Translate

17 de fevereiro de 2020



INDICADORES/INDICATORS





________________



BACEN. BOLETIM FOCUS: RELATÓRIO SEMANAL DE MERCADO
(Projeções atualizadas semanalmente pelas 100 principais instituições financeiras que operam no Brasil, para os principais indicadores da economia brasileira)



ANÁLISE



BACEN. PORTAL G1. 17/02/2020. Analistas do mercado baixam estimativa de inflação para 2020 e veem alta menor do PIB. Previsão de inflação deste ano passou de 3,25% para 3,22%. Economistas reduziram de 2,30% para 2,23% ao ano previsão de alta do PIB em 2020.
Por Alexandro Martello, G1 — Brasília

Os economistas do mercado financeiro reduziram a estimativa de inflação para este ano e também passaram a prever um crescimento menor da economia brasileira.

As projeções fazem parte do boletim de mercado, conhecido como relatório "Focus", divulgado nesta segunda-feira (17) pelo Banco Central (BC). Os dados constam de um levantamento feito na semana passada com mais de 100 instituições financeiras.

De acordo com o boletim, os analistas do mercado financeiro reduziram a estimativa de inflação para 2020 de 3,25% para 3,22%. Foi a sétima queda consecutiva do indicador.

A expectativa de inflação do mercado para este ano segue abaixo da meta central, de 4%. O intervalo de tolerância do sistema de metas varia de 2,5% a 5,5%.

A meta de inflação é fixada pelo Conselho Monetário Nacional (CMN). Para alcançá-la, o Banco Central eleva ou reduz a taxa básica de juros da economia (Selic).

No ano passado, o Índice Nacional de Preços ao Consumidor Amplo (IPCA), considerado a inflação oficial do Brasil, fechou em 4,31%, acima do centro da meta para o ano, que era de 4,25%, mas dentro do intervalo de tolerância. Foi a maior inflação anual desde 2016.

Para 2021, o mercado financeiro manteve a estimativa de inflação em 3,75%. No ano que vem, a meta central de inflação é de 3,75% e será oficialmente cumprida se o índice oscilar de 2,25% a 5,25%.

Produto Interno Bruto

O mercado financeiro também baixou a previsão de crescimento para a economia brasileira em 2020 de 2,30% para 2,23%. Para o próximo ano, a previsão de crescimento do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) permaneceu em 2,50%.

O PIB é a soma de todos os bens e serviços feitos no país, independentemente da nacionalidade de quem os produz, e serve para medir o comportamento da economia brasileira.

Outras estimativas

  • Taxa de juros: o mercado manteve a previsão para a taxa Selic no fim de 2020 em 4,25% ao ano. Atualmente, a taxa de juros já está neste patamar. Para o fechamento de 2021, a expectativa do mercado para a taxa Selic continuou em 6% ao ano.
  • Dólar: a projeção para a taxa de câmbio no fim de 2020 permaneceu em R$ 4,10 por dólar. Para o fechamento de 2021, subiu de R$ 4,10 para R$ 4,11 por dólar.
  • Balança comercial: para o saldo da balança comercial (resultado do total de exportações menos as importações), a projeção em 2020 caiu de US$ 36,40 bilhões para US$ 35,42 bilhões de resultado positivo. Para o ano que vem, a estimativa dos especialistas do mercado continuou em US$ 35 bilhões.
  • Investimento estrangeiro: a previsão do relatório para a entrada de investimentos estrangeiros diretos no Brasil, em 2020, permaneceu em US$ 80 bilhões. Para 2021, a estimativa dos analistas subiu de US$ 84,50 bilhões para US$ 84,75 bilhões.

BACEN. REUTERS. 17 DE FEVEREIRO DE 2020. Mercado reduz expectativa para PIB em 2020, mostra Focus; Top-5 vê juros mais baixos em 2021
Por Camila Moreira

SÃO PAULO (Reuters) - O mercado voltou a reduzir a expectativa para o crescimento da economia em 2020, bem como para a inflação, enquanto o grupo dos que mais acertam as previsões no Focus passou a ver patamar mais baixo para os juros em 2021.

A pesquisa realizada pelo BC mostrou nesta segunda-feira que a estimativa de crescimento do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB) este ano caiu a 2,23%, de 2,30% na semana anterior. Para 2021, permanece a conta de uma expansão de 2,50%.

O levantamento semanal apontou ainda que a expectativa para a alta do IPCA passou a 3,22% em 2020, 0,03 ponto percentual a menos do que no anterior, indo a 3,75% em 2021.

O centro da meta oficial de 2020 é de 4% e, de 2021, de 3,75%, ambos com margem de tolerância de 1,5 ponto percentual para mais ou menos.

O Banco Central indicou divergência entre os membros do Comitê de Política Monetária (Copom) sobre o nível de ociosidade na economia, e apontou que, diante de “múltiplas incertezas” envolvendo este e outros fatores, quer ter melhor compreensão do cenário para definir os próximos passos para os juros básicos.

A pesquisa com uma centena de economistas mostrou ainda que a taxa básica de juros deve terminar este ano no atual patamar de 4,25%, indo a 6,0% no ano que vem, sem alterações.

Mas o Top-5, grupo dos que mais acertam as previsões, passou a ver a Selic a 5,75% em 2021, de 6,25% antes, depois de a taxa básica terminar 2020 a 4,25%.



________________



ORGANISMS


INTERNATIONAL TRADE



WTO. 17 FEBRUARY 2020. WTO TRADE BAROMETERS. Goods barometer signals further weakening of trade in first quarter of 2020

World merchandise trade growth is likely to remain weak in early 2020, according to the WTO Goods Trade Barometer released on 17 February. The real-time measure of trade trends now reads 95.5 — less than the 96.6 recorded last November and well below the index’s baseline value of 100. This below-trend performance could be reduced further by a new global health threat.

Goods barometer signals further weakening of trade in first quarter of 2020
The Goods Trade Barometer provides information on the current trajectory of world merchandise trade relative to recent trends, based on best-available forward-looking data. It does not account for recent developments such as the outbreak of COVID-19, the new coronavirus disease, which may dampen trade prospects further.

WTO trade statistics show that the volume of world merchandise trade was down 0.2% in the third quarter of 2019 compared to the previous year. While the year-on-year growth figures for the fourth quarter may pick up slightly, the latest barometer reading provides no indication of a sustained recovery. Indeed, year-on-year trade growth may fall again in the first quarter of 2020, though official statistics to confirm this will only become available in June.

The drop in the barometer since November has been driven by additional declines in indices for container shipping (94.8) and agricultural raw materials (90.9), as well as the plateauing of the automotive products index (100.0). Although indices for export orders (98.5), air freight (94.6) and electronic components (92.8) are all below baseline, they appear to have stabilized and would normally be expected to rise in the coming months. However, every component of the Goods Trade Barometer will be influenced by the economic impact of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of efforts to treat and contain the disease.

Like its counterpart for services, the Goods Trade Barometer aims to gauge momentum and identify turning points in global trade growth. As such, it complements trade statistics and forecasts from the WTO and other organizations. Readings of 100 indicate growth in line with medium-term trends; readings greater than 100 suggest above-trend growth, while those below 100 indicate below-trend growth.

FULL DOCUMENT: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news20_e/wtoi_17feb20_e.htm

WTO. PORTAL G1. REUTERS. 17/02/2020. OMC dá perspectiva pessimista para comércio global e vê ameaça de vírus. Perspectiva é de provável queda no período de janeiro a março de 2020 após recuperação no 4º trimestre de 2019.

O crescimento do comércio global de mercadorias deve permanecer fraco no início de 2020, disse nesta segunda-feira (17) a Organização Mundial de Comércio (OMC), acrescentando que o desempenho abaixo da tendência pode ser reduzido ainda mais pelo novo coronavírus.

