Beijing's Billions

China's foreign-policy ambitions could change the way it spends its money abroad.

BY EVAN A. FEIGENBAUM | MAY 20, 2010

In April, the United Nations and the U.S. government co-hosted a conference in New York to raise funds for the reconstruction of earthquake-ravaged Haiti. More than 50 countries kicked in $5.3 billion in all, at least a billion dollars over their initial goals. But the world's fastest-growing economy ponied up a miserly $1.5 million, comparable to the donations made by Gambia and Monaco -- hardly top-three economies -- and less than the cost of a house in some of the tonier suburbs of Shanghai.

Yet tensions are growing between the way China spends its money abroad and its goal of being viewed as a responsible global player. Chinese leaders face increasingly stark choices about whether and how to move China closer to the international mainstream. And at least some recent Chinese decisions suggest that changes might be afoot.

China has come under frequent criticism for failing to play by the rules followed by the established powers and institutions when opening their checkbooks to the rest of the world. No wonder: Chinese loans are often negotiated in secret, come without conventional expectations or conditions attached, and are offered to countries where Western money fears to tread, usually with good reason. China is both an investor and a donor of aid -- it converted $75 million in loans to Afghanistan into grants last year -- but Beijing generally prefers to act alone, rarely coordinating its strategies or programs with other countries.

Still, some Chinese policies might be changing. In 2007, China joined the list of donors to the International Development Association, the World Bank's fund for the poorest countries, which offers no-interest loans on generous terms. Beijing is beginning to work jointly with the World Bank in developing countries -- last month, for example, the bank's private-sector unit, the International Finance Corporation, agreed to pump $10 million into a Chinese real estate development in Tanzania. And, however modestly, China is also coordinating with other donors, including with the United States on projects in Ethiopia and Angola.

These are small steps, to be sure. But for a country that has long preferred to go it alone in the international development arena, they were hard to imagine not so very long ago. And as China's power grows, it will come under even greater pressure to forego a solo approach. For one thing, as China continues to pursue -- and attain -- greater voting influence and financial stakes in the major multilateral lending institutions, Beijing will face contradictions between its own lending policies and the practices of these very international organizations. Indeed, China's loans have, in many cases, undermined the reform message of the institutions in which it now seeks to play a greater role.

Chinese aid and loans do have conditions, but not the kind that more established donors usually impose. China hasn't demonstrated much concern with reducing graft, increasing transparency, or improving conditions for private-sector firms; instead, it requires recipient countries, to varying degrees, to buy and hire from China. Recent Chinese loans of $10 billion for Kazakhstan, $4 billion for Turkmenistan, and more than $630 million for Tajikistan, for example, have arguably done little to advance reforms or improve economic decision-making, much less to improve governance.

But as China grows in reach, its economic incentive to revisit these practices might also expand -- not least to protect its own investments. Beijing has encouraged Chinese enterprises to become more active investing overseas. But some business environments are proving too hazardous even for hardy Chinese state-owned enterprises, which, with government backing, have in the past been willing to take risks that many others will not.

This might be why the Chinese surprised their U.S. counterparts in a round of 2004 policy-planning discussions by asking about the good-governance provisions in then-President George W. Bush's Millennium Challenge Account development fund. And more recently, as commodity prices have become more volatile, Chinese enterprises have become more concerned with the need for predictability in some of the countries in which they are investing.

"The Chinese have changed their strategy," a senior economist in Guinea's Finance Ministry -- a longstanding Chinese partner -- told the New York Times last year. "They are not going to inject $5 billion into an unstable country in an uncertain market climate." This was a modest, but important, reminder that while China's money is changing the rest of the world, growing involvement with the world might yet change China, too.

Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images

 

Evan A. Feigenbaum is senior fellow for Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2001 to 2009, he worked on East, Central, and South Asia at the U.S. State Department.

DAHAI_SHING

2:58 PM ET

May 20, 2010

Thank you US

The generous US government donated a total of 500,000 USDs for China's Sichuan earthquake.

Chinese people will always remember this. (actually this noble deed has been broadly spread in Chinese media.)

Thank you.

 

DAHAI_SHING

3:03 PM ET

May 20, 2010

Haidi refuses to recognize China government

If Haidi revise its hostile policy towards Chinese government by recognizing China and establishing foreign relationship, I believe Chinese government has more will to help Haidi.

 

MALICEIT

12:31 AM ET

May 21, 2010

RE:

Had America send medical help to South Ossetia ? Had US gave loan to Greece ? Did US ever supported or acknowledged Palestinian rights in the last 65 years ?This is what is known as "selective policy" : and there is nothing wrong with this, this started and continued from the start of WWI and will continue until all blocks disappear. You hippies can cry about "well i want my government to help them" but it wont change big Monopoly game of foreign politics. Stakes are too high for loosing team (after all jackpot is a king of the world) and US will still attempt to keep it even though it means alienating entire world.

 

FREETRADER

9:32 AM ET

May 21, 2010

Dahai Shing is an Idiot!

