Policy

Fearing crypto and China, the US hesitates to pull Russia’s SWIFT access

The U.S. is hesitant to block Russia from SWIFT, in part because doing so could push the global economy away from the U.S. dollar.

Woman holding "Sanctions On!" sign

Why are sanctions against Russian banks still on the table, while cutting off SWIFT access has been deemed a step too far?

Photo: Sergei Supinsky /AFP via Getty Images

Following Russia’s movement of troops into two separatist regions of eastern Ukraine, the U.S. and its Western allies are poised to begin rolling out a sanctions package unlike any other in terms of the scope of targeted trade and the size of the sanctioned economy.

“We in Germany are prepared to pay a high price economically — that’s why everything is on the table,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Friday.

“These are some of the greatest sanctions, if not the strongest that we’ve ever issued,” Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend. “It is directed at institutions — in particular, financial institutions — and individuals, and it will exact absolute harm for the Russian economy.”

Yet for all the aggressive posturing, the U.S. coalition has seemingly backtracked on SWIFT, deciding not to block Russian access to the international payments communication system. Pundits have come to refer to SWIFT sanctions as “the nuclear option.” But some policy experts say this characterization is wildly overstated, arguing instead that SWIFT sanctions wouldn’t be nearly as effective as those directly targeting Russian banks.

So why are sanctions against Russian banks still on the table, while cutting off SWIFT access has been deemed a step too far? There’s a simple answer: Removing Russian access would constitute an economic shock that U.S. politicians and corporations would rather not instigate.

There’s a more complicated and consequential explanation, however, that has to do with anxiety over the U.S. dollar’s status as global reserve currency. SWIFT sanctions, rather than being a “nuclear option” thwarting Russia, could be the first domino in a sequence of events that bolster China- and Russia-backed alternative digital payment systems. Such sanctions might also, in the long run, steer emerging markets toward blockchain-based systems that would reduce global reliance on the U.S.-centric international monetary system. Altogether, SWIFT sanctions could very well incite the dedollarization of the world economy.

Over 11,000 financial institutions spread across more than 200 countries use SWIFT to communicate payments and securities transfers. The system was launched in 1977 by a coalition of banks and headquartered in Belgium, likely in part to convey the “strict neutrality” that SWIFT purports to uphold.

But the vast majority of SWIFT transactions are settled in U.S. dollars, which helps solidify the currency’s status as the global reserve currency. This gives the U.S. tremendous influence over the world economy, allowing the federal government to borrow at discounted rates, rack up national debt that now exceeds $30 trillion and exert influence over foreign nations through punitive monetary policy. Despite the supposed neutrality of SWIFT, the U.S. wielded its influence to boot Iran from the service twice. In both cases, the sanctions had the intended consequence of hamstringing the Iranian economy by limiting international trade.

“I think most experts would say that impactful measures were the direct secondary sanctions on Iranian banks, and SWIFT was the cherry on top,” Chris Miller, an assistant professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, told Protocol.

But even U.S. allies have an uneasy relationship with SWIFT: They know their banks rely on it, but would prefer to turn toward less U.S.-centric alternatives. For instance, in a 2018 speech explaining why Europe needed a home-grown version of SWIFT, German Foreign Affairs Minister Heiko Maas said, “We must increase Europe's autonomy and sovereignty in trade, economic and financial policies.” At the time, European nations were seeking a means of conducting transactions with Iranian financial institutions in the aftermath of the abandoned nuclear deal.

For Russia and China, the need to develop SWIFT alternatives is more pressing.

Even if the U.S. chooses not to block Russia from SWIFT this time around, the threat can certainly still be used as leverage in future standoffs. Russia can look toward the example of Iran to see that oil exports would likely take a serious hit if SWIFT access were cut off. Losing access would reduce Russia’s GDP by 5%, according to estimates from the Carnegie Moscow Center. Some Russian parliamentarians have said SWIFT sanctions would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

As for China, its economy is too large and too important to reasonably be booted from SWIFT. But if China ever wants to seriously challenge the U.S. as the global hegemonic power, it will need to develop a viable alternative to SWIFT that helps wean the global financial system off the U.S. dollar. China has so far struggled to promote CNY on SWIFT, as the currency only accounts for around 2% of settlements.

Here’s the catch: Plenty of SWIFT alternatives already exist. The EU, Russia and China have each created their own systems. There are also emergent blockchain-based alternatives such as Ripple, which aim to usurp SWIFT through technological prowess rather than political influence.

The difficult part isn’t creating a new system, but gaining enough adoption such that the network becomes useful to member banks. For instance, Russia’s alternative system, SPFS, has only gained traction within the country; even then, only 20% of domestic bank settlements used it as of 2020. Only one Chinese bank belongs to SPFS. By contrast, China’s SWIFT alternative, the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, managed to attract 613 indirect participating banks from overseas in 2021. While it may seem CIPS is better positioned to challenge SWIFT, it still has a long way to go, as it stands at around 0.3% the size of SWIFT.

