Example collocations logo

Multilateral in sentence

1507 examples of Multilateral in a sentence

China has also benefited greatly from multilateral economic institutions like the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
Even within multilateral forums, the relationship between Russia and China is far from balanced.
Among the major multilateral institutions, the WTO maintains jurisdiction over trade.
Within member governments, relations with the WTO are usually the responsibility of the trade or foreign ministry, while multilateral financial institutions, including the regional development banks, are generally the responsibility of the finance ministry.
Rather, WTO trade agreements could establish effective links with multilateral and regional development banks, thereby helping to realize the principle of closer international coordination set out in the Marrakesh Agreement.
So far, US and East Asian leaders have done little beyond offering rhetorical support for the creation of multilateral security institutions.
The updated principles would maintain strategic communication and healthy bilateral relations; harness each other’s strengths and expand cooperation in infrastructure, investment, and other areas; deepen cultural ties and increase mutual understanding and friendship; expand coordination and collaboration in multilateral affairs to safeguard developing countries’ legitimate interests and address global challenges; and accommodate each other’s core concerns and reconcile bilateral disagreements amicably.
The US remains stuck in the time-worn mindset of a deficit saver with massive multilateral trade deficits and the need to draw freely on global surplus saving to support economic growth.
Thus, the US has virtually pulled out of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, with Obama acquiescing to greedy business lobbies that will not settle unless more of their demands are met.
But not only has Obama abandoned Doha; he has also seriously endangered the multilateral trading system by diverting US efforts and resources to discriminatory bilateral trade deals and, most recently, to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will principally aid countries that are worried about an aggressive China and seek political security rather than increased trade.
The result is a multilateral trade deficit, with China and 101 other countries, required to provide the foreign capital needed for the balance of payments.
But Trump has not just struck a blow against open multilateral trade.
They will lead to severe costs for the US economy and the rules-based multilateral trade system, and to the loss of US credibility long after he is gone.
The IMF can cut off not only its own credit, but also most loans from the larger World Bank, other multilateral lenders, rich country governments, and even much of the private sector.
The world has for years called for a multilateral approach from Washington.
Finally, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, and other multilateral institutions should provide generous lender-of-last-resort support in order to prevent a severe deflationary recession in countries that need private and public deleveraging.
China must remain committed to resuscitating the stalled Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, and support a global agreement on investment flows.
The regional and multilateral dimensions are similarly inadequate.
Parliaments and multilateral institutions must do a better job at facilitating cooperative policy implementation, which will require a willingness to reform outmoded institutions, including political lobbying.
By bringing about its demise, the Trump administration could severely undermine future multilateral initiatives.
Although US politicians focus on the bilateral trade deficit with China – which is persistently large – what matters is the multilateral balance.
When demands for China to adjust its exchange rate began during George W. Bush’s administration, its multilateral trade surplus was small.
More recently, however, China has been running a large multilateral surplus as well.
Saudi Arabia also has a bilateral and multilateral surplus: Americans want its oil, and Saudis want fewer US products.
Even in absolute value, Saudi Arabia’s multilateral merchandise surplus of $212 billion in 2008 dwarfs China’s $175 billion surplus; as a percentage of GDP, Saudi Arabia’s current-account surplus, at 11.5% of GDP, is more than twice that of China.
America’s multilateral trade deficit will not be significantly narrowed until America saves significantly more; while the Great Recession induced higher household savings (which were near zero), this has been more than offset by the increased government deficits.
Since China’s multilateral surplus is the economic issue and many countries are concerned about it, the US should seek a multilateral, rules-based solution.
Imposing unilateral duties after unilaterally labeling China a “currency manipulator” would undermine the multilateral system, with little payoff.
The problem was that central banks, finance ministries, and multilateral organizations like the International Monetary Fund – the pillars of the global economy’s institutional framework – failed to grasp globalization’s emerging characteristics and effects, owing partly to the difficulty of discerning structural shifts in the huge mass of data now available.
In this sense, the crisis should have served as a wake-up call, spurring the financial sector, policymakers, and multilateral organizations to take action to enhance systemic stability.
BackNext