Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 2:09 AM
Two weeks ago the New York Times' Keith Bradsher noted that China was not fully complying with information provision obligations at the G-20.
Now the Financial Times' Chris Giles and Alan Beattie suggest that a growing number of G-20 players are venting their frustrations at China:
Five prominent members of the Group of 20 leading economies, including the US and UK, sent a coded rebuke to China on Tuesday against backsliding on economic agreements.
In a letter to the rest of the G20 that shows frustration at slow progress this year, the leaders warned: “Without co-operative action to make the necessary adjustments to achieve [strong and sustainable growth], the risk of future crises and low growth remain.”
G20 officials said the letter – signed by Stephen Harper and Lee Myung-bak, the Canadian and South Korean leaders who will chair the group’s two summits this year, Barack Obama, US president, Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, and Nicolas Sarkozy, French president – was an attempt to restore flagging momentum to the international process.
Ottawa and Seoul are concerned that the G20 summits they will host, in June and November respectively, might fail to live up to expectations.
In a move that will irritate China, the five leaders specifically raised the issue of exchange rates in relation to reducing trade imbalances, a topic the G20 avoided in 2009 to help secure agreement at the London and Pittsburgh summits.
“We need to design co-operative strategies and work together to ensure that our fiscal, monetary, foreign exchange, trade and structural policies are collectively consistent with strong, sustainable and balanced growth,” the letter said....
As well as refusing to budge on its currency, China has been obstructing the G20 process this year. It has hampered efforts by the International Monetary Fund to issue a report which Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director, told the Financial Times in January would conclude that national strategies for growth around the world “will not add up”.
The leaders’ letter makes reference to the slow progress of this process, urging all G20 members to “move quickly” to “report robustly on what each of us can do to contribute to strong sustainable and balanced global growth”.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to figure out China's strategy here. Lying low isn't going to work for much longer. Ian Bremmer suggests that China has decided it doesn't need the United States anymore. I'm not sure that's accurate, but even if it is, I'm pretty sure Beijing does need at least a few other countries in the G-20.
Of course, maybe they think letters like this will lead to nothing. They might be right. Distrubingly, this same letter urges a completion to the Doha round. Not that there's anything wrong with that. At this point, however, pledges to complete the Doha round are kinda like my pledges to lose weight -- they're mostly ritualistic and have disturbingly little effect on actual behavior.
If the exhortation to redress macroeconomic imbalances falls into the same category, the G-20 will quickly acquire the perception of other dysfunctional multilateral structures.
Question to readers: will China find itself isolated at the G-20 if it continues its noncompliance?
China at the G-20 is becoming a recently divorced person at a dinner party.
When a person going through a divorce first enters the room, everyone glances their way and whispers the latest rumors. When it comes time to strike up a conversation with them, it's always rather awkward. No one wants to offend them by talking about the gorilla in the room "Say, how's the divorce coming along? Are the beds at the hotel you're living at comfortable?" So the conversation stays in the realm of vanilla.
With China at the G-20, everyone whispers "Look, there's that currency manipulator" when they enter the room. In one-on-one discussions, everyone wants to ask "Are you going to revalue, or what?" and "So, how's that thing with Google (and now Yahoo) going?" To not offend, you wind up with diplomatic small talk in the frame of "Those Olympics you put on in 2008 were nice..."
Or maybe you should look at this issue from a different perspective: there are 14 countries NOT signing on this letter. 14:5, well not bad for China.
About the divorce analogy, good English, bad logic. Other people's divorce is none of his neighbor's business. So China's exchange rate and dispute with Google also is none of others' businesses?
Dangerous Game China's Playing
My favorite axiom is hubris comes before the fall. And well, I can't help to think how recent developments (Rio Tinto, Google, etc.) might change capital flows into that country. Now that the rules of corruption have changed, I'm guessing, I'm pretty sure they've alienated companies who are used to the business as usual model in China and this might have overriding implications for any new industries or businesses looking to expand into the Chinese market. I understand they probably cracked down because the bribes were going the wrong way (not to the government, but to foreign companies) but the selective enforcement of corruption law in secretive circumstances will sure make anyone think twice before warming up to that bureaucrat.
It seems to me that China is still mostly a manufacturing/industrial economy. Thus, they need to keep the currency situation the way it is for things to continue as they have been. By purposely dragging their feet, they're trying to hold on to business as usual, but given what's been going on there has to be some sort of change a brewin'. Given that investors and companies aren't really partial to change, China better be careful.
Sure, China, you have the biggest markets yet to be tapped into, but you are also beholden to the rest of your G-20 compatriots who actually buy the stuff you make.
Probably it won't have a major effect on Chinese relations with the other members, at least not in the short term. As China gets stronger and makes more visible mistakes or insults in the long term it'll probably settle into its position in the world with its allies and enemies.
I suspect that the Chinese are just riding the export-oriented policy as long as possible to prevent political and economic instability, and the major aim of their policy is just to put off challenges to that as much as they can.
What else can they do at this point? Without massive export orientation and the export of currency in the form of purchasing bonds and the like, there's no way they'd be able to keep up their reported growth rates without massive inflation.
China as a responsible stakeholder
China is not the only country to think local, and in so doing appear to abandon its multinational "street cred." But like almost every other country, it responded to the global economic downturn by turning inward to preserve jobs. After all Premier Wen Jiabao stated in 2009, "We will do everything in our power to stimulate employment." China is willing to selectively ignore its WTO obligations in the interest of forestalling potential political upheaval which could undermine the Communist Party's authority. Remember, the Chinese workforce comprises about 1/4 of the world's workers and is growing at some 11% per year. Our response to this should be to act multilaterally. the letter is a good start, although it was hardly multilateral.
To change China's behavior, we can either provide incentives to policymakers or provide ways to empower China's people to act against the regime which is increasingly opaque, partial, and supportive of SOE's. Therefore, Google's departure is not a good sign; it makes it harder for the Chinese people to learn about what their government is doing.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE