated big domestic debt. If you look at the debt composition of low income countries, you will see that for them, domestic debt constitutes about 50% of the total debt of some countries.
Guancha: There are frequent rumors on Western media of China’s so-called “debt trap diplomacy”. What does the reality of Chinese lending look like?
Li Yuefen:I think especially for me, who has worked on the debt issues for a few decades, I see this opinion shaping thing happening. I've also seen it gradually being corrected. It started at the very beginning with the Sri Lanka port incident, involving misinterpretation or misreporting, because it was covered in the news media that China took over the port for 99 years. That was a shock to the world and also to the people working on the debt issues. Gradually you've seen some of the report coverage about China using debt as a means to grab strategically important assets of debtor countries. Then there was this discussion about whether or not China has been using debt as an instrument to create a “debt trap” for countries in order to push for their foreign policy.
The media coverage sometimes doesn't really correspond to the realities happening in the world. In the recent 2 or 3 years, you've seen very solid studies and papers based on empirical research to say, very clearly, that up to now, they haven't seen one incidence of China taking over, grabbing asset of debtor countries. In Sri Lanka, clearly it was not like that. It was very important for them to get the financing and to bridge their gap. For a few countries, I've seen papers with tables of the claimed grabbing of assets by China through creating this debt trap, where each column said the fact was not like that, it was proved, and had not been correctly reported.
It's difficult for a country as China with different sources of lending, private, bilateral, public, to purposely, coherently create a debt trap. I don't see that China has this capacity. And I have not read clear, defined Chinese policy for this debt diplomacy.
I think there are rooms for improvement for Chinese lending to developing countries. For instance, for a development banks, regional development banks, or world bank, if they have a big project, they would carry out a very detailed feasibility study and look into the social aspects, cultural aspects, economic aspects, ecosystem, which means whether there is a climate change effect from this project. I think for China, when they undertake infrastructure projects, it would be good to conduct very detailed feasibility study to study all kinds of factors before starting the project, and also do a good analysis of the ability of the country to pay, the revenue situation, balance of payment situation, and the entire GDP trajectory, to see whether the country has the ability to absorb the debt created by various projects or different kinds of lending for different purposes.
I see room for improvement, for transparency, but I also see that the current discussion has been tinted by the current geopolitical debate in the world. Objectivity is extremely important for economic studies and also for media coverage when it comes to issues like debt. I've just been to the World Bank Spring Meeting, and I still see that this objectivity is not being fully reflected and the discussions have sometimes been distracted by geopolitical concerns. And as a result, the most important issues, for instance, the reform of the international architecture on debt has been omitted or not given enough attention.
Guancha: In order to combat inflation and stop the formation of financial bubbles, many developed countries, namely the US, have rapidly hiked their Central Bank interest rates. How has this affected developing countries? What can developing countries do to mitigate any adverse effects?
Li Yuefen: I think this is a terribly important issue for developing countries. First of all, I must say that monetary normalization is necessary. However, with regards to the rapid interest hikes we’ve been facing recently, I think that requires more coordination among the major systemically important countries and also communication with the developing countries. The spillover effects of these rapid hikes of interest rates are enormous on the developing countries. We've seen that inflation has hit many developing countries. In some countries, it’s triple digits, surpasses 100%, 200% and double digits inflation in many developing countries.
Massive currency depreciation has been happening in quite a number of developing countries, which means debt servicing cost has been increasing tremendously. So you see quite a number of developing countries are facing balance of payments problems, and also their fiscal position has been deteriorating quickly. In some countries, for instance Sri Lanka, the foreign exchange reserves has been completely depleted, and drastically reduced for many other countries.
People in developing countries are suffering because of the interest hikes, and poverty has increased. Inflation actually would touch upon the major items, food items that the poor people would have to really consume every day. So it's a major cause of increasing poverty.
The repercussion, the spillover effect has been widespread and also quite dramatic. I think this is a big challenge for the developing countries, and we see that an increasing number of countries will be facing the problem of default. That is, they will not be able to service their debt and they have to declare bankruptcy at a sovereign level. That will be a global systemic challenge.
Facing this situation, what can the developing countries do? First of all, we know that countries with good economic fundamentals suffer less. The countries with weak economic fundamentals, they plunge into crisis. For these countries, it's important for them to look very carefully at their fiscal position. I would not recommend austerity because people are already suffering a great deal. I think they should try to introduce preemptive measures to maintain financial stability in the country as much as the country can.
Capital control is one measure that countries can use. Because of interest rate hikes, capital has been flying out of developing countries and going back to the developed countries. Whenever it's necessary and possible, capital control is one measure that countries can use to lessen or mitigate the financial volatility in the country.
And of course, social safety net is important. Whenever the fiscal position allows, the government should consider how to introduce targeted social service for the vulnerable population in the country.
Internationally, developing countries should unite and request for international financial support, for instance, floating SDRs in the IMF, as well as mobilization of resources from regional banks and from the private sector to assist these countries. And necessary swap lines among central banks would be important to be established or expanded to mitigate financial volatility once it happens; for developing countries, the swap line already in existence is very small. There are various kinds of measures they can think about, but they need to adopt these measures preemptively to ward off the crisis that will be coming.
Guancha: Partly as a result of this, a number of major banks have run into significant difficulties, including Credit Suisse here in Switzerland. What effect do you think this will have on financing in developing countries? How can developing countries prepare for these effects, as well as prevent banking crises in their own country?
Li Yuefen:For the recent bank failures, one very important warning to other countries is that banks should be well regulated and there should be transparency. When the banks put all the eggs in one basket, they don't have good risk management. The banks should be always aware of the third party risk, for instance Credit Suisse and the Silicon Valley Bank.
For the Silicon Valley Bank, one important thing is the mismatch in the maturity of their assets. For instance, they use short term deposits for long term instruments, and in the end, when there are interest rate hikes, there is a run on the bank. Proper regulation, proper transparency, so that the authorities and even ordinary citizens know what is happening will be very important for the banking sector and also for the financial sector of an entire country. This is an important lesson.
Also, through the bailing out, or through the rescue of these two banks, we can also see the big challenges facing the developing countries. You can see very clearly that the two banks, within two or three days, they could raise hundreds of billions of dollars through swap lines. In the US, the swap line is huge on a daily basis.
When I went to the Washington Spring Meeting, the developing countries were saying, the US can raise hundreds of billions of dollars and save the bank within three days, while for developing countries, once they face financial difficulties, three years they don't see things moving. Here we can see the asymmetry in the liquidity provision to developed countries and the liquidity provision to the developing countries. Big difference.
This is an important issue and also shows the need for the reform of the international financial architecture. You see the need to increase the voices and the representation of developing countries in the decision process of the international financial architecture. This is a very important time to raise this issue because many developing countries are facing lots of problems. The close monitoring and regulation of the banking sector is very important, it rings a warning bell for developing countries to watch out and pay attention to possible similar banking problems that could happen to their own financial sector.
Guancha: In recent weeks, efforts to achieve “de-dollarization” appear to be gaining steam. Russian president Putin recently pledged to adopt the RMB for payments between Russia and much of the Global South. During his visit to China, Brazilian president Lula publicly questioned why we can’t use our own currency in trading that doesn’t concern the US. Even France just conducted its first LNG sale in RMB. What do you think is behind this push for de-dollarization? What do you think is its prospect in the short term? What about the medium to long term?
Li Yuefen: I think the recent developments have shown that dollarization for all these past decades have a lot of problems especially for developing countries. The US dollar, as an international reserve currency, has exorbitant benefits for the country.
When countries really do have dollarization in their particular countries, they actually lose sovereign control of their monetary policies, completely giving it away, which means their monetary policy depends on the US dollar. For the running of the economy, it’s a huge disadvantage at times of crisis
Being an international civil servant working on the financial areas, for years we've been discussing the issue of possible de-dollarization. However, there are lots of challenges for de-dollarization. I myself would hope that people would not have high expectations for a quick de-dollarization process, because right now, for instance, the SWIFT system, the clearing system for trade and banking sector, is completely dominated by the United States. Of course, we also have other system there, but it plays a minor role. The clearing system itself is hugely important. And if you want de-dollarization, and you cannot solve the clearing system, it won't be happening.
We know that the European union tried to set up another clearing system (INSTEX). It has gone to certain stages, developed for several years. But, from what I read, largely owing to resistance from the United States, they have stopped this initiative, anyways I haven't seen any progress going on.
On the whole, you need also to have other financial infrastructure in order to materialize the de-dollarization. That would take time to develop. And most importantly, there is the United States. I don't see the US viewing this positively, and there is huge political resistance and material resistance in various ways. I don't want to mention what ways, you can think about that, and you know they exist.
I see it as something that we should work on very hard together, and I also see tremendous challenges. I hope experts, countries would also take into consideration of the needed infrastructure in order to allow the de-dollarization to happen. That requires a lot of work and also requires a lot of financial resources, a lot of human resources, and a lot of expertise. Let’s hope countries can work together and overcome various kinds of resistance. It won't be an easy job, but it doesn't mean that it will not happen. We should aim for the long term, because it would really take years. It won't happen next year certainly.
本文系觀察者網獨家稿件，文章内容純屬作者個人觀點，不代表平台觀點，未經授權，不得轉載，否則将追究法律責任。關注觀察者網微信guanchacn，每日閱讀趣味文章。