US influence and standing in the world will wane in the Trump years, empowering China. Not intentionally, but very effectively. Some examples. (Thread)
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
This was such a cheap and effective way to push UK soft power. They really only look at short-term effects.
Similar to many big businesses making only decisions that effect the results of the current quarter, because that effects their bonuses. Customer satisfaction in 5 years time? Not important!
It hasn't helped the BBC that FCO used to fund the world service as part of UK diplomatic strategy. Then the Tories decided that (a) it was called BBC world service, so should be funded by the BBC, (b) that it had to be continued, and (c) BBC funding would be squeezed despite the extra costs.
It has already happened. The first Trump term told the rest of the world that the USA had become another untrustworthy partner. The reputation didn't recover during the Biden years. Now the world knows that the USA is turning into a nuclear-armed rogue state.
I gotta be honest here, I think that’s a very poor take on the AIIB and whoever holds that view really should familiarise themselves a bit more with it. That’s really not how they operate at all.
Quick glance at article response (and I’m no expert either but I have worked closely with them). I) article in my view overstates WB policy conditionality, so speculative in that regard; II) AIIB very much integrated in joint MDB processes eg climate finance tracking, Paris Alignment; 1/3
III) AIIB business model very focused on co-financing with existing MDBs (see eg Bangladesh climate policy-based loan with WB and ADB; IV) AIIB capacity is nowhere near WB (or even Regionals) so they cannot exert the same influence; 2/3
IV) where AIIB shines and does something different is in funding asset managers, but that doesn’t buy you political influence. I think the article starts from a distorted view about how MDBs interact with governments and then reaches conclusions that I cannot share. DM me for more if interested. 3/3
Yes, and they aren’t a member. But as noted, I think the idea is mistaken. The biggest challenge AIIB would have to exert any local influence is that they don’t have country offices.
But I don’t see any pattern in their operations that would make me think that that’s what they are going for anyway. Mind you, I also fail to see such patterns in WB or indeed other MDB operations beyond the obvious (eg climate, or EBRD transition mandate)
And viewing other countries as one entity fails to see an important aspect of this: there are leaders who can strengthen their standing in the public and pro-China policies by creating a conflict with Trump…
… and while Trump might be erratic and unpredictable as an ally and a leader he is utterly predictable in one thing: he will throw a fit if a country perceived as ‚weak‘ doesn’t do what he wants.
Comments
Similar to many big businesses making only decisions that effect the results of the current quarter, because that effects their bonuses. Customer satisfaction in 5 years time? Not important!