Opinion 
 Blogs 
 National Comment 
 Trillions of reasons why priorities beat rights 

Trillions of reasons why priorities beat rights

Barack Obama said last month that Americans should get used to "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come". Then he sent Hillary Clinton to Beijing to see if the Chinese could get used to it. She may be the US Secretary of State, but Clinton was in China in the past few days as a high-powered bond saleswoman.

China is America's biggest creditor. While the US banks and car companies go to Washington cap in hand to plead for emergency funds from Uncle Sam, Washington goes to Beijing cap in hand to ask China to provide Uncle Sam's emergency funds.

That's why Clinton pushed human rights aside, much to the outrage of activists around the world. The issue "cannot interfere" with economic and diplomatic priorities, she said in China at the weekend.

That's why she asked China's leaders to keep buying US Treasury bonds. After meeting her Chinese counterpart, the Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi, she said: "I greatly appreciate China's continued confidence in US Treasuries."

And that's why she went on a popular Chinese TV show and told the host, Yang Lan: "It's a good investment, it's a safe investment." Pressing her case, she said: "By continuing to support American Treasury instruments, the Chinese are recognising our interconnection. We are truly going to rise or fall together."

Clinton's three days in China provided an explicit acknowledgment of the power shift between the two nations. And that shift has been all one-way.

China has the world's biggest foreign exchange reserves, at $US2.3 trillion ($3500 billion), said the leading expert on this rather opaque subject, Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Of that, $US1.7 trillion is invested in US debt of various types.

To finance his $US787 billion economic stimulus package, Obama wants China's money. To manageably fund the US budget deficit this year, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates to be $US1.2 trillion, more than double last year's, Obama wants China's support. And to continue its annual military spending of $651 billion, Obama wants China's goodwill.

Will he get it?

A debate is raging among China's policymaking elite. Should the Chinese Government really be lending America the money to build missiles which may be later aimed at Beijing?

Should the Chinese be expected to continue taking losses like the $5.6 billion in the collapse of Morgan Stanley or the $5.4 billion at risk in the stricken Reserve Primary Fund?

Influential voices argue not. An editorial in a government mouthpiece, the China Daily, said in December that Washington "should not expect continuous inflow of more cheap foreign capital to fund its one-after-another massive bail-outs".

A former member of the policy board of China's central bank, Yu Yongding, urged a sell-off: "China should sell some of its US Government bonds and increase its euro and yen assets" to diversify risk, he wrote for a newspaper last month. And Beijing should seek guarantees that its holdings would not be eroded by "reckless policies" in Washington.

Chinese confidence in the US was not helped by the new US Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, who, seeking to win popularity on Capitol Hill, accused China of "currency manipulation". US trade law mandates retaliatory action if there is a formal finding of currency manipulation; the Obama Administration immediately tried to play down the remarks by Geithner, a walking liability for the new President.

The Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, has been uncharacteristically critical of the US, blaming it, accurately, for the global economic crisis. Last month he attacked America's "unsustainable model of development" - with low savings and high consumption.

It is that gap that Clinton was asking China to pay for. Did she succeed? Clinton claimed to have won assurances that Beijing would keep financing the US deficit. But publicly China's leaders gave no commitment.

The two countries are in a symbiosis. Citigroup economists estimate that for every 1 per cent that US growth rates slow, China's economy slows 1.3 per cent. China depends on US export markets. For this reason, China will not make any sudden moves against the US.

But it will most certainly use its fiscal leverage to influence US policy. Top officials asked for, and received, an assurance from Clinton that the US would reject protectionism. Tellingly, China's senior officials will travel to Washington next month to craft a joint US-China position for the key Group of 20 meeting in London in April, a meeting to recast global financial systems.

As Clinton said: "We are truly going to rise or fall together."

Her husband, Bill Clinton, had a moment of revelation about US government finances in his earliest days as US president, and it came with a shock: "You mean to tell me that the success of the program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f---ing bond traders?" His cabinet colleagues said "yes". So, with utmost reluctance, he cut his government's spending plans and announced a timetable to cut the federal deficit.

