Obisk ameriške finančne ministrice Janet Yellen, ki je doživela boljše čase v akademskem svetu in nato v Federal Reserve, na Kitajskem je težko opisati drugače kot popoln fiasko. Res ni jasno, kaj si je predstavljala, da lahko doseže na Kitajskem. Da pomiri kitajske oblasti, da ZDA ne mislijo resno z ostrim trgovinskim in investicijskim protekcionizmom ter z izzivanjem spopada okrog Tajvana? In to tako, da ne prinese nobenih pobud za deeskalacijo napetosti, ki so jih začele in jih stopnjujejo ZDA, ampak da Kitajski postavlja nove zahteve? Denimo glede kitajske sprostitve omejitev za ameriške investicije (halo, kdo je uvedel črne liste za kitajska podjetja?), glede nujnosti vključitve v bitko glede fentanila (halo, to je problem ameriške propadle zdravstvene in socialne politike, kaj ima Kitajska s tem?) in glede nujnosti uvedbe liberalnih reform in tržnega gospodarstva (halo, kateri sistem se je v zadnjih štirih desetletjih pokazal bolj razvojno uspešen – kitajska industrijska politika z reguliranim tržnim gospodarstvom ali ameriški neoliberalni model s financializacijo vsega?). Ob tem, ko tvoja moč vidno peša in se zavezniki odvračajo od tebe in se pridružujejo gostitelju, moraš res biti samozaverovan v lastno veličino oziroma tumpast kot Američan, da prideš na obisk k večji sili od sebe in gostitelju držiš predavanja ter postavljaš zahteve. Američani pač.

Kitajski gostitelji so imeli največjo težavo s tem, kako gostji vljudno povedati, naj se spelje, od koder je prišla. In res mi je žal Yellenove, ker zelo spoštujem njeno preteklo delo, sploh na čelu Feda. Ampak trenutno je v zelo slabi družbi in ima zelo slabo službo.

Dva dobra komentarja sta spodaj, eden iz ameriške, drugi pa iz evropske perspektive. ZDA se iz zanke zaostrovanja napetosti s Kitajsko ne morejo več izvleči, kajti gre za biti ali ne biti ameriške globalne hegemonije. Zadeva je podobna kot pri levjem krdelu: ko pride mlajši pretendent, da bi izrinil že ostarelega vodjo krdela, se starejši mora podati v napad in poskušati mlajšega pregnati. Tukaj ni sobivanja. Je zgolj out – out. In v prvem boju levinje pomagajo obstoječemu vodji, da prežene mlajšega in da zaliže rane po hudem boju. Toda samo prvič, v drugem poskusu levinje same preženejo ostarelega vodjo, ki se je izkazal kot prešibek, da bi njihovo krdelo lahko varoval tudi v bodoče. Danes vsi, razen (še) zahodnih držav, zapuščajo ZDA in se priključujejo Kitajski. Kralj je mrtev, naj živi kralj!

Evropa pa ima možnost izbire. Ker EU nima pretenzij po globalni hegemoniji, se lahko zadovolji z obojestransko koristnim sodelovanjem s Kitajsko. Seveda pa se mora pri tem:

(1) najprej otresti smrtonosnega objema pešajočih ZDA in hkrati

(2) zagotoviti strateško energetsko avtonomijo in nizke cene energije (z jedrskim preporodom in tudi s ponovno vzpostavitvijo plinskih povezav z Rusijo) in

(3) uveljavljati odločne ukrepe industrijske politike, s katerimi bo zagotovila tehnološki razvoj in konkurenčnost evropske industrije (Standort Evropa!).

Zaenkrat sicer kaže, da evropski “voditelji” tega še niso dojeli. Čas je za nove, prave voditelje. Voditelje z vizijo in voditelje z “jajci”.

_________

Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen visited China. There she tried to press the worlds biggest economy on several issues.

• Yellen, in Beijing, Criticizes China’s Treatment of U.S. Companies – NY Times, July 7, 2023
• Yellen Urges China to Step Up Climate Finance Investments – NY Times, July 7, 2023
• U.S. Raises Pressure on China to Combat Global Fentanyl Crisis – NY Times, July 7, 2023

None of these points are in China’s interest. In the U.S. Chinese companies are treated badly. U.S. financed climate investments in foreign countries, which are small, usually come with additional extraordinary demands that benefit the donating country rather than the receiving one. China does this differently. Fentanyl is not a global problem rather a specific U.S. one the causes of which are general social problems China and other have avoided to have.

