Be Aware of a New Mode of Dispute between China and the US

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 5 January 2018
by Zhou Yuyuan (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Yuzhi Yang. Edited by Tiana Robles.
Currently for America, the mode of dispute between China and the U.S. has reached a level affecting strategic decision-making and security. The main battlefield is now that of developing nations, and the key to winning this battle is economic and development cooperation with these countries. Some reports have claimed that the Trump administration is planning a new development financing bank for precisely this reason, which also shows that America is relaunching an arsenal in this area to become more competitive with China.

It is undeniable that America is a major country with respect to international cooperation, and has numerous mechanisms and tools at its disposal such as the United States Agency for International Development, the United States Trade and Development Agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and other instruments created by various administrations over the years. Yet, the many mechanisms and tools at work have also led to scattered strength, bureaucracy, lack of coordination, limited effectiveness, etc. Therefore, reform and consolidation of these organizations remains an important task. Creating a new development financing bank is a critical way for America to reform its cooperative style, even if the bank’s effectiveness seems to be rather limited right now.

First, there are enormous gaps in infrastructure construction in both Asia and Africa; at the same time, realizing industrialization and accepting the international transfer of productivity is still a critical need for developing countries in their quest to transform their economic model and maintain national stability. Apparently, the American economic structure has determined it has no ability to play a key role in this area. Meanwhile, China’s development financing has always supported the connections and exchange involved in infrastructure construction as well as the contacts about development strategies between countries.

Second, America’s development financing is not as grand as it claims. On one hand, the targets of American financing support are American businesses and not developing countries. American businesses tend to be primarily service-oriented and technology-based, and they prefer to develop in mid-to-high income countries with big markets and high consumption; they have very little intention of going to less-developed countries. On the other hand, development financing from America comes at the cost of receiving less American aid, which could lead to a situation where developing countries would not be supported by American financing or American aid.

Third, coordination of the various American cooperative agencies will not be all smooth sailing. The American-funded development finance bank needs to consolidate the financing functions of the USAID and the USTDA, which affects the core interests of these two agencies, and which is likely to trigger a conflict of interest. In addition, America has always had development financing agencies such as import and export banks, which have coordination issues of their own. Even more importantly, the financing power of these agencies has never been proven, nor do these agencies have the same level of competitiveness as similar Chinese agencies.

Realistically, the new American bank’s impact on China is very limited, but China still needs to be cautious about America’s intentions and related maneuvers. It’s very possible that America may strengthen its cooperation with allies and friends and create a collective advantage, such as increasing development financing partnerships with Japan in the Asia-Pacific. America would also probably expand its use of regulatory and legal tools, and more pragmatically make use of its nongovernmental agencies. Further, America would also be more likely to instigate conflict between developing countries and China.

While the overall environment of China’s international cooperation is more complex and challenging, requiring China to be more strategically determined and confident with respect to its path, it is also necessary to realize that the journey of international cooperation is a learning process. China has a lot of room for improvement in making development financing more transparent, mechanizing developing relationships, localizing development cooperation and standardizing development programs, all of which require China to strengthen its interaction among its government, businesses, think tanks, media and social organizations, and to rely on further building and accumulating partnerships with developing countries.

The author is a senior fellow at the Center for West Asian and African Studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies.


对美国而言,中美之间的模式之争已经上升到战略和安全的高度。赢得发展中国家或者第三世界是中美模式之争的主战场,而打赢这场战争的关键在于经济和发展合作。有报道称,特朗普政府正在谋划成立的发展融资银行正是出于此目的。这也表明,美国正在重启发展合作的“弹药库”,试图在经济和发展合作上加强与中国在发展中国家的竞争。

  不容否认,美国是国际发展合作的大国,拥有众多的对外发展合作机制和工具,例如国际开发署、贸易和开发署、海外私人投资公司,以及不同政府时期提出的发展工具。然而,众多的机制和工具也导致力量分散、官僚拖沓、协调乏力、效果有限等问题。因此,改革和整合发展合作力量一直是美国国内讨论的一个重要议题。成立新的发展融资银行正是当前美国发展合作方式改革的一个重要举措。然而,从目前来看,该银行的作用可能十分有限。

  首先,无论是亚洲还是非洲都存在着巨大的基础设施缺口。同时,实行工业化、接纳国际产能转移是发展中国家经济转型和国家稳定的重要需求。显然,美国的经济结构决定了其很难在这些领域发挥核心作用。相反,中国的发展融资支持的往往是基础设施的互联互通,以及国家间的发展战略对接。

  其次,美国发展融资支持名大于实。一方面,美国发展融资支持的对象是美国企业,而非发展中国家。美国企业主要以服务型、技术型企业为主,这些企业更愿意去市场大、消费能力强的中高收入国家。相反,这些企业去欠发达国家的意愿很弱。另一方面,美国发展融资支持是以降低对外援助为代价。其很有可能带来的结果是,美国的发展融资既没有关照一些发展中国家,与此同时,对这些国家的发展援助反而减少了。

  最后,美国发展合作机制间的协调并不会那么顺利。发展融资银行要整合美国国际开发署、贸易和开发署的融资功能,这直接触及到这两个机构的核心利益,势必会招致机构间的利益纠葛。另外,美国本来就存在进出口银行等类似的发展融资机构。这些机构间的协调依然是一个问题。而且,更重要的是,这些机构的融资能力一直存疑,更没有与中国的发展融资机构竞争的能力。

  虽然从现实来看,新银行对中国的影响非常有限,但其背后的动机以及附加动作仍不得不防。很可能,美国将强化与联盟和伙伴关系的协调,形成集体优势,例如加强与日本在亚太的发展融资合作。美国也会加大规范和法治工具的使用,更加现实地利用非政府组织的作用。同时,挑拨发展中国家与中国关系的概率也将大大上升。

  中国的国际发展合作环境将比以往更加复杂和严峻,这需要中国保持更强的战略定力和道路自信。然而,也必须意识到,中国的国际发展合作也是逐步学习和提高的过程。在发展融资的透明度、发展关系的机制化、发展合作的本土化、发展项目的规范化上,中国仍有很大的提升空间。这既需要中国加强政府、企业、智库、媒体与社会组织之间的互动,更依赖与发展中国家合作关系的不断深化和积累。(作者是上海国际问题研究院西亚非洲研究中心副研究员)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Austria: The Deal for Kyiv Is Better Than the Many Threats against It

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Australia: Trump Is Washing His Hands of the Ukraine Problem, Without Quite Saying It

Topics

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Related Articles

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary