What's new

Members named for Asia infrastructure bank

what do you have against monkey? we are peaceful banana eater.

Sweet_the_monkey.png
I saw many Viets abuse China and fabricate lies for anti-China here,so I was angry and said that to revenge.
But when I have read the book The theory of Moral Sentiments written by Adam Smith this evening.It give me a great shock.I realize that maybe Chinese companies and government's action to seek economic benefits is self-interest to some degree.
Money doesn't means friendship.
We Chinese need self-examination in economy strategy if we want to set up a new,responsible and peaceful international image to others countries in 21th Century.
I feel shamed for what I said impulsively at that time.Say sorry to you and Vietnam.
 
.
I saw many Viets abuse China and fabricate lies for anti-China here,so I was angry and said that to revenge.
But when I have read the book The theory of Moral Sentiments written by Adam Smith this evening.It give me a great shock.I realize that maybe Chinese companies and government's action to seek economic benefits is self-interest to some degree.
Money doesn't means friendship.
We Chinese need self-examination in economy strategy if we want to set up a new,responsible and peaceful international image to others countries in 21th Century.
I feel shamed for what I said impulsively at that time.Say sorry to you and Vietnam.
do you mean serious or do you just want to make fun on me?
I need to read the book you mention.
 
.
Why are Vietnamese called monkeys? I don't get it and it seems incredibly offensive.
 
.
Indonesia is simply because of newly installed government, the former president can not sign any major treaties in the time of transition... and the new president just not ready yet...
 
. .
Malaysia did the right thing.
oh relly? our country got the hardest hit in 1997 crisis, huge inflation, and lot of shit going down. we really did the right thing or otherwise we'll ended like Yugolasvia or Soviet instead.

And now malaysia seems to do what we was do before the crisis : too much subsidies
 
.
Malaysia did the right thing.

As the @NarThoD stated before, Indonesia let all of the bad germs (sicks bank) dies instead of subsidized more and give more burden to our government financial capabilities.
 
.
oh relly? our country got the hardest hit in 1997 crisis, huge inflation, and lot of shit going down. we really did the right thing or otherwise we'll ended like Yugolasvia or Soviet instead.

And now malaysia seems to do what we was do before the crisis : too much subsidies

I agree subsidies are bad but it's stealthily being remove. Petrol is now 2.30 per litre and the Malaysia right now is not subsidizing at all. To put that in perspective break even for petrol is at 85 USD per barrel at RM2.30 per litre. Instead the government is giving cash handouts/social welfare amounting RM300-600 for each using a new GST Tax.

Malaysia right now is still a net oil exporter unlike Indonesia. Petronas has many oversea drilling projects. I was shock Pertamina and PLN suffering losses prior to 1997 crisis. If an oil company can suffer massive losses Indonesia have serious management problem. With the low crude oil prices, Indonesia is standing to win and Malaysia to lose.

My point was accepting IMF have many consequences such as political concession.

As the @NarThoD stated before, Indonesia let all of the bad germs (sicks bank) dies instead of subsidized more and give more burden to our government financial capabilities.

On the contrary, letting bank bankrupt would punish savers, rewards those who borrows. First of all its unethical. Second is lost of faith in the government triggering massive bank run, capital outflow and loss of investor confidence. It would make it the problem worst and you will need more money to fix the economy. I'm not an economist, there are many views, i'm sure some would care to explain?
 
.
I agree subsidies are bad but it's stealthily being remove. Petrol is now 2.30 per litre and the Malaysia right now is not subsidizing at all. To put that in perspective break even for petrol is at 85 USD per barrel at RM2.30 per litre. Instead the government is giving cash handouts/social welfare amounting RM300-600 for each using a new GST Tax.

Malaysia right now is still a net oil exporter unlike Indonesia. Petronas has many oversea drilling projects. I was shock Pertamina and PLN suffering losses prior to 1997 crisis. If an oil company can suffer massive losses Indonesia have serious management problem. With the low crude oil prices, Indonesia is standing to win and Malaysia to lose.

My point was accepting IMF have many consequences such as political concession.