Barack Obama has evidently had his moment of revelation, too. A future account of Obama's first 100 days may well record him saying something like: "You mean to tell me that the success of the program and my re-election hinges on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of f---ing communists?"

Peter Hartcher is the Sydney Morning Herald's international editor.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I find this very disturbing: seems the US has definitively abandoned the high moral ground and decided that money is more important than people. Dictators and monsters everywhere must be jumping for joy.
Posted by John Comnenus, 24/02/2009 6:28:56 PM
And next it is Australia ... watch how much control China will have over our country when it controls Rio Tinto (as a customer, shareholder and member of the Board). Come on Treasurer Wayne -- anyone can see that this deal is not in Australia's national interest!
Posted by spenditlikeRudd, 25/02/2009 1:32:55 PM
Who's to blame here for this financial meltdown? From the South Florida Journal and Friends Good question. It depends on who you ask. According to Limpballs, O'reilly, and the rest of the Twits on Fox News, it was Franks, Dodd and the rest of the Democrats. But they didn't write the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. Phil Gramm did when he was still a Senator. That bill eliminated the Steagel Glass Amendment which was meant to keep Banks and Security Firms apart. Then in 2000, Senator Phil Gramm pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating Swap Products. Can you say "Derivatives"? That's when Banks and shady Mortgage companies take all of those Shady loans that had extremely high rates, pushed them through Fanny Mae or Freddie Mack to underwrite them, bundled them and sold them all over the World. Add to this the hundreds of Billions of dollars in Ponzi schemes, the massive Outsourcing, and Downsizing by the overpaid Idiots that have been running our Major Corporations and Wall Street, and is there any surprise that we are in a Global Recession/Depression? It's easy for the Right Wing “Wack Jobs” to blame all this on Barney Franks or Dodd, but they weren't in charge. The Republicans and the Don Quixote Bush administration were in total control up until 2006, not Franks or Dodd or any of the Democrats. If the Bush administration hadn't been chasing Windmills in Iraq for the last 8 years, and hadn't been asleep at the wheel, this might not have happened. I'd bet a dime to a doughnut that if Kerry or Gore had been in control with a Democratic House and Senate this wouldn't have happened. And what has Phil Gramm done for us lately. Around 2001 he was listed as the Lobbyist for UBS, United Bank of Switzerland; which was one of the Banks that was heavily involved in the shady goings on in the Banking industry. In fact, it was announced this week that they have not only been fined $800 million Dollars for their illegal activities, but they have now promised to fork up a list of their "Secret" accounts that are held by Americans in their bank as part of their plea bargain. I can't wait to see that list. How much you wanna bet that Cheney, Bush, and Gramm are all on it? What a group! You remember Phil, he's the guy that said that we are nothing but a bunch of "Whiners", because everyone started to complain that the economy was going down the tubes. He kept stating that the "Fundamentals of the American Economy are sound!" Right! I'd like to see a lot of the guys in the Bush Administration wind up wearing stripes in the not too distant future! What do ya think?
Posted by South Florida Journal, 25/02/2009 11:11:28 PM
Hilary 'the blabbermouth' insults China with "together we rise or fall" when she 'diplomats' for cash. She was a stupid person to place in Obama's administration as she can't see how 'they see them'-lost in debt. The Dragon is ready to buy out the US as 'money walks'-talks do nothing.
Posted by adaptapensioner.com, 3/03/2009 5:46:22 PM
Its as obviuos as you nose of your face that we do indeed live in a class society. How can capitialism possibly survive this? When will the penny drop for people to realise that all these bail outs are only in the interests of the rich and not in the interest of the majority - the working class.
Posted by adam, 8/04/2009 5:53:47 PM
National Comment
Here is the place for you to vent on any national or world news and lifestyle stories on the YourGuide websites. If there is anything you see or hear that you like or don't like, tell us. Don't keep it to yourself!

Most popular articles

Australian Running Festival



The Canberra Times







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...