Expect Trouble When China Has More Say At The IMF | Hacker News Reader

Expect Trouble When China Has More Say At The IMF

theamericanexception.com

12 pointszcrar7013 comments

I've just time-travelled back to China of the mid-1940s, and returned with this top-secret intelligence report from their spies:

"The US is set to get an increased say at the IMF. It seems willing to put in the capital required to shore up the international financial institution, and so will have earned its place at the top table.

However, we question what the US will do with this new power. If events in Asia this week are anything to go by, we should be worried.

Clearly, the US is using its influence at multilateral institutions as a means of furthering its strategic and military goals. In this case, it is trying to force a democratic country (Iran) to relinquish its oil. We wonder what future bullying may be in store for the other countries of Asia (or the world) that don’t comply with the US’ political views on topics it deems off limits such as Cuba, South America or Moscow. Will countries whose private citizens invite Fidel Castro to visit suddenly find their banks cut off from vital financing?

To date, the US has generally been accommodating in its dealings with the West. We believe this is because it regards itself in a weaker position. When it comes to countries that the US believes are weaker, it has shown that it has no hesitation to resort to pushing its weight around.

The US’s ascension in the ranks of world financial institutions may be inevitable. But China, and the West in general, need to make it abundantly clear from the outset that such type of behavior is not acceptable.

If the US wants to be respected as a world leader, it needs to start acting like one."

CRAZY!

Clearly, China is using its influence at multilateral institutions as a means of furthering its strategic and military goals.

Which means it's following the normal template - the US has used the promise of loans to convince developing nations to privatize significant portions of their economy. It's not good, but it's not surprising.

Please note that the subtitle for this blog is 'Understanding global events and their security implications for America'.

I agree that it's important to note that, since it makes one take the article with a grain of salt.

Of course it is unacceptable for China (and anyone else) to "push its weight around" when it comes to dealing with (so-called) "weaker" countries, but this affirmation sounds fairly hypocritical when coming from someone that lives in a country that never had a problem in pushing its own agenda as well.

> Of course it is unacceptable for China (and anyone else) to "push its weight around" when it comes to dealing with (so-called) "weaker" countries

Was it "unacceptable" to stop Nazi Germany from running concentration camps?

> this affirmation sounds fairly hypocritical when coming from someone that lives in a country that never had a problem in pushing its own agenda as well.

I'd much rather be "pushed around" by 1850s England than 1950s USSR, let alone late 1930s Germany.

> Nazis

DING DING DING - Godwin's law.

This whole article is blatantly off topic in any case.

Yet the article itself is about India.

I mentioned this because the article is clearly written from a western/American security perspective; this is quite obvious from the article, which claims that China would use its vote in supra-national organisations to further its own foreign policy agenda. This would mainly affect western countries (which seem to view China's rise with apprehension), even though the article mentions India.

Does stating that deserve downvoting?

I wonder why China still pursues this territorial aggression policy though it occupies a vast portion of Asia.

Because China is surrounded by the US and she's very uncomforatble with it.

Is it just me or does the article read like the author is calling Tiananmen Square a country?

Scare mongering.

> "we should be worried"

And the subtitle of the blog is

"Understanding global events and their security implications for America"

So when you say "we" you don't mean me. Fuck you.

Perhaps if this was stated from the case of 'all moral people' or something like that then I would care but otherwise... Fuck You!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com