You are either stupid or completely addled by Xinhua propaganda. First of all, the US government itself donated over $5,000,000 to Sichuan earthquake relief, more than any other country. The US government also offered rescue support that was turned down by the 'proud' Chinese government. Most donations in the US are handled through private agencies, and US citizens donated tens of millions of dollars.

Secondly, the last time I checked, Haiti was not in the US. Why you would punish Haiti for something you claim the US has failed to do is a great mystery. Finally, your rivals in Taiwan were first on the ground in Haiti and made great, and greatly appreciated efforts there. If nothing else, the Taiwan actions prove that the problem with China isn't the Chinese -- it is their government.

 

EDDY

9:33 AM ET

May 21, 2010

HAITI

Haiti does not have full diplomatic relationship with China but no one will say that Haiti does recognize China. Haiti maitains relationship with Taiwan the same way other countries do. China had an opporttunity to show its leadership with Haiti case by being more active into the rebuilding efforts. Brazil and Venezuela have shown commitment and strong leadership. Russia, China and other concern powers should do more. It's not about how much you will give or can give. Haiti needs China for different reasons. The country is dirt poor like China was 70 years ago Actually Haiti is looking into the Chinese model to create a sustainable economy for its people China's experience is more than welcome.

 

CARDENAS697

9:35 AM ET

May 21, 2010

I agree

I myself feel why we should help a rogue country like North Korea regardless of their internal problems if the rest of the world stands and does nothing. China and Russia protects North Korea and Iran. Because of this we can’t seam to establish any real solution to the Korean peninsula or Middle East. I agree many people want to make the world a better place but fail to understand. This world will always be divided. We will always have issues. The United States had better understand the future of our Diplomacy and Foreign Policy is tied to our Military. Like President Roosevelt once said “Speak Softly and carry a big Stick”

 

DAHAI_SHING

10:12 AM ET

May 21, 2010

@FREETRADER

I have checked again the Chinese media website. The US government donation is 500,000USDs. (See:http://houqi520.0066.cn/?viewnews-93174.html).
If you want to dispute about this number, I'd like to see your source, which clearly stated how much the US Government has donated.
As for public donation and human labor support, the rescuers and relief materials sent by Chinese government were among the earliest which arrived in Haiti.
(see: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6871868.html)

BTW, calling other people idiot cannot make your voice louder.

 

AZUB

10:26 AM ET

May 21, 2010

USAid to China for the 2008

USAid to China for the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake

Total USG Contribution: $4,877,598

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia/countries/china/earthquake/

This is a credible primary source....unlike http://www.0066.com (Could you tell us where this obscure website acquired their numbers?)

 

DAHAI_SHING

10:39 AM ET

May 21, 2010

@AZUB

Thank you for the resource. I hope you have looked more carefully about the details in the website. The USG donated a total of 500,000 USDs, consistent with my data. I have stated clearly that this money number is different from human labor support and relief materials.

* On May 13, U.S. Ambassador Clark T. Randt, Jr., issued a disaster declaration due to the impact of the earthquake and requested disaster assistance from USAID/OFDA. In response, USAID/OFDA provided an initial $500,000 through the U.S. Embassy in Beijing to IFRC. The IFRC channeled the contribution to the Red Cross Society of China for the local procurement and distribution of emergency relief supplies.
* In response to the GOC’s request for international assistance, USAID/OFDA donated specialized search, rescue, and recovery equipment, including 40 crates of saws, hand tools, hydraulic gear, concrete cutters, generators, and personal safety equipment. In addition, USAID/OFDA deployed a nine-person team of experts from Los Angeles (L.A.) County Fire Department and Fairfax County, VA, Fire and Rescue Department, as well as USAID/OFDA support staff.
* On May 23 and 24, the USAID/OFDA-funded team conducted a series of hands-on search and rescue workshops for approximately 40 members of the Public Security and Fire Brigade of Chengdu and the Seismic Disaster Emergency Rescue team of Sichuan Province. The equipment donation and training were aimed at increasing the capacity of GOC earthquake responders as well as facilitating technical cooperation between the two countries during future emergencies.
* In response to the Chinese request for shelter assistance, USAID deployed a shelter expert and a disaster specialist to Beijing and Chengdu in early June in order to provide technical assistance and liaise with relevant GOC departments and international relief organizations. In addition, USGS led a U.S. interagency team in Beijing from June 11 to 13 to assist the China Earthquake Administration with various seismic-related issues, including earthquake monitoring and preparedness activities.
* On May 18, two U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft arrived in Chengdu with emergency relief supplies, including blankets, plastic sheeting, tents, water containers, and food, valued at nearly $1.3 million, including transportation costs. In response to the GOC’s subsequent request for shelter assistance, DOD airlifted 153 medium-sized tents on May 28 to Chengdu. The total value of the shelter commodities, including shipment, was nearly $940,000.

