Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
International status and usage of the euro wikipedia , lookup
Purchasing power parity wikipedia , lookup
Foreign-exchange reserves wikipedia , lookup
Foreign exchange market wikipedia , lookup
Bretton Woods system wikipedia , lookup
Currency War of 2009–11 wikipedia , lookup
Reserve currency wikipedia , lookup
Fixed exchange-rate system wikipedia , lookup
Currency war wikipedia , lookup
Exchange rate wikipedia , lookup
7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations Combatting currency manipulation World Trade Organization (WTO) Introduction While many people would picture currency manipulation - also known as currency intervention, or foreign exchange market intervention - as an underground act committed by criminals, it is in fact a tool that central banks of countries use for certain purposes, mainly revaluing their currency compared to foreign currencies. Regardless of delinquent, currency manipulation is a serious matter endangering the global economic balance, especially when several dominant economies are engaging in it at the same time. Such a situation is called a currency war, an effort by governments trying to gain a trade advantage over other countries by decreasing the exchange rates, thus devaluing their currency. The result is that their exports become more competitive in foreign countries, and imports become more expensive. This is the so-called beggar-thy-neighbour policy in which a country attempts to remedy its economic problems by means that tend to worsen the economic situation in other countries. It's no wonder that it is one of the main interests of the global community to stabilize the economic system, since the economic situation of a country or a region is directly connected to the wealth of its citizens. Governments and the UN have several possible ways to avoid scenarios which lead to an insecure political situation and social strife, however the problem is far from being solved. Regular effects of altering exchange rates via currency manipulation include increasing and decreasing prices of goods in a country, something that the average citizens can experience too. But to understand why this is the case, one has to understand the way market economy works. The price level is set based on supply and demand. For example, the price rises, if a product is rarely supplied or if there is a higher demand for it. The other way around a product gets low priced if the demand for it is lower, or because it is offered in larger quantities. In time of an economic recession/depression, governments sometimes boost the economy by selling the country’s goods for a competitive price on the international market. So, the government wants to avoid a demand-pull inflation of their own currency. In the world-wide currency market the same system sets the exchange rates, with the small but essential fact that it is not the average citizens buying certain goods, but a government more precisely the central reserve bank buying foreign exchanges. The price for which a government buys a currency is set by the compared worth to other currencies. Throughout the twentieth century, many major economic forces have intervened in the foreign exchange market in order to devalue their currencies. In this case the key interest rate gets low, which leads the investing capital movements away from emerging markets to the major powers. While this is not the exact case today, currency manipulation still has an important effect on international trade, since it provides certain countries with unfair advantages. This forces other, smaller economies to engage in currency intervention as well, in order to remain competitive. On a long term, such economic conflicts result in a depreciation spiral which can easily end up with a large economic crisis, and certain countries implementing policies against free trade, such as tariff walls or investment limitations. It is the task of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to protect and enhance worldwide free trade, thus, among others, it is their responsibility to tackle the issue of currency manipulation. 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations Circumstances and reasons of manipulation: Harry Dexter White, the U.S. representative to the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, once said “Given the choice, every country prefers to have its currency undervalued rather than overvalued.” This observation suggests that nearly all countries would implement policies aiming to fuel the depreciation of their currency to some extent, if they had the possibility to do so. In today’s world it is easy to see that this is often not the case, furthermore certain nations even strive to increase the value of their currency. Even though currency manipulation is internationally deplored, and the possibility of it is strongly limited by the IMF, there are still certain conditions that make it possible and beneficial for a nation to engage in currency intervention. In general, it can be stated that an unstable economic situation in a country, for example following an international financial crisis, can lead to intervention in the foreign exchange market by the monetary authorities of the specific country, in order to stabilize the value of their currency despite the unpredictability of the currency market. Quickly changing exchange rates hurt a country’s economy, as they prevent foreign investors from entering the domestic market, and investing in domestic financial assets. It can also prevent domestic investors from investing in foreign assets, thus severely reducing the country’s economic activity. While an extremely high rate of inflation is often the indicator of financial instability, the unexpected and high-level appreciation of a currency can also have serious negative effects on the economy. In that case, the financial authorities often aim to