Aug 11, 2014
A Chechnya in the making
China’s Response to the MH17 Tragedy? Condemn the West
July 21, 2014

Despite memories of decades of Cold War frostiness, Beijing is now quite chummy with Moscow
On July 18, shortly after Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crashed over eastern Ukraine, extinguishing 298 lives, China’s Xinhua state news agency cautioned against making snap judgments. The U.S. and other Western nations had begun to finger pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine for shooting down the Boeing 777 passenger plane, but Xinhua dismissed such accusations as “rash” and took the opportunity to swipe at Western democracies for their condemnation of Russia’s earlier military intervention in Ukraine:The one-sided accusation is not surprising in light of their long-time stance on the crisis in eastern Ukraine, and their attitude towards Russia’s absorption of Crimea in March. But without convincing evidence, jumping to a conclusion will only heighten regional tension and is not conducive to finding out the truth.On July 21, the People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece, ran a piece still cautioning that “no proof has been found so far to clarify the cause or identify the perpetrator.” Nowhere did the story mention the likelihood that pro-Russian rebels had trained a missile on MH17 as it flew from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.
Russian President Vladimir Putin late Thursday said it is Ukraine that bears the responsibility as the tragedy occurred over its territory. The tragedy, Putin said, could have been avoided should Ukraine’s eastern regions be in peace.
The same day, the Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party-linked daily that can be counted on for nationalist commentary, did at least mention such a possibility — if only to decry Western governments’ speculation that Russia may have aided and abetted the rebels’ cause:
The Western rush to judge Russia is not based on evidence or logic. Russia had no motive to bring down MH17; doing so would only narrow its political and moral space to operate in the Ukrainian crisis. The tragedy has no political benefit for Ukrainian rebel forces, either. Russia has been back-footed, forced into a passive stance by Western reaction. It is yet another example of the power of Western opinion as a political tool.The crisis in Ukraine had already put China in a difficult position. Despite memories of decades of Cold War frostiness, Beijing has boosted its ties with Moscow. The two neighbors share an antipathy toward Western democratic values and a mutual interest in natural resources. The first foreign trip Xi Jinping made as President was to Russia in March 2013.
Yet China also proclaims that one of its foreign-policy bedrocks is staying out of other nations’ internal affairs. Russia’s invasion of Crimea — which Xinhua delicately termed an “absorption” — cannot be considered as anything but a gross interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs. Beijing is struggling with separatist sentiment at home, most notably among Tibetan and Uighur populations in China’s far west. How can Chinese foreign-policy makers support an ethnic rebel movement over a national government, even if those separatists do have Russia’s tacit blessing?
China may soon have to reconcile this foreign-policy quandary. “It will bring about a severe challenge to China’s general strategy and diplomacy if America and Europe propose sanctions against Russia and demand China should join with them,” wrote Chinese security analyst Gao Feng in a widely disseminated blog post. “For China, the issue is which side it should choose. Without doubt, an ambiguous stance [by Beijing] will face criticism and moral pressure.”
There were no mainland Chinese nationals on MH17. By contrast, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which vanished in March en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, was filled with Chinese passengers. As the Malaysian investigation into that plane’s disappearance foundered, Chinese authorities allowed MH370 families to stage protests in Beijing — a rarity in a nation allergic to public displays of dissent.
This time around, official Chinese sentiment has steered clear of blaming Malaysia for the Ukraine disaster. Instead, West-bashing has predominated. “The West has successfully put itself in a position to dictate ‘political correctness’ in international discourse,” said the Global Times editorial on MH17 on Monday. “Those unwilling to work with Western interests will often find themselves in a tough position.” Criticism of the West even extended beyond the tragedy of MH17. On July 21, Xinhua publicized a new campaign of “intense ideological education for officials to strengthen their faith in communism and curb corruption.” First on cadres’ to-do lists? Keeping a “firm belief in Marxism to avoid being lost in the clamor for western democracy.”
— With reporting by Gu Yongqiang / Beijing
Sep 8, 2013
Putin: lonely, scared and confused
Talk to real master of situation, not his shadow
Jun 8, 2012
Russia eXaminer: Russia and China - Partnership of "Rabbit and Boa"
Russia-China Anti-Western Friendship Leads to Global Chaos and Russia Takeover
Aug 5, 2011
China's 'tea party' grumbles over government waste - Washington Times
Jan 20, 2011
Unconventional Wisdom - An FP Special Report | Foreign Policy
A special anniversary report challenging the world's most dangerous thinking.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2011
In Foreign Policy's first issue, published at the height of American exhaustion with the war in Vietnam, founders Samuel P. Huntington and Warren D. Manshel promised to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy in Washington. And with provocative essays from the likes of John Kenneth Galbraith -- who famously coined the term "conventional wisdom" and spent a career fighting against it -- and Richard Holbrooke-- who as a serving Foreign Service officer ripped the State Department as "the machine that fails" -- an insurgency was born. Forty years later, upending assumptions is embedded in FP's DNA. In that spirit, we offer this, our 40th Anniversary package tackling the world's most dangerous conventional wisdoms.
Jan 24, 2010
China's policy to keep yuan weak a sign of protectionism | The Australian
Michael Sainsbury From: The Australian December 07, 2009 12:00A
But there now appears to be a genuine desire to reach a compromise that will at least allow the process to move ahead.
No such luck for the global economy on how China's currency should be valued.
In fact, the issue has become an ugly stalemate with increasingly strongly worded statements of position from both sides.
In essence, the situation is this. China does not have a free-floating exchange rate like other economies of any size. The tight central control that is the hallmark of the country's ruling Communist Party extends to its exchange rate too. As China has rapidly become richer, it has been pressured by the other leading economies to allow its currency to appreciate -- which is what should happen as a country gets richer.
For three years during the boom it did this; the yuan appreciated by 17 per cent against the US dollar. Then mid-last year, as it sniffed the rotten breeze of the global meltdown and its exports -- a key driver of its boom -- began to fall off, it pegged the yuan to the US dollar.
In this way, its exports would not get any more expensive and it could at least hold its piece of a shrinking global pie.
This week, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, in an uncharacteristically colourful -- some might say near hysterical -- attack on those who would like to see China allow its currency to appreciate, took the battle to a new level.
"Some countries are asking for (the yuan's) appreciation and meanwhile impose various (acts of) protectionism on China. It's not fair and limits China's development actually," Wen said.
China has, in effect, put its growth ahead of everyone else's. To paraphrase George Orwell's critique of communism in Animal Farm, all growth is equal but some growth is more equal than others. The US and the EU have long been insisting on the yuan's appreciation and the demand has become more pressing following the world economic crisis.
"The stability of the yuan benefits China's economic development and the recovery of world economy amid this rare financial crisis. China will continue to improve the yuan exchange rate mechanism based on an initiative, controllable and progressive development, and ensure a stable and reasonable yuan exchange rate," said Wen at a summit with European Union leaders in China.
Typically opaque Chinese technocrat-speak for "we will do as we like, when we like".
China has an unhealthy obsession with growth at all costs -- it's a core political tenet that if the government keeps growth bubbling along, the punters will stay in their boxes, and this is just the latest example.
And it smacks of the worst kind of hypocrisy: the sanctimonious kind. China has spent much of the past year lecturing anyone who cares to listen about the dangers of protectionism. Correct, of course; it's what turned the 1930 financial crisis into the Great Depression. But deliberately holding down an exchange rate is itself rank protectionism.
China is making sure its goods remain cheaper than they should be, forcing others out of the market. It is protecting its market at the expense of others.
Derek Scissors, a research fellow in Asian economic policy in the Asian Studies Centre at the Heritage Foundation, Washington DC, says: "The People's Republic of China is far more protectionist than its major partners, heavily subsidising domestic firms to compete against imports and in overseas markets.
"Perhaps most disingenuous is the accusation that China's trade partners, which have been utterly indispensable to its economic development, are plotting against the PRC. The Communist Party has been trotting out versions of this accusation -- that the US is trying to contain China -- when useful for the past 15 years. It has been cited most recently with regard to climate change.
" In fact, Chinese trade practices harm China's partners, so the PRC can be accused of interfering with India's rise, Vietnam's rise, and the ascent of other trade partners," he says.
So much, then, for China's de facto leadership of the developing world. Sure there is little love lost with India, not to mention the troop build-up on its border, but it's even crimping the growth of its fellow People's Republic in Vietnam. Perhaps its revenge for being embarrassed in the 1979 war?
More likely it's another demonstration that for all its fine progress in so many areas, China's self-interest remains utterly paramount. The rest of the world is falling over itself to accommodate China, which has been elevated with startling alacrity into every important world forum. But with rights come responsibilities.
With its currency, China is shirking them. Worse still, its exchange rate policy is continuing and even making worse the financial imbalances that were a central cause of the global meltdown. And sensible people realise that as long as these continue to be out of whack the economic bad times, while less bad these days, will continue to linger.