O órgão comercial com sede em Genebra disse que seu indicador de comércio de mercadorias caiu para 95,5 ante leitura de 96,6 registrada em novembro. Leituras inferiores a 100 indicam crescimento do comércio abaixo das tendências de médio prazo.

A OMC disse que o novo número não leva em consideração os desenvolvimentos mais recentes, como o surto do novo coronavírus, que pode diminuir ainda mais as perspectivas do comércio.

China tem 1,7 mil mortes por novo coronavírus e mais de 70,6 mil casos confirmados
Análise: os reflexos da crise do coronavírus no comércio Brasil/China

O comércio mundial de mercadorias caiu 0,2% ano a ano no terceiro trimestre de 2019, informou a OMC, com uma possível retomada no quarto trimestre.

No entanto, seus novos dados indicaram que essa recuperação não será sustentada, com um declínio agora parecendo provável no período de janeiro a março de 2020.

O indicador de perspectivas comerciais da OMC é um composto de dados sobre pedidos de exportação em pesquisas de negócios, frete aéreo, transporte de contêineres, produção e vendas de automóveis e comércio de componentes eletrônicos e materiais agrícolas, principalmente madeira.

Ele foi projetado para identificar pontos de virada e avaliar o ímpeto do crescimento do comércio global, em vez de fornecer uma previsão específica de curto prazo.

WTO. REUTERS. 17 DE FEVEREIRO DE 2020. OMC dá perspectiva sombria para comércio global e vê ameaça de vírus

BRUXELAS (Reuters) - O crescimento do comércio global de mercadorias deve permanecer fraco no início de 2020, disse nesta segunda-feira a Organização Mundial de Comércio (OMC), acrescentando que o desempenho abaixo da tendência pode ser reduzido ainda mais pelo novo coronavírus.

A OMC afirmou que, com base em um declínio de seu indicador de perspectiva comercial, o crescimento do comércio de mercadorias na base anual pode cair de novo no primeiro trimestre de 2020.

Reportagem de Philip Blenkinsop



________________



US ECONOMICS



CORONAVIRUS



U.S. Department of State. 02/17/2020. Joint Statement by U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services On Repatriation of American Passengers from the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship

On February 16, the U.S. State Department facilitated the voluntary repatriation of over 300 U.S. citizens and their immediate family members who had been passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship.  Passengers were evaluated by medical personnel from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and all were deemed asymptomatic and fit to fly before being processed for evacuation.

During the evacuation process, after passengers had disembarked the ship and initiated transport to the airport, U.S. officials received notice that 14 passengers, who had been tested 2-3 days earlier, had tested positive for COVID-19.  These individuals were moved in the most expeditious and safe manner to a specialized containment area on the evacuation aircraft to isolate them in accordance with standard protocols.  After consultation with HHS officials, including experts from the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the State Department made the decision to allow the 14 individuals, who were in isolation, separated from other passengers, and continued to be asymptomatic, to remain on the aircraft to complete the evacuation process.  During the flights, these individuals will continue to be isolated from the other passengers. These flights departed Japan at approximately 4:30 PM Eastern time on February 16 and will arrive in the United States later this morning.  All passengers are being closely monitored by medical professionals throughout the flight, and any who become symptomatic will be moved to the specialized containment area, where they will be treated.

Upon landing in the United States, passengers will deplane at either Travis AFB or Joint Base San Antonio and will remain under quarantine for 14 days. Passengers that develop symptoms in flight and those with positive test results will remain isolated on the flights and will be transported to an appropriate location for continued isolation and care.

Every precaution to ensure proper isolation and community protection measures are being taken, driven by the most up-to-date risk assessments by U.S. health authorities.  We continue all possible efforts to protect the welfare of U.S. citizens.  We encourage U.S. citizens considering international travel to continue to review State Department Travel Advisories at Travel.State.gov, and to closely monitor and follow the guidance of the CDC and local health authorities.

U.S. Department of State. 02/15/2020. Public-Private Cooperation to Combat the Novel Coronavirus. Morgan Ortagus, Department Spokesperson

Last week, thanks to a joint effort of federal and local authorities and private organizations and companies, 17.8 tons of personal protection equipment and medical supplies were delivered, and more than 800 people were evacuated from Wuhan, China, amidst the Novel Coronavirus outbreak.

A number of organizations, companies, and private entities donated life-saving aid and supplies. Project HOPE received and distributed 101 pallets of personal protection equipment and medical supplies provided by Samaritan’s Purse, Boeing, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Intermountain Healthcare. Mr. Kenneth Griffin made a generous monetary donation to support the Department’s efforts in responding to the Novel Coronavirus outbreak. The evacuation and delivery missions were safely completed thanks to the professional dedication of the staff of Phoenix Air Group, Inc. and Kalitta Air LLC.

The Department remains committed to partnering with organizations and companies to tackle this deadly virus and promote the welfare of U.S. citizens all around the world.



VENEZUELA



U.S. Department of State. 02/15/2020. The United States Condemns Detention of Interim President Guaido’s Family Member. Morgan Ortagus, Department Spokesperson

The United States strongly condemns the detention of Juan Jose Marquez, uncle of interim President Juan Guaido, and demands his immediate release. The preposterous charges that have been put forward further exemplify the increasing desperation of Maduro and his corrupt associates. Manufacturing evidence to justify arbitrary, politically-motivated detentions is a common tool of the illegitimate former Maduro regime. We have seen it used against Roberto Marrero, Juan Requesens, Gilber Caro, and Ismael Leon, who make up a small portion of the over 350 political prisoners in Venezuela today. Such deplorable acts only delay a resolution to the tragic crisis in Venezuela that Maduro and his collaborators insist on perpetuating.

Diosdado Cabello, head of the illegitimate Constitutional Assembly, claims Marquez had smuggled explosive material aboard the direct international flight from Portugal, after having gone through Lisbon airport’s strict security screening and protocols. The airline, TAP Air Portugal, affirmed publicly that it “is impossible to travel with explosives”.

These despicable actions by the former Maduro regime – detaining innocent civilians and inventing false charges – are sadly typical. Rather than abide by the rule of law, Maduro and his cronies follow mafia-style practices, intimidating the opposition by targeting their family members.

In 2019, there were 2,219 arbitrary arrests reported in Venezuela, and more than 15,000 were reported from 2014 to 2019. The United States condemns the thousands of killings, attacks, and arbitrary detentions that have taken place in Venezuela. We stand with the victims’ families in demanding justice and accountability.

We will hold Nicolas Maduro and those who surround him fully responsible for the safety and welfare of interim President Guaido’s family and all those who defend democracy in Venezuela.



INTERNATIONAL SECURITY



U.S. Department of State. 02/15/2020. The West Is Winning. Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State. Remarks at the Munich Security Conference. Munich, Germany

SECRETARY POMPEO: Well, good morning, everyone. It’s great to be with you all.

Foreign dignitaries, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, members of Congress, who are with us here today, it’s my honor to be here this morning. It’s great to be back at the Munich Security Conference. I was just talking with some of the leaders. I’ve been here many times. I came here with Senator McCain. I came here as the CIA director. I’m also not new to Munich. If you’re looking for a good bierhalle from the late ‘80s, I can find it. (Laughter.)

This is also the third trip to Germany in just the past four months. I was in Berlin in November to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was an incredibly special trip for me, for me personally, because I had the incredible privilege to serve on freedom’s frontier from 1986 to 1989 patrolling the then East German-West German boundary during the Cold War as a young officer in the United States Army. I was just a little younger, not that much.

It was thrilling for me, I remember, to watch when freedom won, to watch people dancing on the Berlin Wall, as we all saw people who had been so cruelly separated for decades. It was an incredible celebration of freedom and of sovereignty. The people of East Berlin, and the people of East Germany, knew that the end of the Evil Empire’s occupation was at hand.

And our countries together have maintained our freedoms and our sovereignty for the past 30-plus years now. We should all be incredibly proud of that. We’ve done it through the challenges of radical Islamist terrorism, we’ve done it through a global financial crisis, and we’re doing it now in the face of an increasingly aggressive Chinese Communist Party.

But over the past few years, I’ve seen, we’ve all seen, democratic leaders questioning America’s commitment to the transatlantic alliance and America’s leadership in the world.

A few recent quotes from Western leaders. These quotes frankly surprised me.

The first was from the middle of 2017: Quote, “The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course.” End of quote.

The second one is from about a year ago. It said, quote: “The multilateral order is experiencing its perhaps gravest crisis since the emergence – its emergence after the Second World War.” End of quote.

The final one was from just yesterday. A quote suggested, quote, that the United States “rejects the international community.” End of quote.

I’m here this morning to tell you the facts. Those statements simply do not affect in any significant way or reflect reality. I am happy to report that the death of the transatlantic alliance is grossly over-exaggerated.

The West is winning. We are collectively winning. We’re doing it together.

Let’s start with a simple fact: Free nations are simply more successful than any other model that’s been tried in the history of civilization. Our governments respect basic human rights, they foster economic prosperity, and they keep us all secure.

It’s why so many people risk a dangerous journey across the Mediterranean to reach Greece and Italy, but you don’t see the world’s vulnerable people risking their lives to skip illegally en masse to countries like Iran or to Cuba.

It’s why people clamor to study in Cambridge, and not Caracas.

It’s why they compete to start businesses in Silicon Valley, but not in Saint Petersburg.

It’s why countries in Asia went from abject poverty in the 1950s and ’60s to become world-leading economies today. You have all seen the map of the differences between South Korea, that light-studded map with North Korea in complete darkness.

Just look, too, just look at the winning westward path of other nations.

Vietnam has moved into our same direction since the 1980s.

I’ll head off from here to Africa. I’ll be in Ethiopia, a country working hard to reform its economy. It wants to be more like us.

Today, throughout the Western Hemisphere, we have only Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela as redoubts of authoritarianism.

Meanwhile, the United States is thriving. Our political system is free and enormously resilient. Our economy, too, is strong.

The overall unemployment rate is the lowest in more than half a century, economic growth tripping right along. The unemployment rate for women is at the lowest level in almost 70 years. Wages are rising for all income levels in the United States, including our blue-collar workers. This is the power of the Western idea.

I saw the topic for this weekend’s gathering, this idea of “Westlessness” as the core theme for this year’s conference. And I am sure, too, there are many of you who would call yourself here realists, but let me give you an idea of what’s real.

The West is winning. Freedom and democracy are winning. And by that, I don’t mean just geographical nations. The West doesn’t define a space or a piece of real state. It’s any nation – any nation that adopts a model of respect for individual freedom, free enterprise, national sovereignty. They’re part of this idea of the West.

I want to talk for a minute this morning about how sovereignty underpins our greatness collectively.

Look, we patrol our borders to keep our people safe, so that they can continue to worship, to work, and to make our countries great without disruption.

We honor the right of every nation to carry on their affairs as they choose, so long as they don’t try to interfere with our sovereignty or do harm to our friends.

Look, we urge other nations to protect human dignity, because we believe in unalienable rights.

We support independent nations. Our signature – our signature military project together is a defensive alliance.

We respect the rule of law and we honor intellectual property rights.

We don’t interfere in other nations’ elections.

As my 29-year-old son would say, “In the West, we just don’t roll that way.”

Respect for sovereignty of nations is a secret of and central to our success. The West is winning.

But now, more than 30 years since the fall of the wall, countries that don’t respect sovereignty still threaten us. Some nations still desire empire.

Let’s talk about territorial integrity, or rather, those nations that have contempt for it.

Russia has seized Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine and Georgia.

Iran’s missiles explode on Saudi oil facilities, and its proxy forces are present in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Yemen.

China. China encroaches on the exclusive economic zones of Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia. And on that point, China has had a border or maritime dispute with nearly every nation bordering it.

And let’s talk for a second about the other realm, cybersecurity. Huawei and other Chinese state-backed tech companies are Trojan horses for Chinese intelligence. Russia’s disinformation campaigns try to turn our citizens against one another. Iranian cyberattacks plague Middle East computer networks.

We’ve talked about physical security. We’ve talked about cybersecurity. Economic coercion is at play as well.

Russia demands fealty in Central Asia.

China demands silence on Taiwan and Hong Kong so that deals will keep flowing. It exacts pieces of national infrastructure as payment when countries can’t meet its onerous loan terms.

Let’s talk, too, about respect for other countries’ political structures.

Iran is stifling today, as we sit here, stifling young Iraqis and Lebanese who want nothing more than a clean and sovereign government.

China is increasingly trying to co-opt officials at the state and local level. Our FBI director, our Attorney General, and I have all spoken about this in just the last week. They’re trying to affect not only our federal level but our state and local officials as well. And this is happening all across Europe and, indeed, all across the world.

Look, this matters. This matters because assaults on sovereignty destabilize. Assaults on sovereignty impoverish. Assaults on sovereignty enslave. Assaults on sovereignty are, indeed, assaults on the very freedom that anchors the Western ideal.

But here’s the good news, and there’s a lot of it.

The United States has stared and will continue to stare these dangerous threats in the face, and we will not blink. We’re protecting our citizens. We’re protecting our freedoms. We’re protecting our sovereign right to choose how it is that we live.

The United States has worked diligently to deprive the Islamic Republic of Iran of diplomatic sanctuary and financial ability to fuel its campaigns of terror – both in the Middle East and right here in Europe.

The United States has woken up to the world where China’s unfair trading practices impact us, the Chinese Communist Party’s newly aggressive turn, and its military and diplomatic efforts that confront.

The United States has armed Ukraine to help that brave nation defend itself from the Russian aggression and has worked with Baltic nations on cybersecurity to defend against Moscow’s repeated cyberattacks.

And as a brand new statement today of our support for sovereignty, prosperity, and energy independence of our European friends, today I want to announce that through the International Development Finance Corporation, and with the support of our United States Congress, we intend to provide up to $1 billion in financing to Central and Eastern European countries of the Three Seas Initiative. Our aim is quite simple: It is to galvanize private sector investment in the energy sector to protect freedom and democracy around the world.

Now, I would ask you, as I go back to where I began: Are these actions, these American actions, are they consistent with the claim that America “has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership?”

Consider, too, what we’ve done alongside each of you, what we’ve done to support NATO in particular.

The United States has urged NATO on to $400 billion in new pledges. We did this because our nations are safer when we work together and when we field the strongest forces and capabilities.

The United States has, too – with our Allies – undertaken the most significant reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank since the Cold War.

The United States has restored credibility to arms control when we withdrew from the INF Treaty – with unanimous NATO support – after Russia repeatedly violated its terms.

These are just a few signature efforts of American leadership with our partners. We always work to bring allies and partners on board with everything that it is that we do.

We’re leading, for example, Defender Europe 20, an exercise alongside NATO Allies – the largest deployment of U.S.-based forces to Europe in more than 25 years.

The United States has marshalled nations to help us protect the waterways of the Straits of Hormuz and to defend freedom of navigation throughout the South China Sea.

The United States, too, has worked with international sanctions, global sanctions, to prevent North Korea from continuing to develop its nuclear weapons program, and we’ve worked to bring Pyongyang consistently back to the negotiating table.

We’ve led 81 nations in the global fight to defeat the ISIS caliphate. We took out al-Baghdadi. We took out the leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula just this past month.

Is this an America that “rejects the international community?”

And – I know of particular concern in this room – we’ve pursued the mission of protecting sovereignty in the multilateral context.

A few examples:

The United States has supported the Organization of American States in its efforts to revive institutions to go back to its mandate and improve its effectiveness.

We’re leading a 59-nation coalition to oust Maduro and honor the will of the Venezuelan people.

The United States is leading on the environment as well. The International Energy Agency’s latest global emissions report from just these past few weeks found that America’s energy-related CO2 emissions declined by 2.9 percent in 2019, in spite of significant economic growth.

The United States has convinced the C5+1 to bolster Central Asian nations’ sovereignty against Russian hegemony and Chinese economic pressure.

The United States, too, has warned the Arctic Council about Russian and Chinese designs to exploit the Arctic for unfair gain – something I know we care about collectively.

So let’s be straight-up.

The United States is out there fighting alongside you for sovereignty and freedom.

We should have confidence in our alliances and our friends.

The free West has a far brighter future than illiberal alternatives.

We’re winning – and we’re doing it together.

Momentum is clearly on our side. We’ve got to do more.

Don’t be fooled. Don’t be fooled by those who say otherwise.

When so-called Iranian moderates play the victim, remember their assassination and terror campaigns against innocent Iranian civilians and right here on European soil itself.

When Russia suggests that Nord Stream 2 is purely a commercial endeavor, don’t be fooled. Consider the deprivations caused in the winters of 2006 and 2008 and 2009 and 2015.

When Huawei executives show up at your door, they say you’ll lose out if you don’t buy in. Don’t believe the hype.

Look, I know it’s not without cost to be courageous, to stand up for our sovereignty. I get it.

But it’s never been the case that this was free.

Name me a moment in history when the weak and the meek have prevailed.

I’m confident. I’m confident in you all. I’m confident in us together. I’m confident that the West will win.

You know, just 15 days ago I was in Kyiv, Ukraine. I visited a hospital where Ukrainian service members who had been injured in the conflict, who had been wounded in the fight against Russian-backed aggression, were being convalesced. There was a young, brave warrior there – we had a conversation – who had sustained a serious injury and he was in significant pain. We spoke for a few moments. He, through the translator, told me that he was a captain. I reminded him that several decades ago I, too, was a captain.

And as we were getting ready to leave, he got up. He grabbed his crutches. He moved across the room and he went to his wall locker, grabbed his uniform, pulled off his patch, and he handed me his unit logo. He told me to keep it; he wanted me to have it.

That moment hit home for me. It reminded me that sovereignty is worth fighting for and that it’s real, that we’re all in this fight together.

Let’s keep at it. Let’s keep winning.

May God bless you all, and may God bless the free world and the United States of America.

Thank you all for being with me this morning. (Applause.)

U.S. Department of State. 02/15/2020. Background Briefing with Senior State Department Officials on the Munich Security Conference. Munich, Germany. Bayerischer Hof

MODERATOR: Okay, we’ll do this on background. This is the last one of the day. The Secretary speaks at 9:30. So I asked just to give an overview of the meetings he’s had – we’ve been in several of them together – what he feels like he’s accomplished. And I think – I know, Joel, you had a couple Europe questions yesterday which inspired this backgrounder.

So do you want to open with anything? And then we can just jump in.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, just to say I’ve been to a number of these Munich Security Conferences. This is the third one in a row, and then it was certainly used prior. It’s a useful forum, of course, for the kind of multilats, some would say diplomatic speed dating, that lets you deal with a lot of things, not just transatlantic European issues but really in a global context.

And of course, that’s what most of our conversations with the Europeans have been certainly in the bilats the Secretary has had here. You’re familiar with his schedule. And President Maas he’s in touch with regularly. They had a very good bilat yesterday that included Maas but as well as his advisors, Jens Ploetner, who has been to Tehran recently, so they were able to cover the big areas that they deal with.

A lot of interest in Afghanistan, of course, certainly where things are going with Iraq, the NATO look at what more can NATO do in the Middle East in terms of the Iraq mission and other things. That’s made a lot of progress. You probably saw the statements out of the defense ministerial, of course, prior to the Munich Security Conference.

And similar conversations with the Czechs and the Croatians – foreign ministers – with whom the Secretary met. The Croatians, of course, presidency of the European Council of this semester, the first time for them, and that actually the foreign minister started out by talking about the context of that and said who would have believed 30 years ago that we, Croatia, would be a member of NATO, a member of the European Union, and hold the presidency of the European Council, and thanked the United States for all our support in going through that.

Since we talk about Croatia, this brings us to Balkans, which has actually been a fairly robust topic here, and I’ve had a number of bilats and a couple more to go today. I saw President Vucic of Serbia, and then I saw Dukanovic of Montenegro, and I’ll see President Thaci of Kosovo and the new prime minister, Albin Kurti, of Kosovo later today.

We had a big roundtable last night that was put together by the Munich Security Conference and the East-West Center on Balkans, and it was remarkable to see just what the – the sort of stampede to get into it was, probably about eight heads of state or government, foreign ministers, as well as a big crowd. So still a lot of focus on the Balkans.

And it was interesting, again, just to personalize the context, they talked about Rambouillet, which, of course, was the French-sponsored peace conference that the Contact Group and Quint participated in to try to prevent the Kosovo war that ultimately ended up in a NATO air campaign. That was 21 years ago, also over Valentine’s Day, so I said I feel like my life has come full circle.

But the U.S. engagement there, despite some of the usual, “Oh, the U.S. has pulled out of engaging in multilateral fora,” it’s a great case study. Because I – before the position on what do you base that? We’re the only country that has major missions, assistance programs, military engagement if you look at KFOR, throughout the Western Balkans. We have not one but two special envoys, Special Presidential Envoy Ambassador Grenell, who is focusing on the Serbia-Kosovo peace, and the Secretary’s Special Representative for the Western Balkans Matt Palmer, who is engaging with his counterparts.

So why don’t I let you go to your questions and what you’re particularly focused on today.

MODERATOR: Joel.

QUESTION: Two. Starting with the French, Macron gave a speech last week where he mentioned that our norms cannot be controlled by the United States, to build the Europe of tomorrow our norms cannot controlled by the United States. Of course, he mentioned then also China and Russia.

But what are you seeing from him and what are you hearing around the conference about the French trying to lead Europe in some sort of different strategic direction perhaps post-(inaudible), (inaudible) post-Brexit? Is that causing any friction between the U.S. and France in terms of strategic cooperation?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t say France has come up in any of the bilateral meetings that I’ve participated in. So that’s a simple answer to that. This conference is also useful for some people to get headlines. That’s what they’re looking for. That’s what you’re looking for. I’m going to go to Paris from here and actually have a number of talks with the French and maybe understand what it is they’re trying to get out in statements like that.

(Interruption.)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That wasn’t me.

MODERATOR: Somebody note for the transcript. Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: On the Balkans issue, do you have a sense of timing for when these – the rail and road and rail links would resume? It still seems like – it seems like signing these agreements but relations between Serbia and Kosovo are obviously still extremely frosty and there’s been no timeline on when that would happen. It still seems like there are a lot of conditions that would need to be met for those links to actually open up. So do you have a sense of timing?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t want to offer any timelines. I don’t know if anybody has a real sense. Some of it has to do with the actual logistics and infrastructure questions to make things like that happen.

I think what’s key here and I know what Rick Grenell has focused on is getting the two sides together to talk about things that avoid the neuralgia, the history, that focus on the practical steps that can actually improve people’s lives, citizens in both Serbia and Kosovo through trade, through commerce, job creation, links. One of the things in the Balkans that’s always been a challenge is transport links, and you look at Serbia, which has tried to focus on their own infrastructure. You’ve got Bechtel, frankly, that happens to be a U.S. company that’s undertaking a major highway project there. They’ve done things in Kosovo. Now it’s just to connect those to facilitate trade and movement.

The Balkan – Western Balkan countries, as you know, have been talking about something they refer to as the “Mini Schengen,” which is to kind of open borders and facilitate movement among – in and among those countries, sort of doing the kinds of things that – among each other that they want to do with Europe as part of their European Union membership aspirations. So I think there’s some interesting steps there, and it’s actually great to see these guys sit down and focus on things where they don’t get caught up in the media arguments of history and the perils of identity politics. Instead, they’re looking at real things that matter to real people.

QUESTION: , I imagine that the Secretary will probably in his speech at least touch on Huawei and 5G, that kind of thing. But —

MODERATOR: No, we don’t.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No, actually, we don’t.

QUESTION: Oh, you don’t?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No.

MODERATOR: We’ll probably – oops.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I mean, he’s been talking about it for a year and a half, so —

QUESTION: Well, I know. All right.

MODERATOR: I’m sure he will —

QUESTION: Well, so I imagine the Secretary won’t mention 5G – (laughter) – but he has been harping on it ad nauseum on every trip that he’s been on recently. So I’m just curious —

MODERATOR: As did Speaker Pelosi yesterday.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t know if I’d say harping. I’d say issuing warnings to people we care about.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah. I mean, the theme —

QUESTION: Okay.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: All right, ask your question and then I can tell you (inaudible).

QUESTION: Has it come up in your conversations? And because of the British decision, obviously, that happened just before we were in London – when was that —

MODERATOR: Three weeks ago?

QUESTION: A month? And then the EU, the EC – the Germans seems to be going ahead with their kind of version of the British thing. What about the rest of Europe? And then is this coming up in your conversations?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: It certainly comes up a bit, and even in the Balkans where there is concern there amongst leaders and observers of the Western Balkans in the influence China can have, because we know they offer cheap money. And it’s enticing to countries that need investment and infrastructure, but it comes at a price, and the Secretary has underscored that. The perhaps most interesting conversation was with the Czech foreign minister, and the Czechs, as you know, have been very forward-leaning on this, hosting the 5G conference.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. This is yesterday?

MODERATOR: Yes. Last night.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Last evening.

MODERATOR: It was their last one. It was a very good conversation.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, it was the last – it was a very good conversation. He’s a really (inaudible).

QUESTION: So they are receptive to your – to the message?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Very much. And they understand the concerns. And if you just look into the facts of Prague-Beijing conversations recently, you’ll see the Chinese have responded to the Czechs’ focus, their concerns about IT infrastructure, about privacy issues, and what it means. And they’ve really stood up to this and taken a real leadership role, and I think they are scheduled – in fact, you mentioned a sort of round two of their conference that focuses on these things.

QUESTION: Okay. That was the only one that you were involved in that —

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think it’s come up in every meeting I’ve been in. Perhaps with the Germans —

MODERATOR: I think that the Secretary has brought it up in every single meeting I’ve been in with him that I can remember for the past six months, and I’m not being facetious.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, I’d agree.

MODERATOR: I almost can’t remember – , can you remember a meeting you’ve been in with him where he didn’t bring it up, even if it’s not a major topic, it’s a discussion point?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: As far as I can recall, in every meeting I’ve been in, at least in the past six months, if not longer.

MODERATOR: Okay. Abbie.

QUESTION: I know this isn’t your specialty, but I wondered if there were any (inaudible) if there was any discussion with European members of the JCPOA about the next steps in the dispute resolution mechanism and where that’s headed.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We certainly have talked Iran and the continuing challenges of their behavior. I don’t think any of the conversations I was in got into specifics of that. As I said, Ploetner, the German, kind of my – one of my German counterparts, had been in Tehran.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Just to say these things normally, when you come to one of these and there’s tons of bilats, you end up kind of talking about the same thing in a lot of the meetings. It’s been very – as a theme, China and Afghanistan, Iran, Middle East peace plan have been touched on in most of the meetings that we were in, but as sort of a – the broader themes of the discussion in the bilats have been China and Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Can you expand upon what concerns were expressed or support was expressed in Europe for what is happening with Afghanistan right now or working with the Taliban?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So a lot of great interest in that. Zal, of course, has been around and briefing as well. Kind of – certainly those in the coalition are very interested in how this goes, I think appreciated very much the chance to actually sit down with the Secretary and hear him go through where we are. And everybody joins in the uncertainty about all this, but certainly it’s a case study in where we’ve tried to use diplomacy to see where we can move things.

Military decisions are going to be taken on the basis of where we are, and I think everybody is restrained in their expectations. But that’s the – the magic of this is we keep trying to move forward and look for opportunities, really opportunities for the Afghans to come together, and hopefully that will be the next stage. We bring the violence down – this hope – and see what comes next.

QUESTION: Last night, warned that Europe is on the verge of another major refugee crisis as a result of what’s going on in Idlib and on the Turkish border. So I’m just wondering if you’ve had any conversations with the Europeans how they’re planning to manage that, especially given the political climate in Germany on that issue.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We haven’t gotten into any specifics of that. I think that always hangs over as one of the great concerns is and why we focus on and why our Europeans partners are interested in Syria, in Libya for that matter. A great deal of interest on the part of not just the Germans, I think of (inaudible) but certainly the Italians and others (inaudible). But it hasn’t come up in terms of actual logistics, dynamics, planning, and focused on (inaudible).

U.S. Department of State. 02/14/2020. USAID Administrator Mark Green. Munich, Germany. Bayerischer Hof

MS ORTAGUS: Okay. This is on the record, right? Yeah?

QUESTION: On the record. Yes.

MS ORTAGUS: Well, Mark has some opening remarks. He’ll start. All of you know him. And we can go into Q&A. He just spoke a few minutes ago. Right before he came here, he had a speaking event, and so he can highlight all of the good work he’s doing.

QUESTION: Can we record audio?

MS ORTAGUS: Yeah, it’s on the record. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS ORTAGUS: Do your thing.

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Yeah, and you just reminded me, so at the – I was at the CSU Transatlantic Forum, and we began by pointing out that it is Valentine’s Day, and we were talking about how relationships can become – what is it? – boring and needed to be constantly tended to. That said, I’ve been married 34 years, just in case it isn’t Chatham House rules. I’m not bored, I’m happy. (Laughter.)

But anyway, thanks – thanks to all of you. This is my third time here at the Munich Security Conference, first as administrator. Last year I was going to come and something called Venezuela pulled me aside. So what I will do here is I’ll have appearances like the CSU Transatlantic Forum, but also it’s a chance to meet with partners and potential partners.

As many of you know, what we’ve done at USAID the last couple of years is to really change the framework to our approach in foreign assistance, and we’re guided by the very simple principle that we believe the purpose of foreign assistance must be ending its need to exist. And we say that not as a matter of walking away from the partners. Instead what we want to do is where we have partners who are willing to do the difficult things that are necessary to get to self-reliance, we feel an obligation to walk with them along the way. And that really is the operating principle for us, what we call the journey to self-reliance.

This year in particular, as I look ahead, a lot of our work is going to be governance-oriented – citizen-responsive governance, citizen-centered governance – for a couple of reasons. Number one, I don’t believe that our investments are sustainable if you don’t have citizen-responsive governance in the countries where you’re working. But also, I believe it’s a key part of taking on some of the drivers of conflict and displacement that we all see around the world right now. And so that’s a lot of what I’ll be talking about while I’m here in Munich.

Inevitably, we will talk about the crises of the day, so that’s coronavirus, Ebola, the usual, all of you know very, very well. But as much as anything, I’m going to spend – try to spend a lot of my time talking about what our vision for assistance is and looking for ways to continue to partner with many who are here and use that to accelerate our work.

