RSS

The panel discussion "It's the world economy, stupid! Transatlantic perspectives on responsible global economic policy and the role of China" engaged a line-up of experts in a stimulating dispute on the relations between the EU, US, and China. The event was organized by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and the American Embassy in Berlin and took place on September 2, 2008.

The panelists were:

• Dr. Ditmar Staffelt, a Member of the German Bundestag and the Chairman of the Subcommittee for Globalization and Foreign Trade.
• Howard Rosen, fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the Executive Director of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition in Washington, DC.
• Prof. Dr. Xuewu Gu, the Director of the Institute of East-Asian Politics at Bochum University in Germany and a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Integration Studies of the University of Bonn.

The debate was moderated by Arnd Henze of the Westdeutscher Rundfunk.

Mr. Rosen started the discussion by introducing the complexities of trade relations between Europe, America, and China. He pointed out that while in the past US economic growth used to have a direct influence and correlation with the economic situation in the world, recent trends suggest that global and American economies are finally decoupling. This is mostly due to the emergence of new economic powers, such as China, which decrease the straightforward co-dependency between the US and the rest of the globe. He stressed that it is not China's economic growth, per se, that should worry Atlantic nations, but rather the enormous Chinese trade surplus which knocks the whole global economy off balance.

In an answer to these statements Dr. Staffelt accused the US of ignoring the shift in the global power structure. In contrast to their European colleagues, he said, American policy makers have failed to comprehend the profoundness of the changes that are taking place. The US must open itself up to multilateralism and stop dominating institutions for global governance such as the World Bank or the IMF. Dr. Staffelt called for enlargement of the Group of Eight so that it includes China, India and Brazil. He stressed the importance of including the new emerging regional powers in the global decision-making processes, especially in the areas of trade and environment.

Mr. Rosen retorted that, despite the common perception, Americans do not feel privileged to have so much power in multilateral organizations. To the contrary - they feel frustrated and used; they carry all the burden of setting up and stabilizing such bodies as the WTO or Bretton Woods institutions, while it is other countries that benefit from them. He claims Americans are tired of such a policy of free riding and expect more burden sharing in the area of global governance.

When Dr. Staffelt and Mr. Rosen accused China of avoiding responsibility for such issues as hunger in Africa or climate change, Prof. Gu called for Atlantic nations to have more respect and understanding for China's cultural otherness. He suggested that Western expectations towards China are too high; in his opinion, despite its rapidly growing economy, China is not yet ready to take on more international responsibility.

A wave of snickering drifted through the room when Prof. Gu tried to blame China's infringements on human rights and its support for the Sudanese government entirely on cultural differences. It is the legacy of Confucius' philosophy, he argued, that shapes the way the Chinese think and perceive the concept of human rights and humanitarian help. I am not convinced whether the thousands dying in Darfur and prosecuted in China find great solace in the thought that there is a deeper philosophy underlying their suffering.

I think that Prof. Gu is very representative of his country in choosing to ignore what Mr. Rosen aptly summarized: China cannot wash its hands of responsibility for global matters. The People's Republic is not only an economic giant; its exports dictate world trade, influencing the global market, and such power comes with responsibilities.

Panelists agreed that there is a need to invite the emerging economies to join the debate on the issues of global governance, however, their visions on the manner in which this should be done differed considerably. Prof. Gu propounded that the two existing, separate, bilateral dialogues - China with the EU and China with the US - should be merged into one trilateral dialogue. This "group of three" should meet twice a year. Prof. Gu suggested that such a pattern of cooperation would not only effectively coordinate mutual relations, but it could also help bring China into the broader international fold.

Debaters from the US and Germany, on the other hand, saw the chance for more effective global cooperation in the enlargement of the G8 and other existing multilateral organizations. They see global warming as a door through which emerging economies could enter decision-making bodies: as climate change can only be solved by a multilateral response, the dangers it presents can force Western countries to finally invite the new important global players to the table. Mr. Rosen might have a point in saying that "global warming is our only chance for the return of multilateralism."

The panelists seemed to have agreed on one point: the US and the EU cannot continue to carry the onus of good global governance on their own. For the good of us all, multilateral cooperation needs to be furthered. However, to what degree and by what rules it should be done - that still remains to be resolved.

Anna Wojnilko holds a Master's degree in British Studies and is currently an editorial intern at atlantic-community.org.

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

• Joseph S. Nye: Balancing Asia's Rivals
• Anna Wojnilko: Does the G8 Need a Redesign?
• Leah Strauss: Pollution as a Human Rights Issue