The U.S. therefore risks pushing its luck too far by kicking Russia off of SWIFT, which could then incite a coalition of disgruntled nations to actually adopt alternatives. Russia and China have already offered to help the EU improve its INSTEX system, which is currently limited to facilitating humanitarian trade payments permitted by U.S. sanctions. El Salvador’s bitcoin experiment might also look more attractive within the context of a decentralized blockchain-based international payments system, should that become the more prominent SWIFT alternative. Fintech companies such as Plaid have suggested that blockchain technologies could become a faster, cheaper alternative to SWIFT.

In the long term, U.S. policy around SWIFT should, in theory, be guided by the perceived threat of dedollarization. The problem is that no one can agree on the threat level.

“The plumbing is being built and tested to work around the United States,” former U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew told the Atlantic Council in 2019. “Over time, as those tools are perfected, if the United States stays on a path where it is seen as going it alone … there will increasingly be alternatives that will chip away at the centrality of the United States.”

Since Lew made his remarks three years ago, inflation has risen to near-record highs. Foreign nations that invest in U.S. treasuries will therefore get a weaker dollar back over time. The fact that Russia controls so much energy also means that an escalation in the conflict would only drive inflation higher, making the dollar less attractive.

But others don’t see an imminent risk of dedollarization. “There [are] basically no data points — other than politicians’ statements in Iran, China and Russia — that suggest dedollarization is happening,” Miller told Protocol. “As U.S. sanctions on Iran and Russia have intensified over the past decade, the role of the dollar increased. So I understand that people can make the claim that that’s going to change in the future, but the evidence in the past decade is decisively that that’s not happening.”

What happens next depends on the situation on the ground in Russia and Ukraine. The Biden administration is still weighing what sanctions to impose to deter Russia’s move westward, as Congress remains conflicted. The president is expected to deliver public remarks on the matter on Tuesday afternoon.

Policy

Musk’s texts reveal what tech’s most powerful people really want

From Jack Dorsey to Joe Rogan, Musk’s texts are chock-full of überpowerful people, bending a knee to Twitter’s once and (still maybe?) future king.

“Maybe Oprah would be interested in joining the Twitter board if my bid succeeds,” one text reads.

Photo illustration: Patrick Pleul/picture alliance via Getty Images; Protocol

Elon Musk’s text inbox is a rarefied space. It’s a place where tech’s wealthiest casually commit to spending billions of dollars with little more than a thumbs-up emoji and trade tips on how to rewrite the rules for how hundreds of millions of people around the world communicate.

Now, Musk’s ongoing legal battle with Twitter is giving the rest of us a fleeting glimpse into that world. The collection of Musk’s private texts that was made public this week is chock-full of tech power brokers. While the messages are meant to reveal something about Musk’s motivations — and they do — they also say a lot about how things get done and deals get made among some of the most powerful people in the world.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Fintech

Circle’s CEO: This is not the time to ‘go crazy’

Jeremy Allaire is leading the stablecoin powerhouse in a time of heightened regulation.

“It’s a complex environment. So every CEO and every board has to be a little bit cautious, because there’s a lot of uncertainty,” Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire told Protocol at Converge22.

Photo: Circle

Sitting solo on a San Francisco stage, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire asked tennis superstar Serena Williams what it’s like to face “unrelenting skepticism.”

“What do you do when someone says you can’t do this?” Allaire asked the athlete turned VC, who was beaming into Circle’s Converge22 convention by video.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Enterprise

Is Salesforce still a growth company? Investors are skeptical

Salesforce is betting that customer data platform Genie and new Slack features can push the company to $50 billion in revenue by 2026. But investors are skeptical about the company’s ability to deliver.

Photo: Marlena Sloss/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Salesforce has long been enterprise tech’s golden child. The company said everything customers wanted to hear and did everything investors wanted to see: It produced robust, consistent growth from groundbreaking products combined with an aggressive M&A strategy and a cherished culture, all operating under the helm of a bombastic, but respected, CEO and team of well-coiffed executives.

Dreamforce is the embodiment of that success. Every year, alongside frustrating San Francisco residents, the over-the-top celebration serves as a battle cry to the enterprise software industry, reminding everyone that Marc Benioff’s mighty fiefdom is poised to expand even deeper into your corporate IT stack.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a writer-at-large at Protocol. He previously covered enterprise software for Protocol, Bloomberg and Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JoeWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Policy

The US and EU are splitting on tech policy. That’s putting the web at risk.

A conversation with Cédric O, the former French minister of state for digital.

“With the difficulty of the U.S. in finding political agreement or political basis to legislate more, we are facing a risk of decoupling in the long term between the EU and the U.S.”

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Cédric O, France’s former minister of state for digital, has been an advocate of Europe’s approach to tech and at the forefront of the continent’s relations with U.S. giants. Protocol caught up with O last week at a conference in New York focusing on social media’s negative effects on society and the possibilities of blockchain-based protocols for alternative networks.

O said watching the U.S. lag in tech policy — even as some states pass their own measures and federal bills gain momentum — has made him worry about the EU and U.S. decoupling. While not as drastic as a disentangling of economic fortunes between the West and China, such a divergence, as O describes it, could still make it functionally impossible for companies to serve users on both sides of the Atlantic with the same product.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories
Bulletins