Rising BRICSAM

'Breaking' Knowledge, Information and Commentary on Rising BRICSAM and Global Governance Summitry

Rising BRICSAM

Troubles with Global Summitry

Posted on by
Reply

We are definitely in the midst of Global Summitry gatherings. With the BRICS Summit just recently ended, we are deep into the G20 weekend gathering in New Delhi. So much commentary has accompanied these summitry gatherings. But I caution casual observers and readers: there are way too many assessments and conclusions drawn by all those folks that unfortunately barely pay attention to Global Summitry through much of the year. You can see this in the various ‘hair on fire’ commentaries in the assessments and consequences of the actions of key players in both the BRICS and now especially with the G20. Too many declarations of the G20 demise; firm conclusions that China and Russia would block any consensus statement that sought to condemn Russia’s aggression against Ukraine; the fragmentation of global summitry with the rise of the BRICS plus and the demise of the G20 with leaders from Russia and China choosing to absent themselves from summit.

Now don’t get me wrong, the geopolitical pressures, particularly rising US-China competition and opposition and condemnation of Russia for its unprovoked aggression on Ukraine are impactful. The geopolitics has seemingly hindered the G20 in advancing global governance policies. Yet the global governance agenda and goals remain. Look at the G20 agenda as described by Damien Cave in the NYT:

The agenda in New Delhi includes climate change, economic development and debt burdens in low-income countries, as well as inflation spurred by Russia’s war in Ukraine. If members can reach consensus on any or all of these subjects, they will produce an official joint declaration at the end.

In the ‘hair on  fire’ camp here is a piece by Alec Russell in the FT

The countdown to the talks was dominated by news that Xi was not going to attend. This was widely seen as a major blow to the G20, and an acceleration of the shift to a world in which a China-led bloc is facing off against a US-led one, with many countries hovering in the middle.

But the collective global governance effort has not been stymied. Indian efforts to reach consensus have proven successful. The G20, thanks to India, has released the Declaration a day early. Our good fortune. As described by the Indian Sherpa the Declaration was:

… a complete statement with 100% unanimity” that highlights India’s “great ability to bring all developing countries, all the emerging markets, China, Russia, everybody together at the same table and bring consensus.

He went on:

Urging adherence to the United Nations Charter, the New Delhi statement says: “All states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition against the territorial integrity and sovereignty or political independence of any state. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.

So there we are, a consensus statement has been issued. As often is the case, the document was not short, some 29 pages of declaration plus pages of annex.  Nevertheless it ended on a ‘high note’:

81. We reiterate our commitment to the G20 as the premier forum for global economic cooperation and its continued operation in the spirit of multilateralism, on the basis of consensus, with all members participating on an equal footing in all its events including Summits. We look forward to meeting again in Brazil in 2024 and in South Africa in 2025, as well as in the United States in 2026 at the beginning of the next cycle. We welcome Saudi Arabia’s ambition to advance its turn for hosting the G20 Presidency in the next cycle. We also look forward to the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2024 as a symbol of peace, dialogue amongst nations and inclusivity, with participation of all.

But a reading of the Declaration raises again the question: what success has in fact been achieved? As Caves points out:

But how much progress has the G20 made toward its ambitions? And what can be expected from this year’s meeting in India on Saturday and Sunday? … Then what? Often, not much, when it comes to real-world results. Most of the grouping’s joint statements since it formed in 1999 have been dominated by resolutions as solid as gas fumes, with no clear consequences when nations underperform.

‘Solid as gas fumes’. Well, in many respects the Declaration is no more than a statement of collective progress – what have we collectively identified as worthy of committing to and implementing. And, I did note, in an earlier Substack Post, Not Simply the Pace of Summitry that Leaders and their official are working toward commitment but:

So, let me at least raise in this Post, what I believe is the ‘continuum of action and commitment’ available to leaders in these various Leaders’ Summits. This continuum identifies the extent to which global governance policies have been secured. We move from the aspirational, often set out in the leaders’ declarations or communiques all the way to implementation by a country. What is evident from the continuum is that these folks are governmental leaders. And, as a result no matter what the communique announces, individual leaders’ may, or may not, actually implement a collective wish set out in a declaration.  This is well beyond just the aspirational.

The continuum, as I see it, is:  Consultation/ Cooperation/ Coordination/ Collaboration – the 4Cs of global governance progress, as I see it. Distinguishing between these concepts can be quite difficult. And of course, beyond this is, collectively achieving the actions, proposals and policies that are set out in the communiques, or announced at the Leaders’ gatherings.

And that is paydirt. Collectively achieving the actions set out in all these Summit Declarations – implementing policy in other words – is global governance success. Such implementation lies generally at the national political level, although there are instances where international organizations do in fact implement.

Bottom line: it requires a lot more than a statement in a Leaders’ Declaration to achieve global governance progress. But a number of us are watching including my colleagues at the CWD process.

This Post was originally uploaded to my Substack – Alan’s Newsletter. Feel free to subscribe.

Image Credit: Al Jazeera

 

 

BRICS Confusion is Rather Evident

Posted on by
Reply

Well, though still in the weekend, I must admit this Post is a bit late, though still available, I hope, for an enjoyable weekend read.

So, I was not planning to target the BRICS South Africa gathering a second time in this Alan’s Newsletter Post, at least not quite this soon. However,  the decisions taken, or not taken in some cases at this most recent BRICS Summit in Johannesburg South Africa was too ‘juicy’ to ignore.  As pointed out by Rajiv Bhatia of India’s Gateway House now, more than ever the diplomatic balancing act for the new and enlarged BRICS presents an even more dramatic challenge for this Leaders’ Summit:

As BRICS heads into its 18th year, [the South Africa Leaders’ Summit is the 15th] its success and way forward will depend on the members’ ability to tackle the principal challenge of retaining its internal solidarity while balancing expansion and its impact and influence in the world.

And that central point – retaining its internal solidarity while balancing expansion – is hard to foresee. There is confusion over who was chosen to add and indeed whether they have agreed to join, and what conditions; there is confusion over the choices themselves; and there is confusion over what the enlargement is likely to mean for this Leaders’ Summit.

It is evident that the enlargement has added heft to an already significant leaders’ group. As Bhatia points out:

As a grouping of five nations, BRICS represents 27% of the world’s land area, 42% of the population, 16% of international trade, 27% of global GDP in nominal terms, and 32.5% in PPP terms.

Now the group, according to, Bhaso Ndzendze in The Conversation , is:

The enlarged grouping will account for 46.5% of the world population. Using IMF GDP data, we can deduce that it will account for about 30% of global GDP.

On a PPP basis apparently, it will represent 37 percent of global GDP according to James Kynge in the FT.

So, six countries were identified as joining the BRICS come January 2024: Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iran. JIm O’Neill, formerly of Goldman Sachs,  who has been tagged for creating the BRICS acronym suggested this about the enlargement:

… I have questioned the organization’s purpose, beyond serving as a symbolic gesture. Now that the BRICS has announced that it will add six more countries – Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates – I pose the question again. The decision, after all, does not appear to have been decided on any clear objective, much less economic, criteria. Why, for example, was Indonesia not asked? Why Argentina and not Mexico, or Ethiopia and not Nigeria?

All good questions. Now the list, I would suggest, seems to reveal that China and Russia prevailed in the choices agreed to. Why, I suspect that is, is the BRICS enlargement includes Iran. As the NYTimes pointed out in its article on BRICS expansion:

The inclusion of Tehran — which has antagonistic relations with China’s chief rival, the United States — suggests that Chinese and Russian pressure had succeeded over the qualms of members like India, Brazil and South Africa, which maintain friendly ties with the West.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that adding Iran can only heighten the geopolitical tensions between the BRICS and others – most notably the G7, and most particularly the US with its many Iran sanctions.

Nevertheless, the hosts and commentators as quoted in the NYTimes again, tried to put the best face on it:

… South Africa, sought to put a hopeful spin on the enlargement decision in any case.

Anil Sooklal, South Africa’s representative in the BRICS negotiations, told reporters that the group needs to change with the times. “This is what BRICS is saying, let’s be more inclusive. BRICS is not anti-West,” he said.

And then of course there is the boosterism from the South Africa President, Cyril Ramaphosa as well (FP):

BRICS has embarked on a new chapter in its effort to build a world that is fair, a world that is just, a world that is also inclusive and prosperous,

As for Indonesia, an obvious choice for the BRICS to draw closer to ASEAN and Southeast Asia more  broadly. Why was it not part of the enlargement group? It would seem that Indonesia has not yet decided whether it wants membership. It has not submitted, apparently, a letter of intent. Also, it appears, notwithstanding the announcement that the UAE, in fact, has not decided whether to accept the BRICS invitation, though I suppose in the end it will.

And then there is – Argentina.  Argentina remains mired in a dreadful economic crisis. If in the end new members will be asked to contribute capital to the most important BRICS creation, in my opinion, the New Development Bank (NDB), Argentina is far more likely to ask for support than to be able to contribute support. In the end, I suspect it was Brazil and its current president, Lula that pressed for membership to be extended to Argentina.

As just noted, the most notable significant BRICS achievement, in my opinion, has been the creation of the NDB. There  was some indication that the expanded members would all be required to contribute to the NDB.  And that still may occur.  Still, it is disappointing that not more was mentioned of the NDB by the current announcements.

There was, also, a fair bit of reporting, and loud statements prior to the conclusion of the Summit, that suggested the BRICS might well take steps to create some form of common currency, or steps at de-dollarization by the BRICS. But as was pointed out by Henry Poenisch in OMFIF:

A declaration released at the gathering in Johannesburg on 24 August made no mention of a common currency and instead focused on bilateral clearing – the second-best option. It stressed the importance of ‘encouraging the use of local currencies in international trade and financial transactions between Brics as well as between their trading partners.’

Yet, it seems to me the enhanced use of local currencies, except possibly the Chinese renminbi, is a rather questionable proposition. Using some of the local currencies available, and then holding the surplus for future use doesn’t seem a rather appealing course of action.

Finally, what most commentators failed to point to in their descriptions of the enlargement of the BRICS is that two of the six new members – Argentina and Saudi Arabia – are already members of the G20, as of course are all of the original BRICS. Rather than contemplating the consequence of the enlarged BRICS for global policy progress, it strikes me targeting the efforts, and today’s evident hardships in advancing global governance in the face of rising geopolitics by focusing attention on the G20 might well be a more fruitful avenue of inquiry if one was examining global summitry and the efforts to advance global governance. Looking again, at Jim O’Neill he turns, not reasonably, in this direction:

What the world really needs is a resurrected G20, which already includes all the same key players, plus others. It remains the best forum for addressing truly global issues such as economic growth, international trade, climate change, pandemic prevention, and so on. Though it now faces significant challenges, it still can reclaim the spirit of 2008-10, when it coordinated the international response to the global financial crisis. At some point, the US and China will have to overcome their differences and allow the G20 to return to its central position.

This was originally posted at my Substack ‘Alan’s Newsletter’ You can view there and you are free to subscribe as well.
https://open.substack.com/pub/globalsummitryproject/p/brics-confusion-is-rather-evident?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Image Credit: France 24

Not Simply the Pace of Summitry: In then end, it is all about the 4Cs

Posted on by
Reply

I posted recently here at Alan’s Newsletter on the upcoming BRICS Summit – Puzzling over a BRICS Enlargement. And BRICS, as I described in the Post, is a ‘big deal’ in the pantheon of Leaders’ Summits. I also noted the possible ‘reignition’ of the Trilateral Summit – China, Japan and the Republic of Korea (Korea). But this is not the current extent of summit activity. There is, in fact, another Trilateral Summit that is about to gather – what I am referring to as a ‘Second Trilateral Summit’. This is the gathering at Camp David of the leaders of Japan, Korea and the United States. And since that gathering is tomorrow, Friday, I thought I’d get this Post out in anticipation of the Camp David Trilateral Summit of the three leaders.

‘Global summitry’ – the extent, importance and consequence of these leaders’ gatherings and the global governance progress achieved at these gatherings is, not surprisingly, at the heart of the Global Summitry Project (GSP). It is here in the e-journal Global Summitry, in our work with colleagues in the China-West Dialogue (CWD), and the strengthening of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and our work with students and researchers through the GSP including the articles, podcasts and videos.

Well let’s turn back, for just a moment to the upcoming  Summit. What, you say, a second trilateral summit? Well, yes, actually. The JapanTimes sets out possible goals for such a Trilateral Leaders’ gathering – the Second Trilateral Summit :

In a major step toward making trilateral cooperation a more permanent fixture, U.S.President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean leader Yoon Suk-yeol will agree to hold three-way summits at least once a year, while also conducting more frequent joint military drills around the Korean Peninsula and bolstering intelligence-sharing, including real-time warning data on North Korean missile launches.

The three leaders are also expected to signal deeper cooperation in areas such as cybersecurity, supply chain resilience and fighting economic coercion.

The one-day meeting — the three leaders’ first stand alone summit not held on the sidelines of a separate event — will take place against the backdrop of North Korea’s ever-improving nuclear and missile programs as well as China’s growing military assertiveness. Both issues will be high on the agenda.

But first and foremost, the summit is expected to focus on laying the foundation for a more durable trilateral relationship that can withstand political change, namely the growing partnership between two of the most powerful democracies in Asia.

Continue reading →

Puzzling over BRICS Enlargement

Posted on by
Reply

As Global Summits go, and besides the leader-led summits, G7 and the G20, there is nothing with greater presence, and possible impact in international relations, than the BRICS. As noted by Ndzendze, Bhaso, Siphamandia Zondo (2023) in their recent article in The Conversation on the state of the BRICS: 

What began in 2001 as an acronym for four of the fastest growing states, BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), is projected to account for 45% of global GDP in purchasing power parity terms by 2030. It has evolved into a political formation as well.

It is the political impact that is most interesting and, I would say, somewhat puzzling. For the BRICS club – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – all are members of the G20.  Like the G20, and for that matter the earlier created G7, the BRICS represent a ‘leaders club’ that is a leader-led global summit that has an annual meeting of those leaders – the centerpiece of the year-long hosting by one member or another. In some respects the BRICS are unique in what the group is not. That is, unlike the G7, the BRICS members have no  evident ideological dimension – neither democratic nor autocratic. Instead it appears to see itself as focused on opposition to US hegemony in the current global order and they appear to demand a greater development focus and attention to the Global South. Again, as pointed out by Bhaso and Zondo: 

Crucial to this was these countries’ decision to form their own club in 2009, instead of joining an expanded G7 as envisioned by former Goldman Sachs CEO Jim O’Neill, who coined the term “Bric”. Internal cohesion on key issues has emerged and continues to be refined, despite challenges. … Ever since, the grouping has taken on a more pointedly political tone, particularly on the need to reform global institutions, in addition to its original economic raison d’etre. 

Now, it is not that there haven’t been efforts to enlarge these informal leader-led institutions  – to draw in the systemically important Global South players – China, India, Brazil – and other regional powers, Turkey and Indonesia for instance.  Obviously, the G20 is the evident case. Still, it would seem that the BRICS members resisted absorption in the G20, indeed, just at the G7 members – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and the U.S., and also the EU, failed to wind up the G7 and ‘live’ in an enlarged G20 after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008. Though there has been constant academic and expert discussion over absorption, enlargement and continuing separation, there continues to be both a G20 and a G7 a G20 and a BRICS. Again my SOAS colleagues focussing on the BRICS suggest: 

Some may even bring destabilising dynamics for the current composition of the formation. This matters because it tells us that the envisioned change in the global order is likely to be much slower. Simply put, while some states are opposed to western hegemony, they do not yet agree among themselves on what the new alternative should be.

Continue reading →

Advancing Global Governance by Revitalizing a Regional Institution

Posted on by
Reply

While I have suggested earlier that I don’t think an initial  focus on building regional or multilateral institutions is necessarily the best first step in global governance and possibly a means to ‘tone down’ geopolitical competition rhetoric and action, I am now about to contradict myself and this position. For, in the end, there are some obvious regional and international institutions that could encourage collaborative action and push global governance collaboration. And, in fact, I have in mind an obvious one that has – as a current Chinese slang term might well describe it – ‘tang ping’  躺平 – or ‘lying flat’. It is the Trilateral Summit.

Trilateral Summit, you say. Well, yes, actually. The Trilateral Summit is, periodically, a Summit of the ‘key’ East Asia leaders – South Korea, Japan and most meaningfully,  China. A little history here. The Trilateral Summit was first proposed by South Korea in 2004. At that time the three powers met for a separate session at the ASEAN gathering, described as ASEAN plus three. In 2007, at the eighth meeting of the ASEAN plus Three, the leaders agreed to initiate a separate Trilateral Summit. And, in December 2008, the first separate summit was hosted by Japan at Fukuoka. At its initiation the three powers saw the Summit focusing on: closer trilateral relations, the regional economy and disaster relief.  One of the regional security issues that has been in front of leaders repeatedly has been the nuclear weapons program of the Democratic Republic of Korea, the DPRK. In the 2018 summit the FT  described the leaders’ view of the DPRK nuclear weapons program: “the three leaders agreed to co-operate over North Korea and called for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons completely.” While that agreement may no longer hold, it shows the value of this Summit.

The Summit is not quite a leaders’ gathering. While South Korea is often represented by its President and Japan by its Prime Minister, China has generally been led by its premier, not the President.

Continue reading →

The New and Rather Difficult Course of Global Order Relations

Posted on by
Reply

‘The Decline of US Hegemony and its Consequences for the Global Order’ – A Roundtable at the International Studies Association

Posted on by
Reply

ISA 2023: Exhibit, Advertise, and SponsorSo, the International Studies Association (ISA) just concluded in Montreal  after a visibly energetic in-person gathering following several years of virtual meetings only.

I was fortunate enough to chair the roundtable. All sorts of good folk attended including panelists: Arthur Stein, UCLA, Lou Pauly, University of Toronto, Yves Tiberghien, University of British Columbia, and Kyle Lascurettes, Lewis and Clark College. Unfortunately, our colleagues, Janice Stein could not join but I was fortunate enough to receive her speaking note and I have tried to reflect some of her thinking with the notes from other colleagues.

What didn’t surprise me, of course, during the session was the recognition from all that we have a fraught period of transition in the international system. There is the obvious Russian aggression against Ukraine and the challenge by Russia to some of the basic tenets of the current order – most notably territorial integrity and national sovereignty. There is also the obvious growing leading power tensions between the US and China and the growing threat of confrontation and conflict especially over Taiwan that currently stock the relationship. There was the obvious attention to US determination to sustain dominance even in the face of a dramatic power transition with the emergence of China and more broadly the Global South – India and other Indo-Pacific nations including Indonesia, etc. and other Southeast Asian states and then, of course, the return of Lula to Brazil.

But raw geopolitics did not dominate the discourse of the Roundtable. Equally significant in our discussions was the acknowledgement of the continuance of the intergovernmental institutions and collective actions of states to advance global order and achieve collective action within the framework of the current and evolving Order. While some decried the faltering of the global institutions, nevertheless, there was general acceptance that regional and other informal order-based institutions continued advance policies in various ways. AS one of my colleagues Kyle Lascurettes noted: “There is a truly global rules-based order that stands a good chance of outliving American hegemonic decline. But the so called “liberal” or “Western” rules-based order is and will be in trouble.” Indeed, the liberal order or the Liberal International Order (LIO) disappeared, I’d argue with the Global Financial Crisis” in 2008 but the Global Order does indeed remain. And, as Yves Tiberghien focusing on the dramatic power transition suggested: “today is a time of disruption and transition – a special phase. Major shocks, change, crises, innovation will take place over the next 1-2 decades … Also shift in awareness. Western dominated order was an anomaly of last 200 years, with a rise phase for 300 years before that. Return of multiple voices all over the world. Return to a diverse, polymorphic, poly polarity.” As Jagannath Panda recently wrote in an EAF blog on March 20, 2023:  “Obituaries of the US-led liberal international order may be exaggerated, but the shift towards multipolarity is in motion.”

And what then do we have as the Global Order, and how will it advance. Arthur Stein recalled the fragile nature of the Order, which he described for me in his opening chapter of my 2008 edited volume – Can the World be Governed? The global order, he wrote then, and repeated at our Roundtable was:  ‘a weakly confederal world’. As he said at the time (2008, 52) : ”In fact, one could argue not only that multilateralism is an existential reality but that weak confederalism is the nature of modern reality.”

So the LIO has faded,  and what remains is the global RBIO (rules-based international order). Weaker and less collaborative – indeed as Arthur pointed out, the low hanging fruit of cooperation has passed and it is and will be increasingly difficult to reach collaborative solutions . But as Yves points out that there is continuing support for aspects of the Order including with China where Yves notes the significant China support for COP15 the Conference on  Biodiversity where the multilateral conference came together to agree on a new set of goals to guide global action through 2030 and to halt and reverse nature loss and the recently concluded agreement on the text for the critical High Seas Treaty. The challenge for the leading powers is to maintain a forward collaborative thrust, and as Lou Pauly warned, it is critical for the US to accept: “The challenge is to overcome perennial tendencies toward either insularity or spasmodic over-extension, toward temporizing on necessary decisions, toward shifting the costs of adjustment to the relatively poor internally, and toward exporting the rest of those costs to other countries.” It will not be easy; and Arthur reminded us that American domestic politics has been a problem since 1919 and continues today with the failure to approve through the US Senate, international agreements and the often strained effort to use executive power.

As Janice Stein alludes to in her notes: “Plurilateral and minilateral institutions – from AUKUS to IPEF to Trade and Technology Councils will be the principal sites of innovation. I have called this process “taking it offsite.” New institutions are being stood up, led by the willing, who set rules and invite others to join if they wish. One could argue that we are entering a period of start-up innovation in the creation of new, smaller, more flexible, and more focused institutions.

Although Janice may be a touch pessimistic over multilateral collaborative action, the Global Order has its worked cut out for it to avoid great power conflict and achieve critical global governance policies in climate, global finance, global health and much more.

 

Image Credit: ISA

Focusing on the China-West Dialogue Project (CWD); Advancing Global Governance; and Improving US-China Relations

Posted on by
Reply

Now, turning back to the Global Summitry Project (GSP) and the Vision20 – collective efforts of Yves Tiberghien, Professor of Political Science and Konwakai Chair in Japanese Research at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Colin Bradford, nonresident Senior Fellow from Brookings  and myself, the Director of the Global Summitry Project. We have initiated various research initiatives.

A critical major effort over some three years has been the China-West Dialogue Process (CWD). The CWD has been Co-Chaired with Colin Bradford, the lead Co-Chair of the CWD and myself. This initiative has held some twenty plus virtual gatherings and many participants are set to gather in person for the first time in years at the Global Solutions Summit in Berlin May 15-16th <https://www.global-solutions-initiative.org/programs/china-west-dialogue/?utm_source=MASTER_Verteiler&utm_campaign=33fe63ffef-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_11_10_44_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4f4e08bb85-33fe63ffef-447373003> to focus on US-China relations and assess how the G20 can advance critical, and dramatically needed global governance issues – global debt management, climate change policy, global food security and health security.

What is required, however, and is currently missing, is that the two leading powers turn their minds to such critical global governance policy efforts – both bilateral and multilateral.  From the beginning the CWD has targeted first Trump policy and now Biden foreign policy. Trump Administration officials made it clear that ‘engagement with China’ born in the Nixon Administration was at an end. Both Administrations called for competition though not for conflict. The outcome so far, especially for bilateral relations has been dismal.

As my Co-Chair Colin Bradford wrote on March 7th: “The strategic competition between the US and China is real and must be accepted and managed. But the confrontational narratives of this binary relationship are dominating and weakening global leadership and governance and present a threat to the global order.”   As the Editorial of the NYTimes, today, March 12th, urges: “Americans’ interests are best served by emphasizing competition with China while minimizing confrontation. Glib invocations of the Cold War are misguided. It doesn’t take more than a glance to appreciate that this relationship is very different. Rather than try to trip the competition, America should focus on figuring out how to run faster, …” <https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/11/opinion/china-us-relationship.html?referringSource=articleShare>. Competition is not the problem for the Biden Administration; but collaborative policy making certainly appears to be. And current policy has made it more difficult. All one needs to do is to examine the interaction of the Biden Administration and the Chinese Government and Party on “balloon gate”. As Paul Herr of the Chicago Council identifies in his post at EAF: <https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2023/03/12/ballooning-mistrust-in-the-us-china-relationship/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter2023-03-12> “Washington and Beijing’s response to the appearance of a Chinese surveillance balloon over the United States in February 2023 illustrates several aspects of the current US–China relationship that will make it very difficult to reverse the downward spiral in bilateral ties. The episode displayed mutual distrust, latent hostility, a failure to communicate and the adverse impact of internal politics on how the two sides deal with each other.”

As the CWD has identified at the GSI CWD Website – <https://www.global-solutions-initiative.org/programs/china-west-dialogue/> “The CWD’s fundamental goal is to help reshape the narratives and behaviours of US-China relations from friction to function by engaging other middle and major powers and emerging powers in a reframed China-West relations in G20 processes and other public forums. The aim of the Project is to identify new political dynamics that yield more productive relations in the international system.” At the CWD has identified, and noted by Colin Bradford on March 7th: “The CWD has concluded that the G20 is the most important platform for profiling and actualizing these alternative political dynamics in the year-long official G20 processes, which could enable convergence on systemic threats and ease geopolitical tensions.”

It is a challenging  goal in the face of current difficult US-China relations – but crucial for settling global order relations that have become ‘so rocky’ and unsettled in the last several years.

March 12, 2023

 

China-West Dialogue (CWD) Members Discuss the Global Debt Management Environment

Posted on by
Reply

The CWD focused recent attention on the global management of debt and the growing threat of a sovereign debt crisis. After a number of virtual gatherings and much focused discussion, the CWD completed a Debt Management Proposal that CWD passed to folks in India as India scheduled the first G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bankers Ministerial at Bangalore, or its official name, Bengaluru.

The  CWD Debt Proposal Summary is currently posted at the Global Solutions Initiative. but we do anticipate that the full Proposal will be up at the Global Summitry Project shortly. Meanwhile, I also wanted give you a flavor for the intense discussions that went on among CWD principals working on the Proposal. First, I wanted to link you to the Debt Management analysis prepared by Deborah Brautigam at SAIS that was published as: “The Developing World’s Coming Debt Crisis: America and China Need to Cooperate on Relief” in Foreign Affairs published on February 20th.

And then I wanted to give you a flavor of the deep discussion that went on for several weeks. This is a short back and forth that took place with Deborah Brautigam, Johannes Linn and Richard Carey on February 21st. I have smoothed the discussion and elaborated on the many acronyms in the back and forth:

“Johannes Linn

If I had one wish, Deborah, after reading your excellent article in Foreign Affairs, it would have been that you had explained more fully the nature of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HPIC) process. In my view it was not “debt cancellation” by the IFIs, but the paydown of IFI debt with resources from bilateral donors and some International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) net income (which could otherwise have been contributed to International Development Association (IDA)). If I understood the [current] Chinese proposal for the establishment of a World Bank trust fund in parallel with an existing IMF trust fund to pay off IMF debt (as you mention), then that would in effect be parallel to the HPIC approach, and one wonders why the World Bank didn’t accept that. It  could be that World Bank did not want to risk having bilateral donors reduce their new IDA contributions in reaction, which would have meant less new IDA money for the poorest countries.

It appears that the issue with multilateral debt relief is the following: there is no free lunch — if the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) take a hit on their balance sheet and give up their long-established “preferred creditor status”, they risk a downgrading and higher risk exposure and thus more restricted prudent use of capital market funding. IDA will have fewer resources for new lending. In effect, other developing countries will pay the price for multilateral debt cancellation. If they go for a HPIC-like solution then bilateral donors will have to pay, burdening either donor countries’ tax payers (which, one could argue, is not unreasonable); this might risk that their contributions to IDA and other concessional multilateral windows will drop and thus concessional new money from MDBs for the poor countries will decline (in which case other developing countries would again pay the price).

By the way, a straightforward comparison of debt outstanding across creditor classes, while relatively easy to compile, tells only a partial story. One really should look at the net present value of debt service obligations across creditor classes, since that reflects the real cost of debt to countries, allowing for very different terms under which different classes of debt are contracted. Under this approach private debt will weigh much more heavily and MDB debt less so. It would be interesting to see what happens to Paris Club debt versus Chinese debt.

Deborah Brautigam

My own view is that the World Bank should have explored the establishment of a Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT) – an IMF trust – equivalent more seriously. There was a view expressed that China wanted it to be funded in proportion to voting shares, which was deemed infeasible, but the IMF trust is, I believe, funded by voluntary contributions. This would have been a start.

As I recall during HIPC, since the debt relief was counted as “aid”, countries did reduce their non-relief funding. I remember that Japan warned that this would be the consequence.

Richard Carey

The decision to adopt and implement the “enhanced HIPC” was taken at the Cologne G8 Summit in 1999, after agreement at the previous Summit in Birmingham in 1998 that the following year the Summit would definitively deal with debt.

In that intervening year, the details were hammered out in the contentious process as previously described. Funding of multilateral debt reduction came from the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) concessional aid essentially (the IMF used some of its own resources for the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), with a call for bilateral contributions to cover additional needs, and the MDRI was extended to all countries with less than $380 per capita, whether they had been in the HIPC program or not).

The key mover was Clare Short, then new Labour Government Secretary of State with a new Department of International Development (DFID) and a new White Paper which endorsed the 1996 DAC International Development Goals (IDGs). She flew to Washington to help Brian Atwood, then the Head of USAID, face down Treasury and State who held that the 1996 DAC Goals had not been endorsed. The position was that this initiative did represent US agreement for what eventually became the IDGs. The story of how the HIPC became linked to the goal for poverty reduction is told in Chapter 10 of the recent history of the DAC.

In 1998 the Jubilee 2000 Campaign for Debt Reduction was having a major impact on  public opinion. Short saw an opportunity to make debt relief conditional on poor countries drawing up poverty reduction strategies. To establish that link, Short had to fly to Washington to face down USAID Administrator Brian Atwood and objections from Treasury and State that the US had never agreed to the OECD’s DAC International Development Goals. With her position that Prime Minister Blair would publicly criticize President Clinton if he failed to support the IDGs (eventually to become the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the 1998 G8 Communique endorsed them in resounding terms. That is how the enhanced HIPC came to be based on Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. (Note that CWD Common Framework proposal involves countries adopting medium term strategies based on the “new development narratives”…).

A subplot in this story was that the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF), was lost to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), although the 1999 Cologne G8 Communique had briefly welcomed the CDF. As Chapter 10 in the DAC History relates, a joint note circulated on April 5, 2000, by James Wolfensohn and Stanley Fischer sought to square the circle of the urgency of the PRSPs to deliver fast on debt relief and the more time-consuming task of bringing multiple stakeholders into a country-led long-term development platform:

For some time the formulation of “PRSPs incorporating the principles of the CDF” became a standard phrase. But eventually the battle for the CDF was lost and this formula faded away. And without the CDF, the HIPC PRSPs essentially left out agendas such as infrastructure, urbanisation  and rural development. The MDGs were essentially human development/wellbeing- based proxies  – these left-out agendas only came back with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015.

In the present case of the CF, medium term country strategies based on the “new development narratives” can in principle be built on the basis of nationally owned SDGs and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)  to the Paris Climate Change Agreement. But let us see what is emerging in Finance Ministers and Central Bankers meeting in India this week and beyond. And, with bond financing now a major part of the picture, impact investing by the private sector and asset managers on the basis of projects and programs that are green, social, sustainable and sustainability linked  (GSSS) seems to be in vogue.  Also, as mentioned, the article by the Lazard Sovereign Debt Unit has useful ideas  -e.g., on how bondholders can be brought into early agreements with special bonds that provide a payoff for “haircuts” if and when the economy is in much better shape.

Johannes Linn

By the way, one question we all seem to studiously avoid in this discussion about debt relief is how to prevent a new debt crisis a few years down the road, after we solve this one. In the mid 1990s I was involved in establishing the broad design of HPIC – moving from basic concept to decision in principle –  with President James Wolfensohn at the World Bank, so it is particularly frustrating to see the debt issues being replayed all over again, except that it may be an even more intractable problem now than it was then.”

Hope you like it.

Image Credit: IMF

Impact of zero-Covid Policies on the CPC, the Government and Xi Jinping

Posted on by
Reply

Protests against the zero-COVID policy in China quickly spread across the country. While Anti-COVID protests are certainly not a new global phenomenon, such a public and widely spread expression of frustration towards the Chinese government is rarely seen.

This note examines the Chinese top level leadership’s approach to the zero-COVID policy; why it led to mounting public anger and frustration; and where it may lead.

The Initial Approach – Central Government’s Blame Avoidance

 While President Xi vowed that he will “supervise and deploy (COVID-19 prevention operations) personally”, the COVID-19 prevention throughout the country took on a decentralized approach.[1] In other words, the order (of no COVID cases) was delivered by the Central Government, but it was up to the local authorities to interpret the order and execute it. For instance, each province has its own mandatory QR code system that rated users’ risk of exposure to COVID-19, and each province had its own domestic and international arrival quarantine requirements.

As power becomes more consolidated within the CPC, it would only appear plausible that the whole country would take on a centralized approach for COVID-19 strategy such as a national QR code system and a standardized requirement for traveling and quarantine. Nevertheless, these decentralized approaches were permitted to continue in the past two years. Frequently, these inconsistent COVID policies among provinces and regions in China caused confusion and frustrations among residents and travellers. This could be viewed as the Central Government’s strategy for ‘blame avoidance’. By providing an opaque order of “no COVID cases”, the Central Government shifts responsibilities to the local governments while leaving them to interpret its own plan. If the strategy is successful, the Central Government, or President Xi himself, could take credit as the operations are overseen by him “personally”.[2] In the event that the strategy is unsuccessful, or controversial, residents naturally would hold the local government accountable as they implemented these procedures.

Too Little To Lose?

A stable society based on rapid economic growth has been a key goal of the CPC. The idea of “you can earn money and spend money but don’t touch politics” is an unspoken social contract among many Chinese and foreign citizens and companies. While China enjoyed rapid economic growth, so also its middle class. Owning at least an apartment and a vehicle and living comfortably have already become the default goal of many middle class citizens. Based on the prerequisite of not participating in politics, these goals are achievable when the balance of the ability to earn a decent wage and reasonable cost of living is maintained. The Chinese citizens know very well that what they have accomplished and acquired could be lost very quickly if they are disobedient to the government. Therefore, most citizens have chosen to refrain from directly criticizing the government for its actions.

With a decelerating economy, however, this balance of economic advancement and political silence is eroding. In major cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, it is hardly possible for youth to find a job that pays high enough to support themselves and afford an apartment or vehicle. The draconian COVID measures further impeded citizens’ ability to find jobs and get paid; hence, their ability to make new purchases. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, real estate development between January 2022 to July 2022 dropped by 6.4 percent while residential investment dropped by 5.8 percent.[3] On the other hand, major online shopping platforms often publish sales volume during November 11th, Single’s Day.[4] According to Sohu News, online shopping platforms such as Alibaba and Tmall both recorded double digit or triple digit growth in sales volume in the past several years.[5] Nevertheless, Tmall did not disclose its sales volume for 2022, instead it published a statement that “the sales volume was largely the same as last year”.[6] These moderated data could also suggest that the general public prefers to save their money instead of spending it given their job stability is affected by the unpredictable COVID policies.

Continue reading →