Finance ministers will debate legality of using €270bn in frozen state assets as collateral for loan
Divisions over whether Ukraine can lawfully be handed an extra €30bn (£26bn) loan drawn from €270bn in seized Russian state assets are likely to be aired at a meeting of G7 finance ministers this week in Stresa, northern Italy.
In another test of political will over Ukraine, the US has been canvassing support for the plan, with the money intended to help with Ukraine’s reconstruction or pay for badly needed arms.
The debate on how to make the frozen Russian state assets available to Ukraine
has been deadlocked for more than a year, with advocates of complete
asset seizure, as opposed to freezing, unable to persuade central bank
governors or gain enough support inside the G7 group.
The
proposals for using the state assets as collateral for a loan is even a
rare moment of disagreement between the US and Germany.
Christine Lagarde, the European Central Bank
president, last week raised legal and economic objections to full
seizure of the assets but the US, with strong UK backing, is determined
to try to circumvent such objections.
Washington
wants to circle around her argument by saying that the frozen assets
need not be seized, or confiscated, but instead mobilised to give an
extensive loan to Ukraine on which the interest would be paid from the
annual profits of the frozen Russian assets. Seizing the Russian central
bank assets and handing them to Ukraine now as a pre-payment for
reparations is effectively ruled out.
“Moving from freezing the assets to confiscating
the assets, disposing of them, is something that needs to be looked at
very carefully,” Lagarde has said, adding it would “start breaking the
international legal order that you want to protect, that you would want
Russia and all countries around the world to respect”.
Lagarde
argued seizure would threaten the future stability of the financial
system, undermine the principle of state immunity, and lead countries
with large surpluses such as China and Gulf states to shun western
reserve currencies fearing their cash will also be vulnerable to
seizure.
But before the gathering of G7
leaders, the US and the UK argue that instead of handing relatively
small sums such as €500m from the interest annually, it would be better
if a loan or bond worth about €30bn could be handed to Ukraine with the
interest paid from the profits generated from the larger frozen assets.
The G7 states could back the bond with a state
guarantee as a way of reassuring private investors, officials said at
the Lennart Meri security conference in Tallinn at the weekend.
The
use of the Russian central bank assets as collateral would be a
reversible measure until Russia paid reparations. Critics of the plan
argue that using an asset as a collateral means owning the asset, which
amounts to confiscation. It has already taken a huge battle for the EU
to agree that some of the interest on the Russian assets seized by
western powers can be handed to Ukraine.
Holding
frozen Russian state assets worth €191bn, Belgium, the home of the
Brussels-based securities depository Euroclear, is the largest holder of
Russia’s frozen assets inside the G7, estimated at €270bn. The assets
in Belgium have already generated €5bn for 2022-23 in investment income
from the assets.
Earlier this month, in consultation with the EU, Belgium agreed to pay more than €1bn in taxes on this profit
to a joint G7 fund for Ukraine from next year. This year, the Belgian
government gave Ukraine €500m from the profit. It kept the remainder for
its reserves and some hypothetical financial risks such as Russian
litigation.
Speaking at Lennart Meri, Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow at the
Institute for Strategic Studies argued: “We have this very strange
ordering of risks. Somehow we’ve persuaded ourselves that it’s more
risky to take Russia’s state money than it is to send weapons to Ukraine
that kill Russian soldiers. That ordering makes no sense.”
Campaigners insist that legal scholarship over the past year has come to
the view that the assets can be seized, and state immunity waived,
under the doctrine of state countermeasures. It is also argued that if
seizure was going to damage confidence in the euro that would have
already happened at the point when the assets were frozen in 2022.
Olena Halushka, the head of the International Centre for Ukrainian
Victory, also warned that if the assets are withheld from Ukraine, and
the country loses the war, the economic and security consequences for Europe will be far worse than the reputational risks of using Russian assets.
If you would like to become a W³P Lives contributor, please fill out the contact form below. You may submit any email address; however, you will need a gmail to login to blogger.com and access the back end of the blog where posts are created.
If you do not want to submit your actual email, please create a gmail specifically for this purpose and submit it to us via the form below. It will skip a step, since a gmail will be required to login anyways.
After filling out the form keep any eye out for your email invitation in your inbox. Accept the invitation, login to blogger.com, and start making discussions.
Post a Comment