Britain and the US at loggerheads over China
Spat shows how Beijing is playing divide and rule with the west
n the celebrated “special relationship” between Britain and the US, it is unusual for one side to rebuke the other publicly. This week a senior White House official delivered a rare, if unattributable broadside against the UK over its China policy.
The trigger was a decision by David Cameron’s government to join China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, one of a constellation of institutions that China has set up to promote international development. The US had lobbied allies in the G7 and Asia not to join the institution and Britain’s defiance is the latest sign of how the bilateral relationship is under pressure. But the spat should also prompt some hard thinking in the US about its approach to China’s rise as a global economic power.
America’s sensitivity to the creation of banks such as AIIB is understandable. Rivalry between Washington and Beijing for global economic influence is intensifying. Since the end of the second world war, the US has been the dominant voice, partly thanks to the creation of the Washington-based World Bank and International Monetary Fund. China is now challenging the Bretton Woods set-up by creating financial bodies to help it gain greater political influence in the Asia-Pacific region and other parts of the world.
The US may want to stop the growth of these bodies. But its lacklustre stewardship of the Washington-based international financial institutions is one of the reasons rivals are proliferating.
The influence of the World Bank as a lending institution has declined, partly because of more restrictive lending focused on poorer countries. At the IMF, the US has proved incapable of helping to give the fund more firepower and a more representative share of votes that reflects the rising power of emerging markets. Having agreed changes to the funding quotas that determine voting rights on the IMF’s board, the US has been unable to get its contribution past an isolation-minded Congress.
George Osborne, UK chancellor, claims that Britain is joining the AIIB in order to help to bind China into a global rules-based system rather than encouraging Beijing to press ahead without western countries. Others see opportunism with Mr Osborne pitching for the City of London in its attempt to capture a portion of the renminbi trade and other Beijing goodies.
By becoming the first G7 country to join the institution, Mr Osborne will have endeared himself to Beijing. But Britain’s move will also encourage China to continue pursuing its strategic goals through a policy of divide-and-rule. It would have been preferable had the G7 adopted a united strategy towards the AIIB rather than seeing one nation break away in its own interest.
The UK’s move serves as another warning to the west of how uncoordinated its policy towards China has become. Within the UK it should also prompt some hard thinking about what kind of role Britain wants to play in the world. For most of the postwar period, Britain punched above its weight as a staunch ally of the US. Today, that alliance is under strain, even if the common interests ultimately prevail over present tiffs.
The stewardship of the global financial system is up to the US. Washington seems flatly opposed to anything which raises China’s financial profile and threatens the status of the dollar. It does not like being left out of new arrangements. In the last resort, the US must decide how to integrate China into the pre-existing financial order without sullying free market principles. Keeping China at bay at all costs will likely encourage Beijing to build its own parallel system from scratch.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5a63e420-c979-11e4-a2d9-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UHjlz7AA
Spat shows how Beijing is playing divide and rule with the west
n the celebrated “special relationship” between Britain and the US, it is unusual for one side to rebuke the other publicly. This week a senior White House official delivered a rare, if unattributable broadside against the UK over its China policy.
The trigger was a decision by David Cameron’s government to join China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, one of a constellation of institutions that China has set up to promote international development. The US had lobbied allies in the G7 and Asia not to join the institution and Britain’s defiance is the latest sign of how the bilateral relationship is under pressure. But the spat should also prompt some hard thinking in the US about its approach to China’s rise as a global economic power.
America’s sensitivity to the creation of banks such as AIIB is understandable. Rivalry between Washington and Beijing for global economic influence is intensifying. Since the end of the second world war, the US has been the dominant voice, partly thanks to the creation of the Washington-based World Bank and International Monetary Fund. China is now challenging the Bretton Woods set-up by creating financial bodies to help it gain greater political influence in the Asia-Pacific region and other parts of the world.
The US may want to stop the growth of these bodies. But its lacklustre stewardship of the Washington-based international financial institutions is one of the reasons rivals are proliferating.
The influence of the World Bank as a lending institution has declined, partly because of more restrictive lending focused on poorer countries. At the IMF, the US has proved incapable of helping to give the fund more firepower and a more representative share of votes that reflects the rising power of emerging markets. Having agreed changes to the funding quotas that determine voting rights on the IMF’s board, the US has been unable to get its contribution past an isolation-minded Congress.
George Osborne, UK chancellor, claims that Britain is joining the AIIB in order to help to bind China into a global rules-based system rather than encouraging Beijing to press ahead without western countries. Others see opportunism with Mr Osborne pitching for the City of London in its attempt to capture a portion of the renminbi trade and other Beijing goodies.
By becoming the first G7 country to join the institution, Mr Osborne will have endeared himself to Beijing. But Britain’s move will also encourage China to continue pursuing its strategic goals through a policy of divide-and-rule. It would have been preferable had the G7 adopted a united strategy towards the AIIB rather than seeing one nation break away in its own interest.
The UK’s move serves as another warning to the west of how uncoordinated its policy towards China has become. Within the UK it should also prompt some hard thinking about what kind of role Britain wants to play in the world. For most of the postwar period, Britain punched above its weight as a staunch ally of the US. Today, that alliance is under strain, even if the common interests ultimately prevail over present tiffs.
The stewardship of the global financial system is up to the US. Washington seems flatly opposed to anything which raises China’s financial profile and threatens the status of the dollar. It does not like being left out of new arrangements. In the last resort, the US must decide how to integrate China into the pre-existing financial order without sullying free market principles. Keeping China at bay at all costs will likely encourage Beijing to build its own parallel system from scratch.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5a63e420-c979-11e4-a2d9-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UHjlz7AA
Nice try dumbass
You Curry eating fuc
no being shifted to China