The last demand Yellen made was even more crazy. She called for a full turn of China towards neoliberal policies:

“I pressed them on our concerns about China’s unfair economic practices,” [Yellen] said, citing barriers to access for foreign firms and problems involving intellectual property. She added that a more market-oriented system in China “would not only be in the interests of the U.S. and other countries. It would be better for the Chinese economy, as well.”Would China be where it is today if it had privatized its banking system and state owned companies? Would China be richer if it had let U.S. vulture funds buy up and bankrupt Chinese companies? Would it have managed to lift 800 million of its citizens from poverty if it had followed the economic advice of the U.S., the IMF or World Bank?

The answer to these questions is of course an emphatic “No”.

Why Yellen thinks she can impress China with advice for a ‘more market-oriented system’, even as the U.S. blocks Chinese investments, sanctions Chinese companies and limits sales of certain products to China, is beyond me.

Yellen’s visit failed to achieve anything. She had some talks with Chinese officials but achieved nothing. She lectured and made demands that no one in China will be willing to fulfill.

The Chinese side for one seems unimpressed by her performance:

Yellen mentioned multiple times the US is seeking a healthy competition with China rather than a “winner-take-all” approach. While this may sound good, the key lies in how we define “healthy competition.” Is it a US-style one in which the geopolitical appetite of the US is satisfied while China unconditionally cooperates? Or is it based on mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation? The root cause of the challenges in the China-US relationship lies in Washington’s flawed perception of China. Unless the issue of the ‘first button’ is addressed, no matter how wonderful the ideas and wishes may be, they will remain nothing more than castles in the air.Unless the U.S. accepts China as equal the relations between the countries will not turn around. The U.S. can grow with China only when it accepts that China is different from itself and has its own path towards further development.

As neither is the today’s dominant viewpoint a further deterioration of the relations, largely to the disadvantage of the U.S., is the most likely prospect.

Vir: Moon of Alabama

_________

It was a bit of an awkward sight to see Janet Yellen make three bows when she greeted her opposite number, Vice Premier He Lifeng, during her recent visit to China. She said later she wanted to reset the relationship, and do so with candour and respect.

While it’s always a good idea to keep diplomatic channels open, we fear that the relapse into global trading blocks has reached so much momentum that it will be hard to reverse, even with Yellen’s deft economic diplomacy. 

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Nathaniel Taplin offers an interesting take on the current state of US-China relations. As both sides anticipate a future military standoff in the South China Sea, they have started to pull apart their previously intertwined technologies. The economic impact of disentanglement weakens growth and fuels populist politics in both camps. This in turn makes it harder to manage future crises.

We applaud Yellen for making an effort to break this toxic spiral. She clearly has a much deeper understanding of the long-term economic consequences of a relapse into global trading blocks than Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser and the brain behind the administration’s China policies. Sullivan’s priority has been to reverse de-industrialisation and offshoring, which he blamed for Donald Trump’s victory in 2016. We have noted an increased reliance on economic tools in foreign policy, but policymakers are often ignorant of the economic effects of such policies.

Yellen’s career was in academia and central banking before she became treasury secretary. She is not nearly as rooted in Democrat politics as Sullivan. To the extent that this is a power battle, this is not one she will win. The most she can achieve is to open some diplomatic channels. 

There is also a gulf between the US and the EU. US imports from China have fallen to the lowest level since 2005. EU trade with China is moving in the opposite direction.  

Change is coming, but it is coming slowly. What has changed is that EU companies are no longer dictating the foreign policy of their governments. This is particularly visible in Germany. We noted quite a few headlines a few months ago that German companies were resisting the more cautious China policies of the current government. We are not sure that this is the right way to look at this. The current generation of corporate leaders are not used to seeing their interests being subjected to geopolitical considerations. We expect that the EU, too, will increasingly subject its foreign trade and investments to security considerations. But it won’t go as far as the Biden administration.

Vir: Eurointelligence