So —

MS ORTAGUS: Okay. Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: Thanks, Mark. Can you talk a little bit about the tension between, on the one hand, wanting to push countries to self-sufficiency but also the strategic competition with China and the sense that China is filling the vacuum, whether through loans and things like that but also through foreign assistance? It seems like those two goals in some ways are in conflict.

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Great question. First, to be very clear, my vision for the journey to self-reliance isn’t to push countries away at all. It’s instead based upon my long-held notions about human dignity and the innate desire of every human being, regardless of where they are and what their status in life is, their economic fortunes, to want to be able to guide their own future. I started off my career in development coincidentally thanks to the Nobel laureate Michael Kremer, who is an old friend of 30 years. He’s actually the guy that brought me to Kenya to be a teacher, and that’s how I got started in all this.

But I was struck in those days when I was living in a small village in Kenya. People were very poor and they had lots of health challenges, and yet everyone had that same burning desire to try to lead themselves. In the entire year I served as a teacher, not one person ever asked me for money. They might have asked for books; they might have asked for extra lessons; they might ask for assistance in those terms. And that really is my personal driver in the approach that we have is this trying to tap into that natural human dignity, innate desire, and build upon it.

The reason I don’t think it’s in conflict with how we see great power competition vis-a-vis China is China’s model is the opposite. We are for self-reliance; they offer in many respects subservience. We offer independence and try to bolster sovereignty, and they try to create dependence as much as they can, oftentimes putting – collateralizing strategic assets, and I would argue in many cases in the developing world robbing the emerging generation of young people of the birthright of their natural resources.

So I think the contrast is sharp and I think we sometimes don’t do a very good job of pushing that contrast out. That’s part of what I think one of my responsibilities is, is to make that clear.

MS ORTAGUS: Go ahead, John.

QUESTION: Hey, Mark. What’s the latest in trying to get the Houthis to lift restrictions on aid to Yemen, and the U.S. outlook on what the best step forward should be?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Our outlook is always one of being hopeful, but also tempered with realities. As you know, this is a longstanding problem and grievance. We are of an extraordinarily compassionate nature. We’re the largest donor of humanitarian assistance in the world. We want to help the longsuffering people of Yemen. The Houthis are putting up restrictions that make it difficult to do that, and that’s something that we refuse to stand still for. So we are working with our partners, our donor partners, including the UN family, to develop a unified response to this. But it obviously is entirely unacceptable for the Houthis to be blocking access to provide humanitarian relief to people who have suffered so much.

QUESTION: And do you get a sense that there might be a compromise in the coming on the Houthi side?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Well, I can just tell you, from my lane and the work that I do, we are not going to allow our assistance to be diverted. We’re not going to allow our assistance to be hindered. So that’s our point of view. In terms of what our diplomatic lead may be doing in communications, I’m just not part of that.

MODERATOR: Katie, did you have one?

QUESTION: Yes, please. Thank you for being here today. Can you please talk about how you tackle the issue of corruption and the government officials in these countries who are interested in money versus the citizens you’re trying to help become self-sustaining and how you kind of balance the two?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: It’s a great question. So a couple of ways. First off, a lifetime ago, when I as a member of Congress, I was one of the leading coauthors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which as you know is conditional assistance and has at its heart the corruption part – hurdle we call it. So we have sent an unmistakable signal that we have zero tolerance for corruption.

On the other side of that, something that’s really struck me over the last year in some of my travels – in some places where we work, we have countries that are fairly newly emerging from authoritarianism. I think we assume that transparency is the natural state of man and governance. Sadly, it is not always the case, especially countries emerging from communist rule. And so part of what we’re looking to do is to develop tools to help especially a young generation going into government service and dealing with government on how to govern transparently, giving them the tools and teaching them how you do citizen responsiveness.

I often tell people that one of the most impressive things I ever saw back from my days at the International Republican Institute – we were training women mayors in Central America basic tools, things like a town hall. And I attended a town hall where a very impressive new woman mayor brought road equipment with her to the town hall and when someone said, “I have a pothole,” she turned to someone and clicked her finger, and the guy took off and fixed it during the town hall meeting, to which I said, “Boy, could I use her.” But we have to teach that in some cases and we have to provide some tools.

Good news is there are simple, frugal technologies available thanks to smartphones – not even smartphones, dumb phones in some cases – that should make transparency easier than ever. Our job is to utilize those tools in innovative ways to ensure that that transparency takes place.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on that, is the influence of China and the amount of money that they bring creating a larger challenge for that mission?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Very much so. Sure it is. Sure it is. Again, it’s on us to show the difference and the contrast. I will say, sadly, there are economic disasters out there that are making the case for us, when all of a sudden countries realize the burden of their indebtedness to China. And now that’s something – it’s no longer the U.S. simply preaching. There are now very obvious case studies about the disaster that took place there.

So the first question in part was about the contrast with China. So China doesn’t want transparency. It can’t have transparency. In most cases, our approach in the great power competition is to going to governments and saying look, disclose everything. You can disclose every term of every piece of assistance we do; you can disclose the projects and the programs. We simply ask that China do the same thing, and of course they will not.

MODERATOR: Matt, go ahead.

QUESTION: Two things. One very specifically on Venezuela, are you aware of allegations that the – at least some of the aid that was sent down to – what’s the name of that border town?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Cucuta?

QUESTION: That that was mishandled somehow? And if you are aware of those allegations, what do you make of them? And then I have a broader question, but —

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: So what I can tell you is, as you put out when Juan Guaido visited us last week?

MODERATOR: Last week, yes.

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: It’s a bit of a blur. It’s misinformation. It’s not true.

QUESTION: Okay. So –

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: No diversion of USAID money.

QUESTION: But you’re aware – you are aware that —

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: No division of USAID money.

QUESTION: I understand. So but you – what’s the intent? Do you have any idea? Why are they – why are the people who are behind this trying —

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Oh, people will do anything they can to muddy up the U.S. involvement, leadership, and Juan Guaido. I don’t think —

QUESTION: Did you – was this addressed at the time of his visit?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: I can’t tell you about meetings that occurred prior to my meeting with him. What I can tell you is we look at this all the time, all the time. And we are constantly, everywhere in the world, assessing and reassessing to make sure that there’s no diversion. We use things like third-party verification, biometrics, everything we know how to do.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the broader question is I – people – most people I think are fairly sympathetic to your vision for foreign assistance, which is you want to make it unnecessary. But that doesn’t exactly seem to be this administration’s approach. The approach of the President, the White House, the OMB, others is not let’s get – let’s make it unnecessary so we don’t have to spend it. It’s just like let’s get rid of it completely, and there is no qualifier there.

And the reductions or proposed reductions that have been made over the course of the last three years don’t have any nuance here. It’s not like oh, we want to help country X become self-sufficient because – so that they don’t need our assistance. It’s more like you know what, country X isn’t doing what we want it to do, so like with the Northern Triangle. So they’ve essentially withdrawn it.

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Obviously, I can’t speak to other forms of assistance, military assistance or any of that. What I can tell you is the approach that we take, our framework, and you can see country by country what we’re doing. In many cases our expanded work – to be very clear, when we talk about ending the need for foreign assistance, we recognize that every country is in a different place on their journey. Some countries are close and other countries not so close.

And so what we do is country by country, we have – and they’re on our website – we publish road maps. We have 17 objective third-party metrics that measure a country’s capacity in key sectors as well as their commitment in key sectors. And it’s not perfect. My brothers and sisters in Congress sometimes have extra directives that they give to us, but as a general matter, we try to prioritize our investments according to those metrics. And we use those metrics working – and it’s – usually, we try to have State as the lead. The chief of mission in a country will sit down with as high up the governing chain as they can go and have a conversation about the metrics and say, “Look, how can we tackle these things together?”

We have countries that are – obviously, the great story is we want every country to go from being a recipient to a partner to a fellow donor – the South Korea story. We have exciting projects at hand with countries like India. India, when USAID began, we would ship sacks of food to them. If we shipped sacks of food to them now, they would shrug their shoulders and say, “What are we supposed to do with this?”

Together, we’re catalyzing investments and innovative technology. We’re using innovative finance methods like development impact bonds. And India is joining with us in places like Afghanistan. They’re now the fifth largest donor to Afghanistan and helping to train young Afghan women on how to start and run small businesses. We would like every country – and we believe every country already wants to be on that journey, and we try to tailor our approach country by country.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay, but I —

MS ORTAGUS: Okay. All right. Thanks. Go ahead, Courtney.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS ORTAGUS: That’s two in a row, Matt. Give your colleagues a chance.

QUESTION: Somewhat related to some of the previous questions, I’m curious how your interlocutors, both in donor and receiving countries, are responding to this approach that you’re outlining with foreign assistance. I mean, do they think that you – that the U.S. Government has the credibility, and are they going along with this message?

And then relatedly, on the China question, are you concerned that even if countries that see the long-term risks of accepting of debt financing that perhaps individual leaders are more interested in their own short-term benefit?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: So let me answer the second part of that first. Yes, I am worried about the consequences of Chinese investment in some places – the indebtedness, the securitization of assets and resources, but also the diversion from, quite frankly, what people need and want in everyday citizens. Yes, that is a concern.

To the first part of your question, when I first arrived at the agency about two and a half years ago and sort of laid out what my personal vision is for assistance, this notion of ending the need for foreign assistance, what was amazing to me was some people in Washington saying, “Well, that’s kind of a harsh message.” That actually isn’t in our partner countries. Every country that I have ever traveled to or worked in, they all want so. Everyone wants naturally to lead their own future. I think it is part of the American character to help them as we can.

And it’s not always about money. For example, the country of Albania, we’re working with them. When I met with the prime minister in Albania some weeks ago now, he was very frank. He said, “Love everything you guys have done for us. Some of those old programs we actually don’t need anymore. What we need is technical assistance on corruption and transparency.” So in that case, it really isn’t about the money. It’s providing some technical expertise. What we want to do is tailor our approach country by country to try to help people achieve their aspirations.

I have this notion that one of the greatest things America can do in being a force for good in the world is to help countries reach out and rise. That’s what brought my parents to America, and I mean, that’s what we believe in. I think that’s a shared vision.

MS ORTAGUS: You have a three o’clock, so we’ll give Cindy the last question. I’m sorry. We’ll give you two in the next time.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS ORTAGUS: You can just bump him out by taking your question.

QUESTION: Hey, what’s all this abuse? (Laughter.)

MS ORTAGUS: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Are you concerned about —

MS ORTAGUS: I’m sorry.

QUESTION: — African countries’ in particular ability to cope with the coronavirus? Is that high on their radar right now or not so much? And are they taking precautionary measures?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: So last week, I attended the Africa dinner, which was the night before the prayer breakfast, and met with a number of African leaders. And there is naturally concern. And I mean, we’re all concerned, obviously, right? What I will say and something that I am very proud of on the part of the agency are the investments made over the years, long before I came along, that have helped countries to build their capacity to detect infectious diseases like this.

So one of the least covered success stories of the last year comes from the Ebola outbreak. So we have the Ebola outbreak in DRC, Ebola crosses over; there’s a case detected in Uganda. Potentially catastrophic, right? The investments that have been made, the technical assistance and equipment provided in Uganda, enabled them quickly to do the testing, the contact tracing, the immediate isolation, and that’s about as good a story – it’s obviously a tragedy for the victim involved, but it worked.

And those are the investments that we’ve made in a number of places. Not everywhere, clearly, but I think that we’ve seen a number of countries that are so much better off and so much better equipped to deal with the challenge of coronavirus and other infectious diseases, and I think it would have been – it beared watching. Obviously, we all know that and we know there is a lot we don’t know, but nonetheless, those investments that have been made, bipartisan over the years, multiple administrations – people should be proud of that. That’s a good news story.

MS ORTAGUS: Pooja says that, Abbie, he has time for one more.

QUESTION: Oh, (inaudible).

QUESTION: I had the same question on (inaudible).

MS ORTAGUS: Oh, so you’re good. Okay.

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Sure.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) part of that, if I could. The budget that put forward suggests making cuts to a lot of global health programs, and clearly, in this time when you’re looking at coronavirus and you’re looking at kind of dealing with that, doesn’t that create a challenge in situations like this?

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Well, as we go through the budget process over the course of the coming – I’d love to say a couple of months, much more likely to be longer than that – I’ll testify, we’ll testify, and we’ll obviously work with Congress as well as other parts of the administration to make sure that the resources are there.

I will say we should remember that we don’t live year to year, so there are resources that we have. So, for example, the money that the Secretary has pledged on coronavirus of 100 million, those are existing funds, so there are resources there. It’s not down to zero and it requires a new appropriation for there to be any money. But we will do our very best to report to everybody involved what we see as needs and what we see in capacities.

MS ORTAGUS: Thanks, Mark.

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Appreciate it.

ADMINISTRATOR GREEN: Thanks to all of you.



_________________



ECONOMIA BRASILEIRA / BRAZIL ECONOMICS



INFLAÇÃO



FGV. IBRE. 17/02/20. Índices Gerais de Preços. IPC-S. Inflação pelo IPC-S recua com destaque para contribuição do grupo Educação, Leitura e Recreação

O IPC-S de 15 de fevereiro de 2020 variou 0,36%, ficando 0,15 ponto percentual (p.p) abaixo da taxa registrada na última divulgação.

Nesta apuração, seis das oito classes de despesa componentes do índice registraram decréscimo em suas taxas de variação. A maior contribuição partiu do grupo Educação, Leitura e Recreação (2,28% para 1,63%). Nesta classe de despesa, cabe mencionar o comportamento do item cursos formais, cuja taxa passou de 3,57% para 2,15%.

Também registraram decréscimo em suas taxas de variação os grupos: Habitação (0,22% para -0,02%), Transportes (0,49% para 0,32%), Alimentação (0,53% para 0,39%), Comunicação (0,11% para 0,08%) e Saúde e Cuidados Pessoais (0,39% para 0,37%). Nestas classes de despesa, vale destacar o comportamento dos itens: tarifa de eletricidade residencial (0,21% para -0,72%), gasolina (0,62% para -0,21%), frutas (2,91% para 2,03%), mensalidade para tv por assinatura (0,66% para 0,39%) e medicamentos em geral (0,16% para 0,03%).

Em contrapartida, os grupos Vestuário (-0,61% para -0,17%) e Despesas Diversas (0,19% para 0,30%) apresentaram avanço em suas taxas de variação. Nestas classes de despesa, vale citar os itens: roupas (-0,85% para -0,26%) e tarifa postal (0,00% para 6,91%).

DOCUMENTO: https://portalibre.fgv.br/navegacao-superior/noticias/inflacao-pelo-ipc-s-recua-com-destaque-para-contribuicao-do-grupo-educacao-leitura-e-recreacao.htm



COMÉRCIO VAREJISTA



ICVA. REUTERS. 17 DE FEVEREIRO DE 2020. Vendas no varejo brasileiro crescem 3,1% em janeiro, diz ICVA

(Reuters) - As vendas no varejo brasileiro cresceram 3,1% em janeiro, descontada a inflação, em comparação com o mesmo mês do ano passado, de acordo com o Índice Cielo do Varejo Ampliado (ICVA), que acompanha mensalmente o desempenho de 1,6 milhão de varejistas credenciados à companhia de meios de pagamentos.