significantly decrease the value of the currency. Interventions for stopping deflation are typically conducted in countries with highly advanced and developed economies destabilized due to an unexpected crisis, but such interventions can cause financial disadvantages for other nations. Another possible reason for developed economies to manipulate the exchange rates is if the country’s national bank finds that the market has misinterpreted certain economic signals, resulting in an unprovoked change of exchange rates. In this case, authorities use currency intervention to stabilize exchange rates. However, another possible purpose of currency manipulation is gaining unfair advantages in international trade. Such exchange market interventions are often considered to be protectionist economic policies, and are strongly deplored by several nations, and international organizations, including the WTO. Currency manipulation with the aim of gaining trade advantages is usually conducted by nations with heavily export-oriented economies. A lower exchange rate between the exporting and the importing countries’ currencies benefits the exporters, as it makes their exports cheaper and more competitive. While this might be beneficial for the importers in some cases, on the long term it can alter the trade balance of countries to the manipulating country’s advantage. In the case of large-scale manipulation this does not only devalue the manipulating country’s currency, but also increases the value of the importing country’s currency, thus weakening their exports. Such manipulation is usually done by the exporting country buying large amounts of a different monetary unit (most commonly USD) in exchange for their own currency, which leads to certain exporting countries having large foreign-exchange reserves. If a country’s exchange market intervention exceeds a justifiable level, it significantly boosts their economic competitiveness, which is not only a significant problem for importing countries, but also for other exporters. In radical cases, this can lead to currency manipulation by further nations, since that is the only possible way for them to remain competitive in the international market. Overall, it can be stated that nowadays, most developed economies only use currency manipulation in exceptional cases, and usually with the aim of stabilizing the market following some unforeseeable events. There are a few exceptions to this, but in general currency manipulation is more associated with emerging economies. One of the main reasons for this is that many researches suggest that smallscale exchange market intervention is not truly effective in permanently altering the exchange rates, rather just has a temporary effect. Furthermore, currency manipulation would often cause more 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations problems to developed economies, than benefits, as it can undermine the stance of monetary policy. Large-scale intervention is limited by certain international regulations, and it is only worth it for certain export-oriented developing economies to violate these rules. Types and methods The widely known, general method of currency manipulation is the purchasing or selling of foreign currency by a country’s monetary authority in exchange for their domestic currency. Methods aiming to manipulate exchange rates on a large scale are indeed based on this, but there are other ways a central bank can alter these rates too. The monetary authority of a country can manipulate exchange rates without buying or selling foreign currencies by increasing or decreasing the domestic supply of money. This method is called indirect foreign exchange market intervention. One of its main benefits for countries is that it doesn’t directly involve foreign currencies, and thus can not be strongly controlled or limited by international organizations, such as the IMF or the WTO. By increasing the domestic money supply, a central bank can achieve the devaluation of the currency, while with decreasing the supply, thus relatively increasing the demand, the currency’s value will increase. While this kind of intervention can be effective in certain cases, it has several drawbacks. One of them is that this method doesn’t have an immediate effect, as it takes time for the market to react to the altered money supply which results in the change of exchange rates. When a central bank decides to take such measures in order to ensure the stability and competitiveness of their country they often need quick results. However, indirect intervention usually takes several weeks for the changes of the exchange rate to become reality. The other disadvantage of this method is that it is often ineffective by itself. Most of the times the central bank also has to change the domestic interest rates for the adequate results. In usual cases, high interest rates go with a low money supply. These are used to slow down inflation. On the other hand, low interest rates with high money supply aim to support the growth of the economy. However, interest rates are mainly used to ensure the stability of the domestic economy, and if the central bank wants to achieve the altering of exchange rates, despite the natural passages of the market, they often have to change interest rates in an otherwise inappropriate way. In order to avoid such problems, governments often decide to use the most well-known and effective method of currency manipulation: direct foreign exchange market intervention. There are two possible transactions that authorities can use to alter exchange rates. The first is used when they wish to devalue the domestic currency. By selling large amounts of the country’s own currency in exchange for foreign currency, the supply of the manipulating country’s money increases on the international market, while the supply of the bought foreign currency decreases. This results in a devaluation of the currency of the manipulating country, while the foreign currency appreciates. If the central bank aims to increase the value of the domestic currency, it can reverse the transaction described above. By purchasing the currency, in exchange for foreign money, the demand for the manipulating country’s currency will increase, and so will its value. On the other hand, the foreign money that they used for the purchase will depreciate. While in the case of direct intervention, the central bank doesn’t necessarily alter the domestic interest rates, they will change due to the increased or decreased money supply. For example, when foreign money is bought with the domestic currency, new money will enter the circulation, as the central bank uses newly printed money to increase the supply. In this case, the central bank buys foreign assets with the new money, instead of domestic ones, however, on a longer term this will eventually mean an increased money supply in the manipulating country. The depreciation of the currency will result in a lower rate of return for foreign investors, and this eventually leads to lower domestic interest rates. Thus, on a longer term, an indirect result of direct foreign exchange intervention is a higher rate of 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations inflation. On the contrary, when a central bank uses currency manipulation to increase the value of the currency, on a long term it will lead to a decreased inflation rate, through the same steps. Since the abolishment of the Gold Standard and the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, central banks of many developed economies hold the right to print as much of their countries’ currencies, as they find necessary. This technically means that the ability of a central bank to devalue its domestic currency is virtually unlimited, since they can spend a supposedly infinite amount on foreign currency. On the other hand, the level of appreciation that can be achieved through direct foreign exchange market intervention is limited, since the central bank needs to have a certain amount of foreign currency that they can trade in exchange for the domestic currency. These foreign assets held by a central bank are called foreign exchange reserves, and the amount of these reserves determines how much a country can increase the value of its currency through direct intervention. There is another way to differentiate between specific kinds of currency manipulation. The indirect effects of direct foreign exchange market intervention cause a huge dilemma for central banks, institutions that are generally entrusted with ensuring the economic stability of a country. As explained above, the change in a country’s money supply will not only alter the exchange rates, but also the interest rates, which are important tools for central banks to control the economic growth of their countries, meaning that they cannot afford to have interest rates increasing or decreasing against their will, due to currency manipulation. That is why many manipulating authorities chose to use a method which aims to tackle these problems called sterilized intervention. With this method, central banks can supposedly alter the exchange rates without truly changing the money supply, thus not altering interest rates. The exact method of sterilized intervention is the following: after selling a certain amount of currency for foreign money, aiming to devalue the currency, the central bank also sells Treasury bonds of a value equivalent to the sold currency on the domestic market, thus technically keeping the same amount of their domestic money in the circulation, while still achieving the change of demands, therefore altering the exchange rates. However, in practice this method often fails. While it may cause some confusion on the market, which results in a temporary change in exchange rates, this effect will not be lasting, since the money supply did not actually change. Many researches prove that by itself, sterilized intervention is ineffective on the long term, but there still are some reasons for monetary authorities to engage in such manipulations. First of all, a temporary effect can be achieved, as mentioned above, especially if the selling of Treasury bonds takes place a few days or weeks after the purchasing of foreign currency. Another possibility, which can lead to a more lasting effect is if the monetary authority manages to, in some way, fool investors with these transactions, so that their expectations regarding economic growth and the value of the currency change. If the central bank does not publicly announce its policy, investors can not be certain whether they are planning to sterilize the intervention, or not. If these investors are aware of a foreign exchange market intervention, but do not know about the sterilization, their policies might result in an increased economic activity, which will lead to a certain level of depreciation of the currency. These effects are, however, not well predictable, and even if the central bank manages to fool the investors into unprovoked activities, it will result in a significantly smaller level of deprecation of the currency than non-sterilized intervention. In conclusion, there is no method of currency manipulation that is beneficial for the country in all ways. Indirect intervention does not have a large effect, and it can only be achieved through the central bank altering the domestic interest rates in an inappropriate way, which obstructs the stable functioning of the economy, and can cause an unforeseen change in the inflation rate. Non-sterilized, direct foreign exchange market intervention is very effective, however it affects the interest rates, and the inflation rates on the longer term, so that it may result in the opposite of what the monetary authority is wishing to achieve. Sterilized direct foreign exchange intervention, on the other hand, eliminates the problem