The great irony of Beijing's exchange rate peg is that it holds most of its reserves in cash and bonds. While it may be happy to have its goods become more and more competitive with the Europeans, it is not happy that its hard-earned savings -- although increasingly easy -- are reducing in value.
"The world's second largest economic power cannot stay hidden behind the largest for long -- the yuan peg must eventually break," Dr Scissors says.
"The question is whether it will be done by the PRC in relatively smooth fashion or whether it will occur in a crisis setting, with Beijing's hand forced by foreign action.
" It would be better for all concerned if China started the process itself, and soon."
sainsburychina@gmail.com
Dec 25, 2009
China Beats EU to Turkmen Gas - BusinessWeek
In a setback for Europe's hopes to obtain more natural gas from Central Asia, Turkmenistan and China have opened a major new pipeline built at lightning speed
Chinese leader Hu Jintao switched on the gas at a ceremony on the Turkmen-Uzbek border with Turkmen president Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov and the leaders of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
The 1,833 km pipeline passes through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan before reaching Xinjiang in China. It will pump 40 billion cubic metres of gas a year—about half the consumption of Germany—when it is in full swing in 2012.
The development highlights the difficulties surrounding EU efforts to get direct access to Turkmenistan's gas, breaking Russia's monopoly on EU-bound exports from the region.
"Everybody thinks we are in competition with Russia in Central Asia. But we are also in competition with China, and to a lesser extent, with Iran," an EU official said.
The Chinese pipeline was built in lightning speed.
China and Turkmenistan signed a preliminary agreement on the project in April 2006. Construction began in August 2007 and was completed 27 months later by an army of 8,000 workers.
In contrast, EU firms signed the first agreement on the Nabucco pipeline, designed to bring in gas from Turkmenistan and other countries in the region via Turkey, in 2002. It launched a wide-sweeping Central Asia strategy in 2007 and ratified a basic trade agreement with Turkmenistan in late 2009.
As of the end of this year no EU company has a gas contract with Turkmenistan and not one kilometre of the 3,300 km project has been built.
Early drafts of the Central Asia strategy said that EU concerns with human rights abuses in the region could hold back the union's interests. Unwillingness by EU companies to pay a huge bribe to Mr Berdymukhammedov's predecessor also stymied progress.
The Chinese pipeline does not directly threaten Russia's monopoly on gas exports to the EU but it challenges Russia's influence in the three post-Soviet states.
"I hope that, thanks to this investment we will be not just good neighbours, but also faithful partners," Mr Hu said at the ceremony.
Dec 23, 2009
Latest Russia China Energy News
| China plays Pipelineistan Asia Times Online But for the moment, Beijing's strategic priority has been to develop an extremely meticulous energy-supply policy - with sources in Russia, the South China ... See all stories on this topic |
| 2010 to be key year in fight against nuclear arms Reuters The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China all have a special status under the NPT. They were allowed to keep their weapons but pledged to launch ... See all stories on this topic |
| China's strategic alliance with Iran is off most radar screens World Tribune China, Russia and Iran have all become major players in the Asian Energy Security Grid, which was established to counter perceived Western hegemony over the ... See all stories on this topic |
| EU to open talks with Russia on nuclear energy deal EUbusiness (press release) (BRUSSELS) - European Union countries on Tuesday agreed to start negotiations with Russia on nuclear energy cooperation, the bloc's executive said. ... See all stories on this topic |
| The big cop out Sydney Morning Herald Or India or South Africa or Russia all together. Or we can blame big business, neo-liberalism and capitalism. Or we can blame apathy and poor civics ... See all stories on this topic |
| More Iran simulations, similarly grim results Politico (blog) ... instigating China and Russia to make side deals with Tehran, leaving Iran's nuclear program unchecked, and putting the US and Israel at odds. ... See all stories on this topic |
| Maersk Buys Devon Offshore Oilfields for $1.3 Billion Bloomberg Maersk drilled the world's longest well in May 2008 when an offshore Qatar project surpassed the record-holding Exxon Mobil well in Russia by almost half a ... See all stories on this topic |
| US warns Iran to meet nuclear deadline AFP The United States has raised the specter of a fourth round of UN sanctions, but will need to persuade Russia and China to drop their traditional reluctance ... See all stories on this topic |
| This Year In Clean Energy - What A Ride RenewableEnergyWorld.com ... emitters — Brazil, China, India and Russia — to see if there can be a step taken towards some kind of meaningful near-future legally-binding agreement. ... See all stories on this topic |
Dec 22, 2009
Economic View - The Danger to America of an Overheated China - NYTimes.com
Several hundred million Chinese peasants have moved from the countryside to the cities over the last 30 years, in one of the largest, most rapid migrations in history.
