CHINA & the Diplomatic Power Play at G-20 Summit

China and the Diplomatic Power Play at G-20 London Summit

By Dr. Sheo Nandan Pandey

Introduction

G-20 London Summit, while it concluded with a win-win situation for all the stakeholders, it witnessed a diplomatic power play, where China among other new aspirants of a pie in the new world economic order set an all time new tone to the game.^[i] It portends beginning of an end of post World war-II world economic order that would have been unthinkable till very recently.

The communiqué, issued at the end of four hours long deliberations of the old and new power houses of the world, embody a story of unity amidst disarray on the issues as how to take short and long term measures to deal with financial and economic crisis, how to reshape the global financial system and how to improve the role of the international financial institutions including International Monetary Fund (IMF). The circumspection is thus writ large over the net outcome in the long run. The communiqué speaks of agreements on three points: the necessity of global stimulus, increased resources for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the creation of global regulatory body.^[ii] It smacks of a compromise where the adherents of free enterprise and detractors there of got a room to live with, albeit just for the time being. Franco-German combine, for example, were in open revolt to US prescriptions for the malady. Reminded of the 1920s and 1930s, the French President Nicholas Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not see merit in the stimulus programme as a panacea of any worth to the crisis.^[iii] Japanese Premier Taro Aso espoused the US line and criticized the Franco-German approach.^[iv] British Prime Minister Gordon Brawn and other pacifists including the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh acquitted well in the fire fighting mission while the Chinese President Hu Jintao covertly played Shakespeare’s Shylock in tandem to China’s strategic culture.

The development, in its sum, heralds the dead end of unbridled capitalism with a regulatory blue print in place. For Nicholas Sarkozy, it amounted to turn “page on the Anglo Saxon model of free markets”.^[v] “This is a major step forward and reversal of the ideology of the 1990s, and at a very official level, a rejection of the ideas pushed by the US and others,” said Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz. “It is a historic moment when the world came together and said we were wrong to push deregulation”, he added. The least and the most, ideologically concretised common sense, statements made and debated, across the world, in particular in Chinese media, reflect what Robert Hormats, the Summit managers of three American Presidents, Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and now vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs, said: “It is passing of an era, when the US is becoming less dominant while other nations are gaining influence.”

The paper aims at assessing Chinese diplomatic maneuvers in the the horizon of plausible changes. In the run up, the study would reflect upon the finer side of the Chinese strategy to pursue its agenda, both individually and in consonance with the spade work of other sets of stakeholders. The end result discernibly fell short of Chinese expectations and left China high and dry to get to other options. The study would, in its pursuit, capture bird’s eye view of Chinese pious platitude and suspect moves. The assumptions include: first, the surge in China’s comprehensive national power (CNP) over the years and strategic culture of the Chinese nation stand at the back of constant craving for larger politico-diplomatic space; second, the responses of various elements of the Chinese state, the fifth estate included, constitute and in tandem with the stand point of principal decision makers; third, the soft and hard stance at one or the other level are but scripted before hand at the highest level before being articulated and orchestrated; and fourth, the studied opinions of institutions, affiliated to one or the other top decision making bodies, such as the State Council, the Central Military Commission (CMC), the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) as also the independent scholarship in the field that normally go to modify the official stand on the issue. The paper uses open source materials, in particular broadcasts and on-line print Chinese media dispatches supplemented by scores of relevant secondary data from other sources. The study design is eclectic both positive and naturalistic paradigm of investigations. In a bid to get to the set objectives, the paper is sequenced to focus: Basic Agenda Setting and the Cross Interest Conflicts; G-20 Consensus and the Chinese Articulations; and, Perspectives in New World Order and China’s Stake.

Agenda Setting and the Cross Interest Conflicts

The basic agenda and the outcome of the G-20 London Summit are at variance, though of course not so widely. It did not hopefully turn G-2 or G-4 or G-5 London Summit as some thought.[vi] It did not remain just talkfest as some others thought. It did not end up as divided house with dozens of recriminations and muddled outcome either. While much of the statements in the communiqué are but ‘anodyne’ in nature and character, it did leave a win-win for all in one way or the other.

Leaving aside some hiccups, the event had much of the making of Bretton Woods-II in the face of likeness, if not enormity of the side effects of the global financial crisis and economic slow down, it needed a firm agenda to go along.[vii] However, this did not happen. Basics of the agenda for the G-20 London Summit, scripted in the meeting the French President Nicholas Sarkozy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Borossa with the American President George W. Bush in Washington on 18 Oct 08, encountered loath response. It then broadly spoke of the imperatives to “understand the cause of global crisis, review the effectiveness of responses thus far, identifying principles for reforming financial and regulatory systems, launch specific action plan to implement these principles; and, reaffirm conviction that free principles offer the surest path to lasting prospects.” It reflected the mood and resolve of the two sides to handle the down turn that then looked imminent in the face of one after another top US investment banker, insurer and other business organizations falling prey to over kill in their business pursuits and hundreds of aftershocks felt throughout the global village.[viii] The Washington Declaration, issued at the end of two days conclave of the Group earlier on Nov 14-15, 2008, carried the spirit, though with little concreteness.

The last major gathering before the G-20 London summit, held to iron out perceptional differences among different stakeholder, was the Summit of Finance Ministers and Governors of Central Banks of the member countries in Horsham on Mar 13-14, 2009. Despite all misgivings, it ended with a declaration. However, it does not conceal the lack of substance within. “We agree further action to restore global growth and support lending, and reforms to strengthen the global financial system”, the statement says. “We have taken decisive, coordinated and comprehensive action to boost demand and jobs, are prepared to take whatever action is necessary until growth is restored. We commit to fight all sorts of protection and maintain open trade and investment. We reaffirm our commitment to take all necessary actions to ensure the soundness of all institutions”. The agenda did as well touch upon issues such as clamping down tax havens, regulating hedge funds and cutting bankers bonuses. These are all very well. However, the scale of recession makes them look more a diversion than a real strategy for restoring financial stability, improving global economic governances, and creating the condition for revival of the sagging world economy.[ix]

While each one appreciated the communiqué as being comprehensive and capable of catering the need of the hour, they continued to push their personal agenda till the last. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had come to the venue with a loud and clear message: “The United States thinks other governments should be spending more on economic stimulus programs.” Before Timothy Geithner left for the meeting, the US Treasury Department had made a solemn announcement: “Geithner will urge the G-20 governments to implement stimulus-spending programs worth at least 2 percent of their gross domestic products this year and next.” It set the cross interests of the G-20 members on collision course. European Union countries, in particular Germany and France remained loath to spend more before they knew whether and how their existing stimulus package is working. “Dismissive of the Anglo Saxon model of capitalism”, quipped Arvind Subramanian of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, “European leaders focus on more regulation rather than on more stimulus spending”.[x]

Taking part in the discussions in Horsham, Chinese Finance Minister Xie Xuren and Governor of Chinese People’s Bank of China (PBC) Zhou Xiaochuan talked about the imperatives and measures to increase the voice of emerging and developing economies in the international financial system and how to fight against trade and financial protectionism. In a literal tight rope walk on the issue of increasing government spending to stimulate economy, the Chinese duo put across China’s stimulus package of RMB 4 trillion Yuan (US$585.5 billion). They sided with European countries on the call for reform of international financial system, and espoused the need for creating international reserve currency, which would weather fluctuations in the net worth of foreign exchange reserves.

Finally, on Mar 28, 2009, the US relented on its stand for the G-20 nations setting aside 2% of GDP as stimulus package. “No body has asked”, said Michael Foreman, Deputy national Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs, “no body is asking any country to come to London to commit to do more right now”. He noted that the G-20 nations have already committed to spending1.8% of GDP combined.[xi]

In one-to-one meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit, the cross interest heads of governments and their retinue, quite openly quipped with sarcasm: ‘why should we take seriously the American model of free enterprise as the debacle worsens?’. This crisis, as the opinion flowed, is to America what ‘imperial overstretch’ was to Great Britain: a slow motion unwind of international power and credibility-in short, the erosion of American supremacy around the world and the ushering of ‘post American system’. The words of President Obama in his press conference on April 1, 2009, a day before the Summit, sums up the things as they happened and tell how the agenda for the summit was ultimately set: “I know that the G20 nations are appropriately pursuing their own approaches, and as Gordon indicated, we're not going to agree on every point. I came here to put forward our ideas, but I also came here to listen, and not to lecture. Having said that, we must not miss an opportunity to lead. To confront a crisis that knows no borders, we have a responsibility to coordinate our actions and to focus on common ground, not on our occasional differences. If we do, I believe we can make enormous progress.”[xii]

Chinese President Hu Jintao, for example, put emphasis on the reforms of the financial system, where again his thrust was on the reform of the international currency system.[xiii] For German Chancellor Angela Merkel, clinching of stalled Doha round of global trade talks was important.[xiv] South Korean President Lee Myung-bak did as well restrict his prism to Doha round. In his Keynote address, he had called upon G-20 countries to make a “Stand Still” declaration on trade and investment restrictions.[xv] Over and above the urgency of purpose, the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stressed instead on “rebuilding the whole international financial architecture”. French President Nicholas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and a few others belonged to the set of leaders who did not qualify their commitments.[xvi]

G-20 Consensus and the Chinese Articulations

At long last, the G-20 London Summit succeeded in setting broad canvas of ambitions for the perceptive leadership to act upon with unity of purpose. The consensus, hammered at the end, included resolve to have in place and/ deal with:

Financial Regulations

A new Financial Stability Board (FSB) in lieu of Financial Stability Forum (FSF).
Financial regulations and oversight to embrace and cover all financial institutions and markets, in particular brining hedge funds within the global regulatory net.
Commitment to implement the stringent new rules on pay and bonuses at a global level.
Vow to set international accounting standards.
Rein international credit rating agencies to the extent that conflicts of interest seldom stand in the discharge of professional acts.
Common approach to clean up toxic assets of banks.

Tax Havens

To have sanctions against tax havens that does not transfer information upon requests.[xvii]

International Monetary Fund

300% increase in the resources- from US$250 billion to US$ 750 billion, which included special drawing rights (SDR) facilities of US$250 billion.
US$6 billion received from the IMF gold sale proceeds to be lent to poorest nations.
US$100 billion at the disposal of multilateral development banks.

Global Trade

Trade finance commitment of US$250 billion, staggered to two years, through export credit and investment agencies as well as multilateral development banks.

Protectionism

Pledge to resist protectionism where G-20 will notify the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the WTO, in turn, to monitor and report publicly measures constraining worldwide capital flow.

Fiscal Stimulus

No new dose of stimulus package over above US$5 trillion that the G-20 countries were already committed.

The consensus, as such, unveils home truth of the new epoch of power play by all and sundry, and the net outcome a mixed box of sweet and sour fruits of all pulsating efforts. This is beyond all cheers in the words of contending power blocks.

In the closing news conference, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had spoken of walking away from the meeting on the issue of the Summit not paying heed to their demand for strong regulatory regime, praised US President Barack Obama and British Premier Gordon Brown for their share in creating consensus, in particular in persuading Chinese President Hu Jintao to agree to publish the list of tax havens. Canada had joined hands with France and Germany on the issue. France and Germany were vociferous on reviving the stalled Doha round of talks. Canada and South Korea did as well raise their voice. They got their way as the leaders agreed to take up the matter in the up coming G-8 Summit in Italy in July 2009.[xviii] It was yet only a half way victory. France and Germany had championed all the way for a powerful global regulatory to run authority across the border, an idea vehemently opposed by the US. The consensus only touched on provisions for ‘international oversights, including cracking down on hedge funds and tax havens.

US President Barack Obama, backed by British Premier Gordon Brown and Japanese Premier Taro Aso made all out efforts to persuade others to boost government spending to counteract the global downturn. Chinese President Hu Jintao did as well extend his tacit support. They wanted the member countries to contribute 2% of their GDP. It was aimed at rekindling demand for foreign consumer goods, which could give boost to sagging foreign trade. It was a way out to retrieve US economy slipping past under the weight of heavy debt. It did not suit Germany and France as they were exporters of capital goods. Increase in the domestic demand did not have any meaning for them. Increase in the demand for capital goods in response to increase in the demand for wage goods in foreign markets worked well to their needs. In the run up, the French, German and their ilk were happy In the bargain, the US persuasion on this count did not work. Gordon Brown’s statement in the press conference, extolling the consensus and expecting 4% growth in the GDP with the already committed stimulus package of US$ 5 trillion by G-20 countries ran counter to hard truth.

Africa was represented at the summit by South Africa, the only country on the continent with a GDP that matches those of Asian and Latin American economies. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals (UN-MDG) office in Nairobi had warned ahead of the two-day summit that Africa was at the risk of being relegated to the periphery by the 20 leaders of the world’s richest nations. In a joint memorandum to the G20, UN-MDG, Oxfam International and Action Aid International urged the rich nations to set aside between $24 billion and $41 billion for African governments. The money will be in addition to the $75 billion the G8 committed in 1997 to Africa, in form of overseas development assistance to fight poverty, increase food production and access to education and health as part of realising the UN Millennium Development Gaols. “These measures would protect the 400 million people in Africa who live in chronic poverty and neglect, act to stimulate Africa’s 53 economies and avoid a return to indebtedness and dependency,” the civil society organisations said in their memorandum. However, the 30 page communique did not take note of African needs.

At the Summit, the Chinese President called for enhanced supervision over major ‘reserve currency’ issuing countries and an over haul of the international monetary system. Hu had stressed need for creating « super-sovereign currency and creating mechanism to deal with protectionism. It was a multi-dimensinal move to upstage China’s global rating, if not to challenge the unassailable US position. China had earlier hinted at it at Hoshram meeting of Finance Ministers and Governors of the G-20 countries. Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), the Chinese Central Bank, had spoken of boosting the use of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), a monetary unit used by the IMF, as an alternative to the US currency. Chinese proposal garnered support of Russia and Brazil. It The was shot down by the US President Barack Obama.

Guo Tianyong, a professor at the China Central Finanace University, said, China flashed out just days before the G-20 meeting, and the proposal was meant more to send a message than to translate some thing into real. Xu Bin, a professor with the Shanghai based China Europe International Business School said, the Chinese proposal for super soverign currency is a strategic move with a lot of vision. Analysts found motives in China’s proposal, aimed at diversifying Chinese holding of foreign exchange reserves in US dollar to thwart erosion of real value and promote Chinese RMB as a future reserve currency. Beijing has since signed currency swap agreements with six centarl banks : Hong Kong, Indonesia,Korea, Malaysia, Belarus and Argentina. While full convertibility of RMB would remain a distant dream, one can not just wish away China’s initiative either.

New World Order and China’s Stake

The consensus reached and measures in offing to tide over the global slow down apart, have enough wind of change in the world order. Most importantly, the change is imminent in the whole embrace of the international economic and financial architecture, beginning with striking shifts in the decision making process of the world bodies. Increased quota of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) and consequently, increased vote weight of China and other emerging powers, could perhaps make difference in IMF decisions. For a start, it will remove avoidable strings coming with each dose of assistance, often dubbed “Washington Consensus”.[xix]

With US$40 billion additional contribution to the trebled IMF resources of US$750 billion, China’s IMF voting rights surged to 3.997 per cent from 3.807 per cent.[xx] China’s contribution represents 5.3 per cent of the new funds. China had sounded its wish to contribute US$ 100 billion to get a larger share in the decision making cake of the world body.[xxi] It added a perceptible voice to China. However, it was well below the US, which is right now first with 17 per cent of voting weight and holds veto power. EU member states en bloc hold 32 per cent of voting rights. In the scenario, China’s independent voice will not be a match with even Japan in Asia and Germany, France as well as UK in Europe. BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) conglomerate do not have sufficient punch. In order to counter US, it will have to garner support of others, may be Japan or a combination equal to that or align with EU member states. Consensus and not individual and or en-block leverage shall have meaning. It can draw satisfaction as in the case of other emerging economies, India included, to have got a foot hold in the proposed Financial Stability Board (FSB), Basle Committee on Banking Norms etc.

To get more voice in the world bodies, in particular IMF and World Bank (WB), was one of the major planks of diplomatic articulation of the Chinese President Hu Jintao at G-20 London Summit, and hence, though in a small measure, the increase in the vote weight has been hailed a lot in China. However, Para 20 of the “Global Plan for Recovery and Reforms”, issue at the end of the Summit on 02 April 09, contains fruits of the endeavour in no small way.[xxii] It lays down much needed vows of member states and measures thereof to infuse “credibility and accountability of the institutions through better strategic oversights and decisions.

The IMF, as the Summit resolved, would henceforth carry out “candid, even handed, and independent surveillance” of the “economic and financial sector” of member states, “of the impact of their policies on others” and “of the risks facing the global economy”. It makes incumbent upon China, as in the case of others, to give room to IMF for extra-sovereign intervention into the sovereign affairs of signatories to the resolution. It remains to be seen how China with increased prowess acted in future, and in opposite, how China, with relatively low individual and/ or group power would pit against the high individual and/ or group powers on contentious policy issues. It is again a matter of academic interest whether the development as this will enable China to be open and transparent in its dealings, which has so far been a far cry. Nevertheless, the provisions to strengthen financial system, contained in Para 15 of the “Global Plan for Recovery and Reforms”, bear out how best the articulations give shape to a future world order of micromanagement of global economic activities with prudence, sensibility and foresights.[xxiii]

China had joined hands with others, in particular France and Germany for stricter regulatory regime. This was while China held just the opposite position on the issue of stimulus package, akin to the US stand with the two European heavy weights. In a way, China’s diplomatic articulation at the Summit was forked to win both sides of the extreme to its advantage. It had again campaigned individually and with others for anti-protectionist measures, resumption of Doha Round of talks and an international reserve currency to substitute and replace hard currencies, such as US Dollar.

Regulatory regime, adopted in the “Global Plan for Recovery and Reforms” as such, is being loosely hailed as a “landmark move to banish the era of light touch financial regulations. Strikingly, the Summit solemnly vowed to abide by and go along “market principles” and adhere to “open world economy.[xxiv] It spells ambiguity. Supervision and oversight not to let individual player to flaunt market principles is one thing and regulate the whole gamut of economic activities as China does in the name of “Chinese characteristics of market economy” in free for all pursuit of the state machinery in one way or the other is another matter.

China’s diplomatic battle against protectionism is a cloak to mend, if not correct the course of its export oriented economic growth model ended up in just pious platitude. It spoke about resisting new barriers. China’s articulation to dump US dollar, and in a way, show door to the US dominance could clinch. Worse, the resolve of the Summit to deal a heavy blow to tax havens squarely goes against China as two of its constituents, namely Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region are on the black list. While being placed in white list of the OECD, China itself is not in a comfortable position.

End Notes and References

[i] The G-20 was set up to respond to the financial turmoil of 1997-99 through the development of policies that "promote international financial stability". They include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union. Officials from Spain and the Netherlands participated as special invitees.

[ii] http://www.g20.org/documents/g20_commuique/_020409.pdf

[iii] Nicholas Sarkozy, the French President and Angela Merkel went for a joint press conference to press their points. Opposing the idea for more spending as part of stimulus programe, Sarkozy added:” We consider that in Europe we have already invested a lot for the recovery, and that the problem is not about spending more, but putting in place a system of regulation so that the economic and financial catastrophe that the world is seeing does not reproduce itself." Merkel, standing alongside Sarkozy, said Germany and France were united in their conviction that the April 2 G20 meeting in London needed to follow through on pledges made at a European summit in Berlin, and would press for tighter regulation of hedge funds, a crackdown on tax havens and an increase in funds for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help countries hit by the crisis. Before leaving Berlin for London, the German Chancellor said: “I am traveling to London with a mixture of confidence and concern. The G-20 may be trying to suppress the problems and paint things in a brighter light than they are.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the summit’s draft communiqué doesn’t do enough to crack down on tax cheats. Sarkozy’s finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said: “He would walk out of the summit if his push for stricter regulation flops.

[iv] Japanese Prime Minister had expressed his exasperation in an interview in Financial Time. He said: “There are countries that understand the importance of fiscal mobilization, and there are some other countries that do not -- which is why, I believe, they (France and Germany) have come up with their views.”

[v] “Anglo Saxon Model”, quite often referred as “Beveridge” relates to socio-economic practices, supposedly prevalent in Ireland and the United Kingdom, and characterized to be less egalitarian. It is contrasted against “Nordic Model”, in vogue in Den Mark, Sweden, Finland and Netherland, the “Continental Model” in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg, and the “Mediterranean Model” in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. There is latest coinage of “Social Market Economy”, which is based on free markets, but, at the same time, holds elements of social balancing. Europeans often use the terms as slang to cast aspersion.

[vi] Talking about geopolitics, the media in China and USA spoke of European worries about losing control to ”chimerical” during the G-20 London summit, where the weight of US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao was going to influence the outcome. The write ups expressed the apprehension that the G-20 Summit could possibly turn G-2 Summit. The discussions went to suggest interdependence of the two countries holding together 13% of land space, 25 % of population, 33% of GDP and 55% of carbon emissions. The media elsewhere, India included, discussed political mandate and institutional legitimacy of G-20 Summit and suggested that the institutional framework could possibly turn out as being G-4 having the voice of the US, China, EU and Japan (Barry Eichenberg and others) as more manageable entities or G-5 with India added (Rajiv Kumar, ICRIER) lest it should be just a talking shop. The discussions suggested that the other nations taking part in the deliberations should better lend serious “serious consultations” rather than “statement making”.

[vii] The original Bretton Woods laid the ground works for the institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The media is using the term Bretton Woods-II for the second meeting of the group of 20 rather loosely. It gives impression that the leaders at large seek to revisit Bretton Woods System a fresh.

[viii] US 4^th largest investment bank Lehman Bros went bankrupt on the night of 14^th Sep 08. US 3^rd largest investment bank Merrill Lynch was simultaneously forced to sell out to the Bank of America. The top US insurer American International Group (AIG) remained in business with last minute US$ 85 billion bridge loan from the US Federal Reserves. The US rescue plan of US$ 700 billion backed the purchase of investment bank Bear Stern and engineered a government take over of mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[ix] The Summit website (http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/summit-aims) mentions three commitments made: First, to take whatever action is necessary to stabilize financial markets and enable families and businesses to get through recessions; Second, to reform and strengthen the global financial and economic system to restore confidence and trust; and, Third, to put the global economy on track for sustainable growth.

[x] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story/php?storyID=101734201

[xi] http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2009/db20090329-410891.htm?campaignid=rss_daily.

[xii] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article/2009/04/obama_press_conference_with_p_1.html

[xiii] Hu Jintao listed four priorities in the reform of international financial system: stepping up international cooperation in financial regulations; advancing reform of international financial institutions; encouraging regional financial cooperation; and improving the international currency system. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-11/16/content_7208365.htm

[xiv] “If there is the political will” said Angela Merkel, “it would be good if we could reach an agreement in the Doha round with the present US administration." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7731139.stm

[xv]“Lee Urges G-20 to join South Korea in Completing WTO Trade Deal” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aj2j EnA4zXTM

[xvi] “For the first time”, said Nicholas Sarkozy, “countries as different as those at this G20 in the United States have reached agreement on the principles, the procedures for action and on an ambitious action plan."Un ensemble de principes pour mettre fin à la crise". Radio France Internationale ; "These are extraordinary times and they require extraordinary measures." "If my sense of last night is right, at a next meeting, plans for the detailed reform of international institutions will be brought forward," he said after the meeting "Brown heralds G20's 'route map'". BBC. 2008-11-16. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7731932.stm. "For the first time”, said Dr Manmohan Singh, “there was a genuine dialogue between many of the developed countries and the emerging economies" He added further: “The summit was a clear indication that the balance of power is shifting in favours of emerging economies". "PM terms G-20 summit as 'very successful'". The Economic Times. 2008-11-16.http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Economy/G-20_summit_very_successful_PM/articleshow/3719528.cms.

[xvii] The OECD has set black, grey and white lists of countries not conforming to the international standards. Black stands for totally non-cooperative, grey for somewhat cooperative and white to have substantially improved. Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philippines and Uruguay fall in black while Luxemburg, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Singapore, Chile, the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein and Monaco stand in grey list. China is on white list where as Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as well as Macao Special Administrative Region of China figure in the black list.

xviii] http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/02/g20-summit-london237.html

[xix] The role of the Bretton wood institutions has been controversial. Holding 17.09 % individually and 25.5% collectively with other cohorts, Japan and South Korea included, the US policy towards individual country has been a major decision factor. The individual country was mostly asked to undertake what came to be known as ‘structural adjustment programme, which in turn, affected and brought out changes in the fiscal, monetary and political practices of the country in question. In most cases, it was a tool at the hands of US decision makers to tilt balance of international power equations to its favours. No surprise that the IMF has been a bail out source for dictatorship at the behest of US diplomatic convenience and apathetic to real democratic values.

[xx] IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss Kahn told Caijing that China’s offer of US$40 billion to the new fund was yet to be confirmed officially while Japan and EU had forthrightly pledged US$ 100 billion each. http://english.caijing.com.cn/2009-04-03/1101133226.htm India pledged US$ 20 billion while Canada and Switzerland promised US$ 10 billion each and Norway put US$ 4.5 billion on table. US was ambiguous about its contribution even as the US officials indicated US willingness to part with US$100 billion. The actual scenario will be clear only after the US Congress voted it.

[xxi] http://www.chinadaily.cn/china/2009-3/25/content_7613932.htm

[xxii] http://www.g20.org/Documents/final-communique.pdf

[xxiii] Ibid

[xxiv] Ibid; Special report: G-20 Summit in London, Xinhua, April 03, 2009