of changing interest rates, but does not really alter the money supply, thus fails to truly manipulate the 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations exchange rates. It does have some minor, temporary effects, but those are not adequate results for currency manipulating authorities. Due to these significant drawbacks, most developed and advanced economies do not engage in currency manipulation, since it may hurt their economy more than enhance it. On the other hand, developing and emerging economies might find it is worth the negative side-effects, since economic stability is usually not as important for their authorities as for the governments and central banks of developed countries. History and modern examples There have been many examples for currency manipulation throughout the history of mankind. While historically, most countries either preferred to have a managed, or fixed exchange rate system, or to allow the free flowing market to determine the exchange rates, certain economic crises, or other unforeseen events could always result in an unorthodox reaction by authorities, such as intentionally devaluing their currencies in order to strengthen their exports, and weaken other countries’ imports, thus enhancing the domestic industry and reducing unemployment. While these can be seen as positive effects, the large-scale devaluation of currency significantly increases the inflation rate, and thus results in a price increase, especially for imported products. While the government might find this beneficial for the country on a long term, the people of the country are usually dissatisfied with the high prices. Due to this, large-scale currency devaluation has always been a controversial and somewhat risky policy from a government’s viewpoint. However, there have been several events throughout history, which resulted in situations when many strong and important economies have decided to engage in currency manipulation, in order to boost their competitiveness. Such situations, when several countries decide to intervene in the foreign exchange market in order to gain trade advantages are called currency wars, or competitive devaluations. Before the 20th century, there were no real examples of currency war. Several governments have been devaluing their currencies since the medieval ages, by reducing their intrinsic value, however these measures were not related to international trade, but were rather seen as a source of income for the government. Furthermore, a gold standard was widely adopted by several important economies from the mid 19th century, until the first World War. A gold standard means that the value and amount of a country’s currency is based on a fixed amount of gold, usually the gold reserves of the country. This standard being adopted by many countries meant that the exchange rates were quite stable, and currency manipulation was neither possible, nor reasonable in that era. It wasn’t until after World War I was over that economic tensions started to rise, and the circumstances of a currency war were given. There is no universal agreement on when the first currency war started, however there were several examples of currency manipulation in the 1920s, thus many economists and historians claim that the “war” has started as early as 1921. While several countries engaged in currency intervention in the 20s, the monetary conflict reached its peak with the 1930s’ Great Depression. Germany was the first significant country to manipulate its currency after World War I in 1921. The German government fueled a “hyperinflation” which would enhance the country’s competitiveness on a short term, but would ultimately lead to the near destruction of their economy. After 1933 Germany started to back out from world trade and only had significant links to Austria and Eastern Europe. In 1925, France devalued the franc prior to reestablishing the gold standard in the country. That meant a significant advantage for them, as countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom have returned to the gold standard at a pre-war rate. This resulted in the UK abandoning the gold standard in 1931, and regaining competitiveness with France. The U.S. refused to break with gold at that point, however they were forced to revalue the dollar against gold, primarily to catch up to the exports of the UK. By the mid 1930s, most of the leading economies have already emerged from the worst phrase of the Great Depression except for France. Ultimately, the French government has decided to abandon the gold 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations standard and devalue the franc once again in 1936. Meanwhile, there was further devaluation in the UK too, as a reaction to the United States’ 1933 interventions. Overall, the first currency war was severely damaging to all of its parties as it resulted in large-scale trade disruption and wealth destruction. In 1944, the famous Bretton Woods Conference was held, with the participation of all 44 allied nations. The aim of the conference was to avoid economic instability and crisis once World War II is over. Besides institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a new monetary system, later called the Bretton Woods system, was also established. Proposed by the United States, the system was based on gold, and the U.S. dollar. The currencies of the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and Japan were fixed to gold and to each other until 1971, when the United States ultimately broke with the gold standard. While the Bretton Woods system was in power the exchange rates of the most powerful economies of the world were almost completely stable, thus there was no option for currency manipulation, and since there was a stable economic growth in the Western world during this era, the members of the system had no intention of abandoning these standards until the late 1960s. Under the Bretton Woods system, countries in need of loans or other financial assistance were aided by the IMF, and currency devaluation was only allowed in special cases of trade deficit and high inflation, with IMF permission. The decline of the Bretton Woods system was eventually caused by the end of the U.S. economic hegemony in the 1960s. The “guns and butter” policy of the United States in the 1960s meant that they have spent significant amounts on both the Vietnam war and domestic welfare programs including reducing poverty. They have managed to maintain their international dominance on the short term, however there were already signs of the collapse of the U.S.-led economic system. The American inflation rate doubled in 1966, which started almost two decades of economic instability in the United States. Despite all this, the first significant devaluation since the Bretton Woods conference took place in the United Kingdom in 1967. There has been a currency crisis in the UK since 1964 due to the overwhelming amounts of foreign pound reserves, and while the pound was not as important in the Bretton Woods system as the dollar, this was still a huge step towards abandoning the system. The British devaluation started a series of events that eventually led to the collapse of Bretton Woods, including the French government claiming that the biggest economies need to return to a traditional gold standard, instead of having the currencies fixed to the dollar. By the late 60s it became obvious that the fixed $35/ounce of gold price was too low, had to be artificially kept down, as a higher price would have benefited gold producing countries such as South Africa and the USSR. All of these events have led to a new economic policy by U.S. president Richard Nixon, implemented in 1971, ending the convertibility of dollars to gold by foreign banks. This policy was developed without consultation with the IMF, or members states of the Bretton Woods system, and was technically a de facto devaluation of the dollar against gold. In addition to this, Nixon also announced a 10% tax on all imported products, aiming to enhance the domestic industry. The policy had immediate effects, as the German mark, the Canadian dollar and the Japanese yen have all been allowed to float freely against the dollar in 1971. Former Bretton Woods countries have struggled through the 70s. The importance of the European Economic Community increased, as Western European nations have found that they could only achieve economic stability through a certain level of cooperation. The United States, on the other hand, has suffered significant recessions, including the 4-year timespan between 1977 and 1981 when the purchasing power of the dollar decreased by 50 percent. In parallel, the price of gold increased very fast, and reached a staggering $612/per ounce by 1980. This era of the U.S. was marked by high inflation rates, and stagnant growth, meaning that the dollar devaluations of the early 70s were unsuccessful in boosting the economy. It wasn’t until the mid-80s that they’ve managed to emerge from this situation, and reduce inflation to an acceptable level, while normalizing gold prices. The Reagan administration introduced a policy of deregulation, low taxes, and a stronger dollar, which was achieved by strong cooperation with the federal bank. Unlike other times in history, a stronger 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations currency in fact encouraged economic growth and activity in the U.S. during the 1980s. Unemployment and a growing trade deficits remained problems however, as the strong dollar resulted in many Americans buying foreign goods, German cars for example. At that time, countries such as Germany and Japan operated with low-value currencies, and this seemed to have given them some advantage against the U.S. Despite the economic growth, many Americans demanded the devaluation of the dollar. This was not a simple task for the government, as the demand for dollars was very high at the time, due to the strong economic growth. Therefore, large-scale foreign exchange market intervention was necessary. The American government decided to negotiate with its trade partners about the devaluation, and while the proposals were not beneficial for Japan and Western Europe, they did eventually come to an agreement, mostly due to the parties of the discussions being heavily dependant on both economic and political relations with the USA. However, just as in the early 70s, American currency intervention was unsuccessful. A weaker dollar slowed down the economic growth, while the unemployment rate did not significantly decrease, and the rising inflation rate caused new problems in the country. In 1987, the value of the dollar was stabilized at a lower level, which marked the end of the second currency war. Following this period, there was relative stability in international monetary issues. While China, the most significant currency manipulator of the 21st century has started to establish its dominant position in world trade, supported by serious currency intervention, it was the 2007-2008 economic crisis that triggered the next, and most recent currency conflict, which is still ongoing according to many economists. In contrast to the previous currency wars, the main parties do not involve individual European states and Japan this time, as the most important currencies are the American dollar, the euro, and the Chinese yuan. Another significant difference is that the most developed countries don’t use currency manipulation to gain trade advantages anymore. However, due to the destabilizing effects of the global economic crisis, several European countries were forced to intervene in the foreign exchange market. The most notable of these countries is Switzerland, which had to buy large amounts of euros, and even fix the franc’s exchange rate to the euro for a short timespan to stop the rapid appreciation of the franc. On the other hand, Russia experienced an unprecedented level of inflation following the crisis, and has since aimed to raise the value of the ruble to a reasonable level again. But the central conflict of the current currency war is the economic growth of Eastern Asia, most importantly China, and the increasing trade deficit of several Western nations, most importantly the USA. China is probably the most well-known currency manipulator today, as they have purchased previously unseen amounts of dollars to devalue the yuan and raise Chinese exports to an extremely competitive level. Meanwhile, American exports are getting weaker, and as China possesses the biggest dollar reserves of the world, the USA is becoming the largest loser of 21st century currency manipulation. Due to the extremely strong, and ever-growing economy of China, other Eastern Asian economies, such as Malaysia, Hong Kong and Thailand are forced to engage in foreign exchange market intervention. As several Eastern Asian countries are set to be among the biggest exporters of the world, their currency manipulation is extremely alarming to the EU and the U.S. Other manipulators include oil exporters, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, besides countries close to the euro zone, such as Denmark, however the current issue is strongly centered around the USA-China financial conflict. Measures against manipulation International exchange rate and currency related issues are under the jurisdiction of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), while the main profile of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is regulating and governing international trade. Both organizations approach the problem in their own way. The WTO has rules against subsidies, however these fail to combat currency manipulation, therefore 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations further agreements and measures are necessary in order to eliminate this phenomenon from world trade completely. The WTO has the capacity to adjudicate trade disputes, but to date it has done nothing to suggest that trade issues linked to currency manipulation are within its zone of responsibility. With the Trade Policy Review Body, the WTO has the legislation to act effectively, but a significant problem is that the frequency of such investigations depends on share in the market. This seems to be a clever regulation but does not publicize any grievance in emerging markets. Fundamentally, the WTO is based on three main treaties and some smaller ones. The first one is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) being the most extensive one it contains four main ideas. The ban of public trade restriction (art. XI, GATT), the continuous decrease of rates of duty (art. II, GATT), the most-favored-nation treatment (art. I, GATT) and an appropriate national treatment for residents (art. III, GATT). The second treatment is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) containing regulations which address the services in the bank-, insurance- and consulting sector. These regulations aim for the international liberalization of the service sector. The third treaty is called the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which internationally protects patents, copyrights and design rights. Especially plagiarism illustrated that the economic success of a country does not only depend on the monetary capital, but from the intellectual capital. These three treatments build the substructure and the fundamental guidelines of the WTO, but do not limit the room of manoeuvre of the organization. The IMF can’t force a country to change its exchange rate policy, but the IMF Articles of Agreement prohibit countries from manipulating their currency for gaining unfair trade advantage, however the Fund has no capacity to enforce that prohibition. Still, the best current way of combating currency intervention is raising the case in either the IMF or the WTO and discuss the issue on an international level. A first step to address this problem might be altering the IMF´s Articles of Agreement that would give the IMF more power in forcing countries not sticking to the rules. A second step to be taken by using the WTO´s power might be to define currency manipulation more precisely in order to make clear differences between subsidy and manipulation. This would require a transparency of countries’ financial affairs national reserve banks. Such measures may raise awareness in the countries private economic sectors about the nature and dangers of currency manipulation, which has to be punished on an international level as well as on the national courts stages. Therefore, some negotiations as such as the G20 meeting has to be continued and enlarged on sub-levels. Sources http://otm732.marginalq.com/documents/pb12-25.pdf http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/policy-and-theory-of-international-finance/s13-05-foreignexchange-interventions.html https://www.mapi.net/blog/2015/05/currency-manipulation-historical-context http://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Rickards_Currency_Wars.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_intervention http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/02/25/currency-manipulation-why-something-must-bedone/#f88495c31c8b https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welthandelsorganisation http://congressionalresearch.com/RS22658/document.php?study=Currency+Manipulation+The+IMF+and +WTO http://www.capital.de/meinungen/ein-mittel-gegen-waehrungsmanipulationen-4154.html https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gatt_e/gatt_e.htm 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201223_e.pdf 7th Session of Budapest International Model United Nations Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] and also please send a position paper of about 300-500 words to the same address by March 17th.