WASHINGTON: The International Monetary Fund said on Thursday that it welcomes the initial positive dialogue between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, adding that reducing tension and uncertainty between the world’s two largest economies was good for the world.
“It’s very important, of course, that the world’s two largest economies are engaging at the highest level,” IMF spokesperson Julie Kozack told a news briefing when asked about the Trump-Xi summit’s initial outcomes in Beijing.
“We certainly welcome the fact that there’s a constructive dialogue between the two countries. Anything that is going to help reduce trade tensions and reduce uncertainty is good for both of those large economies, and, of course, good for the global economy as well,” Kozack added.
The IMF has long urged the US and China to work out their trade differences through dialogue, not unilateral measures.
In Beijing on Thursday, Xi launched the two-day summit with a warning to Trump that a mishandling of the countries’ disagreements over Taiwan could push US-China relations to a “very dangerous place.”
Also read: China says US talks vital as Trump targets Beijing’s key partners
But a year after Trump’s steep tariffs on Chinese goods and Xi’s retaliation nearly collapsed all US-China trade, the two leaders’ discussions on trade and investment were more positive.
Trump said in a Fox News Channel interview with Sean Hannity that China agreed to order 200 Boeing jetliners, while US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that deals for US energy and farm goods were also discussed, along with the creation of bilateral trade and investment bodies for non-strategic sectors.
Economic pressures
Kozack said that because of pressures from the Middle East war and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which has kept crude oil prices above $100 per barrel, the global economy is clearly moving into the middle of the three economic scenarios that the IMF outlined in its April World Economic Outlook.
The IMF’s middle “adverse scenario” would see global real GDP growth falling to 2.5% this year, compared with 3.1% in the more benign “reference forecast” that assumes a quick end to the conflict, from 3.4% growth in 2025.
The adverse scenario assumes $100-per-barrel oil for the full year but also a tightening of financial conditions and rising inflation expectations.
Kozack said that although higher energy prices have pushed up expectations of short-term price increases, the IMF views medium-term inflationary expectations as remaining well-anchored. And financial conditions in the global economy remain “accommodative,” she said.
Assistance talks
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva will discuss global economic issues with finance ministers and central bank governors from Group of Seven industrial democracies next Monday and Tuesday in Paris, Kozack said. IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz is attending a G20 meeting in Miami for deputy finance ministers and central bank governors on Thursday and Friday of this week, she added.
The IMF continues to discuss possible financial assistance for member countries that are struggling with higher energy and commodity costs due to the Middle East conflict, Kozack said.
Also read: Xi and Trump talk by phone, Chinese state media report
But she did not provide any details on specific countries, nor comment on a Reuters report that Iraq has sought financial assistance.
Georgieva said during IMF and World Bank spring meetings in April that at least 12 countries were expected to need assistance totaling $20 billion to $50 billion from the two institutions, which are consulting on how best to aid member countries.
Kozack declined to provide any updates to those figures.
“Right now, what we’re seeing is that many countries are actually asking us for support in the policy area,” she added. “They’re asking us for policy advice. How can they best respond to the shock given the individual country circumstances?”
The Fund in April said member countries should avoid broad fuel assistance subsidies that would drain scarce fiscal resources and stoke oil demand at a time of constrained supplies, pushing up prices further.
