The IMF tries to calm the South China Sea
The annual International Monetary Fund and World Bank fall meetings are underway. Every third year, these meetings take place outside of Washington, and this year Japan was selected. That decision—taken many months ago, partially as a gesture of solidarity with post-tsunami Japan—has now placed the world’s leading financial institutions smack in the middle of the ...
The annual International Monetary Fund and World Bank fall meetings are underway. Every third year, these meetings take place outside of Washington, and this year Japan was selected. That decision—taken many months ago, partially as a gesture of solidarity with post-tsunami Japan—has now placed the world's leading financial institutions smack in the middle of the tense South China Sea dispute.
The annual International Monetary Fund and World Bank fall meetings are underway. Every third year, these meetings take place outside of Washington, and this year Japan was selected. That decision—taken many months ago, partially as a gesture of solidarity with post-tsunami Japan—has now placed the world’s leading financial institutions smack in the middle of the tense South China Sea dispute.
The juxtaposition of the economic meetings and the geopolitical dispute have given senior IMF officials scope to comment directly on the latter in a way they might normally not. They’ve taken advantage of the opportunity. IMF chief Christine Lagarde reportedly lectured the Asian giants about the dangers of becoming "distracted" by the territorial dispute. Other Fund officials have piped up as well. Via the Wall Street Journal:
The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday renewed its call for China and Japan to work out their territorial dispute as rising tensions between the world’s second- and third-largest economies threaten to exacerbate a global slowdown.
The spat between the two nations over islands in the East China Sea has intensified since last month, sparking violent anti-Japan protests in China, dealing a blow to Japanese auto sales and discouraging travel between the two countries.
There’s nothing particularly controversial in what IMF officials are saying; any conflict would undoubtedly have grave economic consequences regionally and globally. But there’s also something unreal, and almost condescending, about the manner in which these senior international bureaucrats are making the case. It’s as if they can barely contain their incredulity that states might confront each other over resources, territory, and national pride–don’t these benighted politicians understand there’s money to be made by getting along?
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