 

DAHAI_SHING

11:25 AM ET

May 21, 2010

@ CARDENAS697

I agree with you.
Rogue regimes like North Korea (I refrain from saying Iran is an rogue country) should be shut from any international aid. The North Korea people may suffer temporarily but the increasing internal conflicts can push its dictator to either adopt an open-up policy (like China did) to improve the public living standards, or the North Korean people will fight for their freedom.
External intervention cannot help to promote the ideology of freedom and democracy, only the people who fight themselves for these ends can really understand and treasure these values. And any military intervention by external forces will be considered as invaders in that country's history, and be remembered for ever.
China foolishly signed a mutual protection agreement with North Korea after 1953 Korean war, in which China obliged herself to protect North Korea when it is attached. But China hasn't agreed to maintain North Korea's current feudal dictator system. That's why China consistently try to persuade North Korea to adopt an open-up policy like China, to improve its people's living standard.
Kim Jong Ill's latest visit to Beijing was said to persuade Chinese government to support his son's ruling after his death. But Beijing refused. It is always a clear policy of Beijing that King Jong Ill should be the last feudal dictator of North Korea. They can maintain a one party ruler, but not his son.

 

FP READER

2:08 PM ET

May 21, 2010

bias?

"I have stated clearly that this money number is different from human labor support and relief materials"

Actually you did not state that in your first comment (reproduced below) which necessarily therefore significantly biased your presentation. You admitted this only after others contested your claim.

"The generous US government donated a total of 500,000 USDs for China's Sichuan earthquake.

Chinese people will always remember this. (actually this noble deed has been broadly spread in Chinese media.)

Thank you."

 

DAHAI_SHING

2:57 PM ET

May 21, 2010

@FP READER

The logic under my first post is consistent with the article author's, who neither considered the human labor support and relief materials donated by Chinese government. You should clear about this if you read the article carefully.

 

HOWARDXUE

3:04 PM ET

May 21, 2010

Chinese people's friendly help (Taiwan and the mainland)

Haiti now keeps a formal bilateral diplomatic relationships with Republic of China(Taiwan), not the People's Republic of China(China), and Taiwan has sent big money and material aids to support Haiti after the quake.
Taiwan and the mainland China have an implicit mutual understanding that they will not compete with each other using money and domations for diplomatic recognitions, because all the money are Chinese money from tax payers.
The games for some poor countries of "If you can give me more than your rival, I will recognise you in my foreign policy" is over, period.
All people from Taiwan and the mainland are Chinese, the money from China or Taiwan are the same, from Chinese people.

 

FP READER

5:38 PM ET

May 21, 2010

If you felt the author was

If you felt the author was not thorough, you should have clarified that in your first post. You did not do that. An author's bias is not an excuse for you to present incomplete info on your part. You will win more readers to your side by maintaining objectivity in the face of an authors bias, not joining in by contributing your own.

 

FREDDIE SUMMERS

3:04 AM ET

June 18, 2010

Haiti Earthquake Aid

For China watchers, this conference—and, more importantly, the commitments made at it—may provide further insight into the status of China’s global influence. There has been much ado about China’s arrival on the world stage since its apparent and early exit from the nadir of the economic crisis. And over the last several months, Beijing has increasingly comported itself in such a way as to suggest that it believes in the veracity and longevity of this arrival. hp color laserjet ink Largely, this has taken the form of vitriolic verbiage on issues ranging from Copenhagen to Tibet to its exchange rate. But there are better metrics for global influence than causticity. One of these is a country’s response to other countries in times of need. Haiti is a particularly interesting case in that it is one of fewer than twenty-five countries left in the world that maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan in lieu of the People’s Republic. Beijing’s traditional response to such countries—often poor ones in Africa and the Caribbean—has generally been a deep-pocketed charm offensive, with preferential loans and big investments. hp laserjet cartridges Cynical though it may sound, Haiti’s crisis could be seen as China’s opportunity to curry favor with—or extract a quid pro quo from—a country with which it would like to have diplomatic relations.

 

FREETRADER

7:16 AM ET

May 23, 2010

Speaking of losers...

Sure, let's talk about Chinese influence eclipsing America's when China's per capita GDP gets to the level of say, Mexico's. If you can get to 20% of the US per capita GDP that will be a major triumph for China - so call me in 40 or 50 years, if ever.

Actually, some people in America wanted to attack China over the Korean war, but it was decided that, mission having been accomplished (and the Chinese pushed back to where they started) a wider war wasn't worth it. Being pals with Kim Jong Il now costs you dearly. I suggest you learn some history rather than repeating back some comic book history. If you ever become properly educated, then we can talk.

 

ZELERES

3:37 PM ET

June 2, 2010

Influence

I don't believe a country's per capita GDP is what determines its influence in the world. If that was true, then countries like Qatar and Norway would be calling all the shots right now. I'm not saying they don't have any influence, but I suspect we'd listen to China first over any of the countries at the top of the per capita GDP list right now.

Americans need to wake up and realize we are being eclipsed now (today - not 40-50 years from now) by China and especially by groups like ASEAN. If you disagree with that statement, then I look forward to hearing your arguments against it.

You think we pulled out of Korea because we were satisfied with the progress we had made? I guarantee if we thought we could have won without the threat of nuclear war, we would have continued fighting until we ran out of money (look no further than Iraq/Afghanistan for proof of that).

I've talked with veterans of the Korean War and their comments can be summed up as "we came face to face with the Chinese and I hope we're smart enough to never let that happen again". Hopefully we learned our lesson.