On the contrary, letting bank bankrupt would punish savers, rewards those who borrows. First of all its unethical. Second is lost of faith in the government triggering massive bank run, capital outflow and loss of investor confidence. It would make it the problem worst and you will need more money to fix the economy. I'm not an economist, there are many views, i'm sure some would care to explain?

The fact is history has proven otherwise in Indonesia, and starting from 2002 Indonesian economic can grow at annual rates of five per-cent per year till today and our investor has regained their confidence since then and many credit rating companies give a positive outlook for Indonesian economic.
 
.
1998 crisis was a bitter pill, but it's for the better. Today we have a very cautious and prudent central bank. Business prior to 98 was run based on political backing and bribery. IMF kicked the door and the entire house crumbled.
 
. .
the new bank will be dominated by China, thus Japan is not interested. But I wonder why Korea and Indonesia don´t want to join.

The Japanese already have a similar bank; the ADB. Why would they join? Korea doesn't need this bank and probably won't want to lend through this bank either. Indo is for political reasons I would imagine. This is China's power play.
 
. .
China is finally starting to challenge the US.

China launches new World Bank rival
Published time: October 24, 2014 12:09 , RT

china-world-bank-rival.si.jpg

Chinese President Xi Jinping (C) shows the way to the guests of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on October 24, 2014 (AFP Photo / Takaki Yajima)


China and India are backing a 21 country $100 billion Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to challenge to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank.

Memorandum of understanding were signed with 21 Asian countries in Beijing Friday. Australia, Indonesia and South Korea were absent following hidden pressure from Washington.

The development bank was proposed a year ago by Chinese President Xi Jinping, and is to offer financing for infrastructure projects in underdeveloped Asian countries.

Headquartered in Beijing, former chairman of the China International Capital Corp investment bank Jim Liqun, is expected to take a leading role.

The bank will initially be capitalized with $50 billion, most of it contributed by China. The country is planning to increase authorized capital to $100 billion. With that amount the AIIB would be two-thirds the size of the $175 billion Asian Development Bank.

India will be the second largest bank shareholder though Kuwait, Qatar, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Nepal, Oman, and all the countries of the Association of Southeast Asia, except Indonesia are involved.

Australia, Indonesia and South Korea did not participate following US claims of ‘concerns’ about a rival to Western-dominated multilateral lenders.

Japan, China's main rival in Asia, which dominates the Asian Development Bank along with the United States, did not attend but had not been expected to do so.

Indonesia refused to participate claiming it needs time to discuss China’s proposal.

The Australian Financial Review said US Secretary of State John Kerry had personally asked Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to “steer clear” from joining AIIB.

"Australia has been under pressure from the US for some time to not become a founding member of the bank and it is understood Mr. Kerry put the case directly to the prime minister when the pair met in Jakarta on Monday following the inauguration of Indonesian President Joko Widodo," the paper said.

South Korea, one of America’s closest allies in Asia, is alse prevaricating. Its finance ministry said it spoke with China to request more time to consider details such as the AIIB's governance and operational principles.

US officials have said they do not want to support an initiative Washington thinks is unlikely to promote good environmental, procurement and human rights standards in the way the World Bank and ADB are required to do.

But Chinese officials are convinced the American opposition is an attempt to contain the global rise of China and its ambition to remain the dominant power in Asia.

“You could think of this as a basketball game in which the US wants to set the duration of the game, the size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit itself,” Wei Jianguo, a former Chinese commerce minister, told the Financial Times.

Matthew Goodman, scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC believes the initiatives of a BRICS Bank and AIIB “represent the first serious institutional challenge to the global economic order.”

Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei said the AIIB will set high standards, safeguard policies and improve on bureaucratic, unrealistic and irrelevant policies, according to the Xinhua news agency.

***

If it is really the hidden US pressure to stop the three nations from joining the AIIB, then, we can surmise, the US is not for peace and cooperation in the region, but more division and hatred on which the US preys and prospers -- which may not be news to most.

With this move, however:

1. The new hierarchical structure of Asia is emerging
2. Nations are willing to join and most of them are not really puppets to the US
3. Realized within a year, the dynamism of Chinese diplomacy is obvious.
4. Whatever the US does not like or tries to prevent in the region, must be good for the region.
 
.
China-led new Bank challenges Japanese, US’ influence
October 26, 2014, 5:12 am

The Brics Post

Emerging economic powers such as China, India and Brazil have long been demanding greater share of votes in multilateral development institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank to reflect their recent phenomenal growth. China’s economy is expected to grow to $10 trillion this year, yet its share of votes in the Bretton Woods institutions is only 3.72 percent, compared with 17.4 percent for the United States.

The existing situation is frustrating for emerging economies, because less voting power means less say in deciding where funds from these institutions should go. Also, most developing countries are unhappy with the unfair conditions imposed on them by the Western powers.

Unwilling to accept the status quo and answering critics, especially the US, that have long argued that China assume greater global responsibilities in areas like climate change and arms proliferation, President Xi Jinping surprised his Indonesian hosts during a state visit last year by initiating the formation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.



234483017_8.jpg

Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei speaks at the signing ceremony of the Memorandum of Understanding on Establishing Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in Beijing, capital of China, Oct. 24, 2014 [Xinhua]

While the framework and modus operandi of the proposed bank are still to be finalized, its need is beyond doubt. According to ADB, in the 10 years up to 2020, the region requires investments of $8 trillion in terms of national infrastructure, or $800 billion a year. The ADB currently lends out only about 1.5 percent of this amount. Therefore, additional funding from the AIIB would be welcomed by the developing countries in Asia.


The AIIB is expected to have an initial capital base of $100 billion. Given that the ADB tripled its capital base from $55 billion to $165 billion only in 2009, the AIIB will start life with about two-thirds of the expanded capital base of the former.

From China’s point of view, such a bank makes perfect sense. A major feature of China’s miraculous economic rise has been its emphasis on infrastructure development. In the 20 years from 1992 to 2011, China spent nearly 8.5 percent of its GDP on infrastructure – corresponding figures for other Asian countries were between 2 and 4 percent.

The AIIB, to begin with, will serve at least five objectives for China. First, it could help China invest part of its foreign exchange reserves of $3.9 trillion on commercial terms. Second, it will play a vital role in the internationalization of the yuan. Third, it will help secure contracts for Chinese companies and thus boost employment opportunities at home. Fourth, China has funded many infrastructure projects across the world through the China Development Bank and Exim Bank, some of which have created resentment among local people. Funds from a regional development bank will ensure that there are no resentments. And fifth, the AIIB will boost China’s global influence and enhance its soft power.

Indeed, Xi’s proposal has ruffled some feathers, especially in Japan and the US, for these countries stand to lose some of their power and influence. Tokyo and Washington have worked together to maintain the power structure in the 67-member ADB where they each hold 15.7 percent of votes, against a paltry 6.5 percent by China.

Reports indicate that the US is pressuring Australia and South Korea not to join the AIIB. But as Hedley Bull, eminent late Oxford professor, once said, “people have friends but countries have only interests”. Thus Australia, India and South Korea will decide whether or not to join the bank based on their national interests.

China has considerable experience in infrastructure planning and construction, and financing projects outside the country. As Finance Minister Lou Jiwei has said, China Development Bank’s commercial infrastructure loan is now far bigger than that of the World Bank and ADB combined. And surprisingly, this process started only 20 years ago.

China has often been accused of lending funds to developing countries without taking into consideration good governance, and environmental and social safeguards. Projects in China have often suffered from similar shortcomings. Although China is learning fast how to overcome the shortcomings both at home and abroad, its presence in the developing world has been positive even with the shortcomings.

Some critics argue that the AIIB will reduce the environmental, social and procurement standards in a race to the bottom. This is a childish criticism, especially because China has invited other governments to help with funding and governance.

The AIIB is a win-win proposition for everyone. For the developing countries in Asia, it will be a new source of funding. For China, it will be a channel to strengthen soft power and enhance economic benefits. For the ADB and the World Bank, it will be a challenge to perform better and undertake reforms, which are long overdue.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom