Trump could spur central banks to adopt digital coins: Peacock
(The views expressed here are those of the author, the former head of communications at the Bank of England.)
LONDON - Central bank digital currencies have often been deemed a solution in search of a problem. But U.S. President Donald Trump appears to have provided a rationale for CBDCs, even as he has banned the development of a digital dollar.
A CBDC, as its name suggests, is a digital version of an existing fiat currency that would be issued and controlled by a central bank and have the same guarantees.
A study by the Atlantic Council, published shortly before Trump's election win last year, found that 134 nations – including the U.S. at the time – representing 98% of the global economy were exploring digital versions of their currencies, with almost half at an advanced stage.
But Trump then issued an executive order in January prohibiting U.S. agencies from establishing, issuing or promoting a digital dollar, seemingly as part of a drive to promote private cryptocurrencies and stablecoins instead.
That may leave the door open for other countries to set the rules for CBDCs and other forms of digital money as they evolve.
The arguments for and against CBDCs are various. They could lower the cost and complexity of financial transactions, while potentially bringing more people into the digital economy. Critics counter that existing technology can offer the same benefits, and some warn that CBDCs could threaten individual privacy and become a tool for government snooping and control.
From a central bank perspective, if private stablecoins – or cryptocurrencies backed by a hard currency – come to dominate the digital currency space, they would have to be closely regulated. So the simpler option may be to issue their own digital currency instead.
But the most compelling reason may be that we appear to be entering a new era of economic nationalism in which the U.S. dollar may no longer be relied upon, meaning state-run digital currencies could thus become a matter of national financial security.
DIGITAL DEPENDENCY
This risk of getting left behind in the digital payments race is particularly acute in Europe.
Non-European payments firms process about two-thirds of euro zone credit card transactions. On top of that, U.S. tech applications process almost 10% of euro retail payments, and usage is growing fast.
Additionally, most existing stablecoins are linked to the dollar, so if their use increases, the primacy of the euro within Europe's currency bloc could be undermined.
This was spelled out powerfully in a recent speech by European Central Bank Chief Economist Philip Lane.
'The digital euro is not just about making sure our monetary system adapts to the digital age. It is about ensuring that Europe controls its monetary and financial destiny, against a backdrop of increasing geopolitical fragmentation.' he said.
The Bank of England has sounded more agnostic about a digital pound but has nonetheless been planning and studying the matter for years.
BoE Governor Andrew Bailey has voiced concern that commercial banks are not stepping up to innovate in the digital currency space, leaving the field open to less-regulated tech firms. If that persists, the Bank may need to create its own CBDC.
At the same time, China is racing ahead. Usage of the digital yuan – or e-yuan - is accelerating, with transactions more than tripling between June 2023 and June 2024.
DOLLAR DECLINE?
The U.S. administration has indicated that it wants a weaker dollar, but not a world that can operate around the greenback. The latter would have profound consequences for U.S. economic power and its ability to service its mountain of debt, which last year amounted to more than 120% of GDP or some $35 trillion.
The greenback accounts for almost 60% of global foreign exchange reserves, so a major shift away from the U.S. currency would take years, maybe decades. But given the growing trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, it is possible that China could seek to use CBDCs as a tool in a long-term battle to unseat the U.S. dollar as the foundation of global finance.
And if the U.S. is the only major economy not to offer a CBDC, it risks becoming far less dominant in the global monetary system, especially if CBDCs become widely used in cross-border payments, terrain currently dominated by the dollar via the SWIFT global payments network.
The Bank for International Settlements has noted that mutually compatible CBDCs could lead to more efficient cross-currency and cross-border payments, reducing costs and delays in the payments process.
Already, the central banks of China, Hong Kong, Thailand, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are collaborating on a cross-border payments platform dubbed "Project mBridge" using wholesale CBDCs. And Moscow wants the BRICS nations - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - to create a "BRICS Bridge" international payment system, though experts see little chance of the latter coming to pass.
Trump has reacted negatively to any suggestion of a rival to the dollar. In January, on his Truth Social platform, he warned the BRICS against attempts to create a new currency or back any alternative to 'the mighty dollar', at the risk of seeing their exports to the U.S. face 100% tariffs.
But Washington has already let the financial security genie out of the bottle by upending established international trading norms, spurring other countries to rethink their dependency on a dollar-based and U.S.-led global economic order. It is not clear if that can be rebottled.
(The views expressed here are those of the author, Mike Peacock, the former head of communications at the Bank of England and a former senior editor at Reuters).
(Writing by Mike Peacock; Editing by Anna Szymanski and Nia Williams)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
'Not our war': US lawmakers attempt to rein in potential strikes on Iran
Two US lawmakers in the House of Representatives have teamed up to introduce a bipartisan resolution that would compel President Donald Trump to seek congressional approval before ordering air strikes on Iran. US military engagement, alongside Israel against Iran, is largely assessed not only to lead to Iranian retaliation against US assets in the region, but also to potential US entanglement in yet another years-long war in the Middle East. Trump, in all three of his campaigns for the White House, ran on a no-to-war platform. Now, he is reportedly weighing whether to drop a 30,000-lb "bunker-buster" bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility. Republican Thomas Massie, a staunch anti-interventionist, and Democrat Ro Khanna, a progressive whose district encompasses Silicon Valley, are hoping to amass support from both parties for a vote on a war powers resolution next week. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a statement. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war." In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Khanna said while he believes it's in the interest of US national security for Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon, "I don't believe that will be achieved by the United States getting dragged into a war with Iran." Both the United Nations' nuclear watchdog and the US intelligence community have said Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon. When pushed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on why taking out a hidden nuclear facility - using a bomb no other country but the US has - would not be a good thing, Khanna pointed to a litany of unknowns. "We don't know how deep underground Iran actually has those bombs. We do not know how much - spread out - Iran has that capability, and we do not know how quickly they would be able to rebuild, given that they have the centrifuges and the know-how, [and] the estimates range from one to three years," Khanna said. "There has to be a diplomatic solution," he added. Trump was in the middle of a months-long negotiation with Iran towards a new nuclear deal, much like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that he pulled out of in 2018, when Israel began air strikes on Tehran one week ago. Some of the president's most famous and most loyal supporters on the Make America Great Again (MAGA) circuit have made it clear this week that they believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to lure the US into a war that is none of Washington's business. 'De-escalatory vehicle' Massie and Khanna's resolution follows a similar move in the Senate by Democrat Tim Kaine, who ran for the vice presidency on the Hillary Clinton ticket in 2016. That resolution, also utilising the War Powers Act, demands a debate in the upper chamber and a vote on any US military engagement in Iran. Both votes are likely happening next week. On Thursday, Trump announced that he could take up to two weeks to decide on direct US engagement in Israel's war, but many suspect strikes could come as early as this weekend. 'We want to put every single member of Congress on public record of where they stand specifically on war with Iran' - Cavan Kharrazian, Senior policy advisor, Demand Progress The 1973 War Powers Act allows any senator to introduce a resolution to withdraw US armed forces from a conflict not authorised by Congress. The legislative branch, which acts as the country's purse, is also supposed to be the one that declares war, not the executive. But since the 9/11 attacks in particular, the foggy nature of the so-called "war on terror" has enabled the White House to call the shots, especially as Washington has carried out air strikes in countries from Somalia to Pakistan without an official declaration of war. "Presidents have consistently said that the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional infringement on the executive branch's powers," Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy with the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), told Middle East Eye. "What we've seen on the congressional side is really an unwillingness to force these votes in debates [and] use the mechanisms and procedural tools inside the War Powers Act, because it's just a little bit easier... these [lawmakers] would rather just let the executive branch do what it does and not have to be on the record," he added. Congress has recently twice been able to successfully push through a war powers motion - during the first Trump administration on Yemen in 2018, and again on Iran in 2020 - but the president vetoed the resolutions. So what's the point? "What's important with these resolutions is that we want to put every single member of Congress on public record of where they stand specifically on war with Iran," Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy advisor with Demand Progress, told MEE. Demand Progress, as well as FCNL, have been lobbying lawmakers on Capitol Hill to publicly take an anti-war stance along with other civil society organisations. "It's become extremely popular to criticise past disasters like the Iraq War... [and this vote] will now be an opportunity to show whether they're willing to act when it counts," Kharrazian said. And in spite of Trump's past vetoes, there was in fact no further escalation with Yemen or Iran at the time, making a war powers resolution a "de-escalatory vehicle that can help pump the brakes and prevent full escalation and full US involvement in a war of choice," Tayyab told MEE. Pressure A survey conducted by YouGov, an international online research data and analytics technology group, asked on 17 June whether US strikes on Iran would make America safer. The largest portion, 37 percent of the 3,471 US adults polled, said the country would be "less safe". Around a quarter of respondents each said they are "not sure" or that the country would "neither" feel safer or less safe. Only 14 percent said the US would be safer if the US joined Israel's war. Another poll published by The Washington Post on Wednesday found that almost half of the 1,008 Americans it surveyed oppose US strikes on Iran, with that figure dwarfing the number of people who do support military action. Trump is not looking at a green light from the public. Trump promised not to go to war. His most ardent supporters want him to keep his word Read More » That said, there is an undeniably influential pro-war bloc in Washington that has been pervasive regardless of the president and party affiliation. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and Christians United For Israel (Cufi) are among the leaders in this regard. Since Israel attacked Iran, Aipac has pushed for House Democrats, some of whom have shown scepticism, to issue statements saying that they stand with Israel. It has also shown particular animosity toward one Republican, Massie, who put forward the resolution of the war powers in the House. Earlier this year, an Aipac affiliate group proclaimed that 'Israel, the Holy Land, [is] under attack by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Congressman Tom Massie" for his numerous votes against US military aid packages for Israel. "I mean, the pressure is real. We know neoconservatives, the pro-Israel lobby, they're leaning incredibly hard in this moment. They've leaned incredibly hard on every single moment this has come up," Kharrazian told MEE. "We're not naive on the pressures that are against us [but] from [this] past election, we've seen a tidal shift in the narrative and opposition to endless wars in a way that we haven't seen before. So we're really excited for this," to build anti-war momentum, he said. Advocacy groups are also contending with Trump's billionaire donors. Among the top five is Israeli-born Miriam Adelson, whose Adelson Foundation has also bankrolled organisations such as Birthright Israel and Friends of the IDF. "One thing that's not talked about enough is just the forces of Christian Zionism," Tayyab told MEE. "I think some of those groups believe that this is part of just some end times prophecy, which, despite how you know how off the wall it seems, it is a driving force for a lot of the decisions that are being made." That sentiment was perhaps most famously on display earlier this week when former Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson asked Republican Senator Ted Cruz about why he supports Israel. "I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things," Cruz said. Cufi is holding its annual summit in the US capital at the end of June.
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
Dubai Eye
4 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Kremlin declines to predict when Putin and Trump may meet face-to-face
The Kremlin said on Friday it could not predict whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would meet U.S. President Donald Trump this year given how turbulent the world had become. The Kremlin has repeatedly said that Putin is open to an in-person meeting with Trump, but that the process of setting one up is complex and first requires lengthy preparation at expert level. Trump and Putin have held five phone calls this year, most recently on Saturday, according to public statements from the two sides. When asked about the probability of the two leaders meeting face-to-face sometime this year, Peskov told reporters: "I wouldn't venture to make such predictions. "We live in such a turbulent world that it is impossible to make forecasts even for next week," he said, in an apparent reference to the Israel-Iran conflict. After returning to the White House in January, Trump initially took a softer stance towards Moscow, but in recent months he has grown increasingly frustrated that his push to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine has thus far yielded scant results. Russia said on Monday that the US had cancelled the next round of bilateral talks on removing "irritants" between the two countries. Peskov said on Friday that Moscow was in constant dialogue with the US about a possible peace settlement for Ukraine, but that a separate track of talks on trying to repair bilateral ties was complex because so many problems had accumulated over the years. He said that US diplomats wanted to link the two sets of negotiations, but that Moscow believed removing "irritants' in bilateral ties would help efforts to make progress on Ukraine. "We hope that in the foreseeable future we will reach agreement on new dates (for a new round of talks on bilateral issues)," said Peskov.