To help make this work, the Chinese government has subsidized its exporters by pegging the renminbi at an unnaturally low rate to the dollar. This has supported relatively high-paying export jobs; additional subsidies have included direct credit allocation and preferential treatment for coastal enterprises.
These aren’t the recommended policies you would find in a basic economics text, but it’s hard to argue with success. Most important, it has given many more Chinese a stake in the future of their society.
Those same subsidies, however, have spurred excess capacity and created a dangerous political dynamic in which these investments have to be propped up at all cost.
China has been building factories and production capacity in virtually every sector of its economy, but it’s not clear that the latest round of investments will be profitable anytime soon. Automobiles, steel, semiconductors, cement, aluminum and real estate all show signs of too much capacity. In Shanghai, the central business district appears to have high vacancy rates, yet building continues.
Chinese planners now talk of the need to restrict investment in sectors that are overflowing with unsold products. The global market is no longer strong, and domestic demand was never enough in the first place.
Regional officials have an incentive to prop up local enterprises and production statistics, even if that means supporting projects or accounting practices that are not sustainable. For an individual business, the standard way to get more capital resources is to put forward a plan for growth. Because few sectors are mature, and growth has been so widespread, everyone can promise to be profitable in the future.
Over all, there is a lack of transparency. China’s statistics on its gross domestic product are based more on recorded production activity than on what is actually sold. Chinese fiscal and credit policies are geared toward jobs and political stability, and thus the authorities shy away from revealing which projects are most troubled or should be canceled.
Put all of this together and there is a very real possibility of trouble.
China has had a 30-year run of stellar economic growth. But it’s only human nature for such expansion to breed too much optimism, overextending an entire economy. Americans have found this out the hard way in their own financial crisis.
History has shown that no major economy has grown into maturity without bubbles, crises and possibly even civil strife or civil wars along the way. Is China exempt from this broader pattern?
The notions of excess capacity and malinvestment were common in business-cycle theory of the 19th and early 20th centuries, when growing Western economies had frequent crashes of this kind. Numerous writers, from the Rev. Thomas Malthus to the Austrian economist Friedrich A. von Hayek, warned about the overextension of unprofitable capital deployments and the pain from the inevitable crashes. These writers may well end up being a guide for understanding China today.
What will the consequences be for the United States if and when the Chinese economic miracle encounters a major stumble? A lot of Chinese business ventures will stop being profitable, and layoffs and unrest will most likely rise. The Chinese government may crack down further on dissent. The Chinese public may wonder whether its future lies with capitalism after all, and foreign investors in China will become more nervous.
In economic terms, the prices of Chinese exports will probably fall, as overextended businesses compete to justify their capital investments and recoup their losses. American businesses will find it harder to compete with Chinese companies, and there will be deflationary pressures in both countries. And even if the Chinese are selling more at lower prices, they may be taking in less money over all, so they may have less to lend to the United States government.
In any case, China may end up using more of its reserve funds to address domestic problems or placate domestic interest groups. The United States will face higher borrowing costs, and its fiscal position may very quickly become unsustainable.
That’s not so much a prediction as a very possible contingency, and we should be prepared for it. For now, we should avoid two big mistakes. The first would be to assume that just because borrowing costs are now low, we can postpone fiscal responsibility and keep running up the tab — with the aid of Chinese lending, of course. The history of financial crises shows that turning points can come swiftly and without much warning.
The second mistake would be to demand too many concessions from the Chinese. What we see in the numbers today are a growing China and a somewhat ailing America. Yet there’s a real chance that, soon enough, Chinese economic weakness will be a bigger problem than was Chinese economic strength.
New Statesman - China rejects blame for Copenhagen failure
China had "hijacked" the summit
Published 22 December 2009
Climate change secretary Ed Miliband, writing in the Guardian, said that China had "hijacked" the summit, vetoing two agreements on limiting emissions.
The Xinhua state news agency reported that Jiang Yu, Beijing's foreign ministry spokesperson, said that statements from "certain British politicians" were "plainly a political scheme".
She said that the aim was "to shirk responsibilities that should be assumed towards developing countries, and to provoke discord among developing countries".
"This scheme will come to nothing," she concluded.
The summit of 192 nations ended without a legally binding agreement.
Dec 16, 2009
Keeping the ‘R’ Where It Belongs in BRIC | Opinion | The Moscow Times
09 December 2009
By Martin Gilman, former senior representative of the International Monetary Fund in Russia, is a professor at the Higher School of Economics."
Whether we find it a useful characterization or not, we seem to be stuck with the acronym of BRIC ever since Goldman Sachs first mooted that sequence of letters in 2001. The key idea was that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India and China was such that they could become four of the most dominant economies by 2050. Although the very idea seemed incongruous at the time, the name stuck.
Each of the four countries has demonstrated that they, along with other emerging market economies, could indeed come to challenge the pre-eminence of the advanced countries by midcentury, if not before. Although the BRICs were unable to decouple from the fallout of the international crisis, they have shown resilience. Even Russia, the worst affected this year, appears to be poised for a strong recovery in 2010, while the advanced economies will still be languishing.
Trying to compare countries in terms of rankings is a mug’s game. Arguments and data can always be aligned to confirm a predetermined view. History is rife with examples of this. Unfortunately, there has been an onslaught of articles explaining why Russia should not be included in BRIC — the most recent examples by economists Nouriel Roubini and Anders Åslund — or that Brazil is the up and coming star of the BRICs with Russia being the outlier. For example, a recent issue of The Economist observed, “Sometime in the decade after 2014 — rather sooner than Goldman Sachs envisaged — Brazil is likely to become the world’s fifth-largest economy,” behind only the United States, China, Japan and India. Russia was pointedly not even mentioned. more
Dec 12, 2009
Xinhua: Chinese, Kazakh presidents meet on ties
| www.chinaview.cn |
Backgrounder: Basic facts about Republic of Kazakhstan
ASTANA, Dec. 12 (Xinhua) -- Visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao met his Kazakh counterpart, Nursultan Nazarbayev, here Saturday to discuss further development of the two countries' close ties.
The two leaders will also exchange views on major international and regional issues of common concern, Chinese diplomats said.
President Hu arrived here earlier in the day for a working visit.
Shortly after his arrival, the Chinese leader attended an inauguration ceremony of the China-Kazakhstan natural gas pipeline, which is part of the China-Central Asia pipeline.
The China-Central Asia pipeline starts on the border between Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, runs through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan before reaching China's northwest region of Xinjiang.
President Hu and leaders of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan will take part in a ceremony marking the completion of one of the two pipelines that make up the project, on Monday.
The pipeline, initiated by leaders of China and Turkmenistan, served the long-term interests of the two nations and would promote social and economic development of the countries in the region, Chinese officials said.
This is Hu's fourth visit to the Central Asian country as Chinese president, having previously visited in 2003, 2005 and 2007.
China and Kazakhstan established diplomatic relations in 1992 and forged a strategic partnership during Hu's visit in July 2005.
In recent years, the two countries have maintained frequent high-level contacts, enhanced political mutual trust, and expanded cooperation and collaboration within the multilateral framework. Pragmatic cooperation between the two countries has yielded fruitful results.
In 2008, two-way trade volume between China and Kazakhstan reached 17.5 billion U.S. dollars, up 26 percent from 2007.
The Chinese leader is on a two-nation tour to Central Asia. He will also visit Turkmenistan on Sunday.
Special report: President Hu visits Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan
Nov 21, 2009
Известия-ТВ: Мы им - газ, они нам - скоростные жел�
По итогам визита Владимира Путина в Пекин подписаны контракты на миллиарды долларов. "Газпром" надеется, что сотрудничество с Китаем будет удачным. Китай и Россия также договорились уведомлять друг друга о запусках баллистических ракет.
Nov 18, 2009
Rising China, declining Europe: a tale of hubris | Charlemagne's notebook | Economist.com
EUROPEANS are used to being looked down on by superpowers: after all, we had half a century of practice at being a buffer zone between America and the Soviet Union.
Disdain is now being taken to a new level, however, by a growing band of Chinese thinkers and officials, who make clear their impatience with talk of the European Union being a model for the Middle Kingdom.
Chinese intellectual curiosity in the EU seemed to peak a few years ago, when in Beijing and Shanghai think tanks grew moderately excited about the idea that Europe was about to adopt a constitution and equip itself with a permanent president and foreign minister. Such European swagger fed into China’s (only natural) desire to see a more multipolar world develop, to replace the post Berlin Wall era of American hegemony.
Then came 2005, and French and Dutch referendums that rejected the draft EU constitution, tipping the union into four years of institutional squabbling that has still not ended. In the meantime, the forces of globalisation, accelerated by the global economic crisis, left the relative decline of Europe as a trading power even more cruelly exposed.
The EU is also exceedingly bad at dealing with Beijing. The 27 member countries undercut and compete among each other for commercial advantage, while the central EU bureaucracy has allowed itself to be bogged down by process (there are scores of EU-China structural dialogues now).
Now, a common Chinese view of Europe amounts to:
- Europe is in decline but has not come to terms with it.
- Yet Europe still wants to impose its values on China.
- There are structural problems in dealing with the EU because of the difficulty in distinguishing EU from member-nation interests.
- We have conflicting interests in Africa.
I have much sympathy for Chinese complaints about the structural difficulties of dealing with the EU. I also have nothing but admiration for the hard work, ambition and astonishing tenacity of the Chinese people, as they study, work and dream their way to lives their parents and grandparents could never have known.
But, and it is a big but, I have real problems with the idea that because Europe is in relative decline, we have no right to promote our values.
Values are not proved right or wrong by the wealth or growth of the economies behind them. Today’s Chinese arguments amount to a boast that their model of 21st century autocracy is being proved objectively superior by China’s economic and strategic rise.
Many people would argue that China is rising (at least in part) despite its autocratic model, which ignores such important drivers of success as meritocracy, transparency, and the promotion of creative and innovative thinking. I would argue that an alternative history of the past 30 years of Chinese Communism might be this: if you abandon some of the most economically destructive policies ever devised and stop kicking the Chinese economy, it will stand up and be rather big.
We in Europe are far from saintly, and we certainly have a lot of structural problems that need to be addressed. But here is a question: what if we in Europe are worth listening precisely because we made so many mistakes in our glory days? Mistakes that echo many of today’s Chinese policies.
We in Europe have tried mercantilism, militarism, statism, corporatism and inculcating our youths with angry nationalism. We know all about the model of state-driven investment (as do the Japanese, another declining power the Chinese like to disdain). And we know its wisdom is far from proven in the long run, thanks to problems of misallocated resources, weaknesses in the banking system, pollution and the like.
We in Europe thought it was a good idea to scramble after African resources, first by grabbing them then in the post-colonial period by extending vast loans to murderous kleptocracies. And we were right when, far too late in the day, we decided to do less of that, and try to promote good governance in Africa.
Plenty of European countries also used to be dictatorships, which jailed dissidents and systematically suppressed bad news. And so Europeans remember the low quality of government and administration that you get when you lack democratic checks and balances. We know to be deeply sceptical when non-democratic regimes say they are self-policing.
In short, throughout the bloody centuries of European rule and misrule over large chunks of the world, we tried a lot of things that were both wicked, and ultimately self-defeating. Now, and perhaps only because we are in the twilight of our power, Europeans believe we have learned some bitter lessons about values.
Nov 17, 2009
'G-2' talks highlight changing status of U.S., China - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he welcomes the Chinese joining some of the most influential international economic institutions — an elite geo-economic playing field that has been dominated by the United States since the end of World War II. Photo: AP
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he welcomes the Chinese joining some of the most influential international economic institutions — an elite geo-economic playing field that has been dominated by the United States since the end of World War II. The move represents a bowing to political reality by the Americans, and perhaps a bit of strategic thinking: Inviting the Chinese into the international framework gives the Beijing government an incentive not to try to tear it down.
“The global economy has changed fundamentally since the visionary individuals at Bretton Woods designed the architecture for the 20th-century economy,” Geithner said. “Today, we are working with China and other partners to ensure their full engagement and representation in the design of the key multilateral agreements and groupings— such as the G-20, the Financial Stability Board and the international financial institutions — that will chart a course of more balanced and sustainable global growth into the future.”
But in a briefing with reporters, the American representatives couldn’t even bring themselves to comment on the most sensitive issue of all: the fate of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world. The U.S. receives enormous benefits because its dollar is the default currency of the global economy, mainly in lower borrowing costs, which is one reason that America can run such enormous deficits in the first place. In recent months, the Chinese have publicly questioned why the U.S. currency is allowed to have such dominance.
One reporter wanted to know whether they had repeated their skepticism to American officials face to face this week.
“They talked about their desire to reform the international monetary system, and I’ll just leave it at that,” Loevinger said.
Wall Street POLITICO is a weekly column looking at issues that drive business.