Tal performance representa uma aceleração em relação a dezembro, quando houve alta de 2,6% na comparação ano a ano, mas ficou abaixo do resultado de janeiro de 2019, quando registrou acréscimo anual de 3,5%.

“Os últimos meses de 2019 foram marcados por oscilações: houve aceleração em novembro provocada pela Black Friday e uma desaceleração no Natal. Com isso, o ritmo de crescimento em janeiro ficou bem parecido com o de dezembro”, destacou o diretor de Inteligência da Cielo, Gabriel Mariotto.

Em termos nominais, que espelham a receita de vendas observadas pelo varejista, o ICVA subiu 6,9% no mês passado, ante 6,1% em dezembro e 6,8% em janeiro de 2019. A Cielo atribuiu o comportamento do índice a efeitos de calendário que beneficiaram o resultado de janeiro deste ano.

Por Paula Arend Laier




GOVERNO



FGV. IBRE. 17/02/2020. Reforma Administrativa e os impactos no servidor público


O governo retomou a Reforma Administrativa, que racionaliza a vida do servidor público. No entanto, o grande problema do país não é a quantidade de servidores, que é semelhante aos padrões internacionais. O gargalo é a desigualdade no setor público, onde há carreiras de elite, nas quais esses servidores ganham muito e possuem grandes benefícios; e, por outro lado, existem as carreiras proletárias dos servidores públicos, principalmente na educação e saúde, a maioria nos municípios, com baixos salários.

VÍDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV21c33AgeA



ENERGIA



ANP. 14 de Fevereiro de 2020. Assinados contratos da 16ª Rodada e 1º Ciclo da Oferta Permanente

A ANP realizou hoje (14/02) a assinatura de contratos resultantes das rodadas ocorridas em 2019 que ofertaram blocos no regime de concessão.

O ministro de Minas e Energia, Bento Albuquerque, fez a abertura da cerimônia. Ele falou sobre a importância das rodadas de licitações para o país. "O sucesso das Rodadas não se mede somente pelos bônus arrecadados, decorre também dos investimentos que serão aplicados nas áreas arrematadas, estimados em R$ 1,5 bilhão apenas na primeira fase dos contratos. Com as demais rodadas realizadas em 2019 espera-se atração de R$ 400 bilhões ao longo dos contratos, além das expressivas participações governamentais pela produção dos campos que acreditamos que serão descobertos e desenvolvidos", afirmou o ministro.

Já o diretor-geral da ANP, Décio Oddone, apontou a mudança de perfil das rodadas. “Esta cerimônia é mais um passo que formaliza o fim do ciclo dos grandes leilões de petróleo. As grandes áreas conhecidas do pré-sal, que permitem bônus de assinatura elevados, já foram oferecidas. Vamos cada vez mais voltar nossos leilões para a exploração convencional. Por isso, o futuro é a Oferta Permanente. Vamos incluir a possibilidade de as empresas indicarem as áreas a serem oferecidas. Também é fundamental inserirmos áreas no polígono do pré-sal, ainda que no regime de partilha, pois hoje, se não for uma grande relevante, não é oferecida. É importante darmos oportunidade para que empresas que estão adquirindo plataformas antigas da Petrobras revisitem as áreas no seu entorno e aproveitem pequenas e médias descobertas que não eram viáveis antes. Por isso, espero que a Oferta Permanente seja o futuro dos leilões todos e que assim, neste ambiente transição energética e de maior competição por recursos entre diferentes países, possamos aumentar a nossa atratividade”. declarou.

1º Ciclo da Oferta Permanente

O 1º Ciclo da Oferta Permanente teve sua sessão pública realizada em 10/09/2019. Foram arrematados 33 blocos com risco exploratório e 12 áreas com acumulações marginais por 18 licitantes vencedoras. A rodada arrecadou R$ 22,3 milhões em bônus de assinatura e irá gerar investimentos exploratórios mínimos da ordem de R$ 320 milhões.

Nesta sexta-feira, foram assinados 22 dos 45 contratos, por 11 empresas. Os demais têm previsão de assinatura até 10 de maio de 2020.

Blocos  áreasBaciaBloco/ÁreaEmpresas signatárias
BlocosSergipe-Alagoas (mar)SEAL-M-575ExxonMobil Exploração Brasil Ltda.
Enauta Energia S.A.
Murphy Brasil Exploração e Produção de Petróleo e Gás Ltda.
SEAL-M-505
SEAL-M-637
Parnaíba (mar)PN-T-66Eneva S.A.
PN-T-47
PN-T-68
PN-T-102A
PN-T-67A
PN-T-48A
Potiguar (terra)POT-T-834Geopark Brasil Exploração e Produção de Petróleo e Gás Ltda.
Recôncavo (terra)REC-T-67
REC-T-77
REC-T-58
Potiguar (terra)POT-T-740Imetame Energia Ltda.
ÁreasEspírito Santo (terra)Lagoa Parda Sul
SaíraPetromais Global Exploração e Produção S.A.
Eagle Exploração de Óleo e Gás Ltda.
Mosquito
Recôncavo (terra)Fazenda Gameleira
Potiguar (terra)Tiziu
Recôncavo (terra)CamaçariCreative Energy Serviços e Exploração Ltda.
Rio Joanes
Sergipe-Alagoas (terra)PiaçabuçuPerícia Engenharia e Construção Ltda.
Andorinha Petróleo Ltda.

A Oferta Permanente é uma modalidade de licitação em que são oferecidos permanentemente blocos em terra, blocos marítimos devolvidos à ANP ou oferecidos e não arrematados em rodadas anteriores, bem como campos devolvidos ou em processo de devolução à ANP.

O primeiro ciclo da Oferta Permanente trouxe a consolidação de um novo modelo de licitação, que oferece, permanentemente, um portfólio de blocos e áreas com acumulações marginais para exploração e produção de petróleo e gás natural. Dessa forma, as empresas, especialmente as que ainda não atuam no Brasil, têm a oportunidade de estudar essas áreas sem a limitação de tempo que as rodadas tradicionais proporcionam.

16ª Rodada de Licitações

A 16ª Rodada de Licitações, ocorrida em 10/10/2019, teve 12 blocos (dos 36 oferecidos) arrematados por dez empresas. Foram arrecadados R$ 8,9 bilhões em bônus de assinatura, valor recorde entre as rodadas no regime de concessão já realizadas no Brasil. São também previstos investimentos exploratórios mínimos da ordem de R$ 1,6 bilhões.

Todos os 12 blocos arrematados tiveram seus contratos assinados hoje:

BaciaBlocoEmpresas signatárias
CamposC-M-541Total E&P do Brasil Ltda.
QPI Brasil Petróleo Ltda.
Petronas Petróleo Brasil Ltda.
C-M-661Petronas Petróleo Brasil Ltda.
C-M-715
C-M-477Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.
BP Energy do Brasil Ltda.
SantosS-M-1500BP Energy do Brasil Ltda.
CamposC-M-659Shell Brasil Petróleo Ltda.
Chevron Brasil Óleo e Gás Ltda.
QPI Brasil Petróleo Ltda.
C-M-713
C-M-825Repsol Exploração Brasil Ltda.
Chevron Brasil Óleo e Gás Ltda.
C-M-845Chevron Brasil Óleo e Gás Ltda.
Repsol Exploração Brasil Ltda.
Wintershall DEA do Brasil E&P Ltda.
SantosS-M-766
CamposC-M-795Repsol Exploração Brasil Ltda.
C-M-479ExxonMobil Exploração Brasil Ltda.

DOCUMENTO: http://www.anp.gov.br/noticias/5622-assinados-contratos-da-16-rodada-e-1-ciclo-da-oferta-permanente


_________________

LGCJ.: