Tuesday, September 30, 2025
Home Blog Page 2559

A tale of two Olympics: China’s remarkable transformation since 2008

0

The summer games Beijing hosted 14 years ago put the communist nation on the world stage. The winter games it’s about to host will showcase an ever more confident and powerful global player.

By Tom Fowdy

As 2021 ends, all eyes look forward to what will be, assuming there are no upsets, the first big event of 2022: the Beijing Winter Olympics that begin on February 4. The games have, unsurprisingly, been marred in controversy amid America’s drive to politicise them against Beijing by encouraging countries to diplomatically boycott the event on human-rights grounds.
The goal? To humiliate China and deny it the prestige that comes from hosting the games, which are seen as a symbol of humanity, heritage and unity. Yet this political no-show might not dampen Beijing’s spirits as much as Washington might have hoped, not least because, in spite of the challenge posed by the US, the country is increasingly confident and optimistic about its own position and strength in the world.
In other words, it’s not reliant on or in need of American approval. The 14-year period between Beijing’s two Olympic Games, in 2008 and 2022, tells us the story of how this self-assurance emerged and consolidated. As a recent op-ed in The Guardian put it: ‘Mind Games: how China’s confidence soared between two Olympics’. This article analysed in depth how the first event, coupled with the global financial crisis, was “China’s Moment”, and how the second has grown to depict China’s confidence amid its new rivalry with the West.
What most Western audiences fail to understand is that China views its own historical experience through the lens of a national story and that story is one of decline, hope and revival. Its past is defined by what it refers to as the “century of humiliation” – a time when China became weak and poor, and was brutally subjugated by foreign powers, who violated its national sovereignty, and quasi-colonized and exploited it. With it came a period of soul-searching and a belief that China’s traditional ideas and philosophies had failed the people, and, eventually, the dream of remaking China into a modern, powerful, prosperous and capable country.
It was this period of ideological upheaval that brought down the Qing Dynasty and fuelled the rise of the Communist Party, which offered its ideology as an instrument for China’s revival and by which to overcome the legacies of colonialism. While the Mao Zedong era came with many upheavals and often tragic mistakes, the process of reform and opening up that followed was when China began its transformation into an industrial superpower.
Western minds cannot understand why the Communist Party is tolerated, let alone popular, but, for the Chinese, the dramatic change in economic fortunes under the party’s rule have been astonishing. The country has rapidly progressed from what was a peasant, agrarian nation into the world’s second-largest economy, bringing with it a change in living standards inconceivable even in the privileged West. These successes have all served to instil confidence in the people about China’s rise.
And here is where the upcoming Winter Olympics enter the story. When Beijing hosted the Summer Olympics in 2008, it was an event that stood as a milestone of what China had achieved so far. An incredible point of contrast to the past, it showed a new China to the world. And it came amid the financial crisis – a global catastrophe that had thrown the economies of the West into turmoil while China continued to grow. As The Guardian article reflects, this instilled a sense of there being a destiny in China’s political system and the direction in which it was heading. It was not so much a symbolic turning point as a political one. This was China’s rise writ large for all to see.
But it was also a time when the West had more confidence in itself than it does today. It had a strong belief that, as China grew, it would change and become more liberal, and that capitalist engagement with the country was the virtue that would open it up.
However, the events of that year eventually put paid to that assumption. Economies such as the US’s may have since recovered from the financial crisis, but the lingering damage from the economic inequalities it exacerbated, shattering the dream that globalization was a win-win, unleashed new political forces. These forces not only objected to the changes in identity that globalization wrought, but also harkened back to a more glorious past. Within eight years of the Beijing Olympics came Donald Trump and Brexit – and with them, the world’s view of China began to change.
Today, a China ever more confident in itself faces a West that perceives Beijing as an existential threat to its own hegemony and centuries-long dominance over the world. China’s esteem has only grown in the face of political absurdities such as Brexit, Trump, and how it has fared in the Covid-19 pandemic compared to Western nations.
As for the West, the needle has shifted from engaging with China to encourage change to confronting and attempting to contain it in the hope of forcing through that change. America no longer believes trade with China will bring liberalisation, but rather that it’s a vice that has highlighted its own inequalities and inefficiencies, and tarnished the neoliberal economic system it endorsed. The 2022 Olympics is now the stage for that confrontation.
As The Guardian op-ed states: “In 2008, China was crying out to be recognised. It wanted to show its wealth, cosmopolitanism as well as friendliness … Nowadays, China wants to show its assertiveness. Some in the country go as far as to – perhaps mistakenly – suggest that the East is rising and the West is falling. Hence, in response to [recent] diplomatic boycotts, Beijing said: ‘Nobody cares.’”
As China’s confidence has grown, so has its belief that it does not need to be defined by or dictated to by the West. It has nothing left to learn from Western nations. If there’s a challenge ahead, it’s prepared to face it and to utilise its national strength to get what it wants. As a Global Times survey found, Chinese people at large now perceive their most important relationship and partner to be Russia, not the US. Yet, most strikingly, the same survey also found most Chinese are optimistic about the future.
Two Olympic tournaments have defined both China’s relations with the world and its sense of self, and drawn a contrast between its past and its future. It’s a national tale of upheaval, then revival and, now, a confidence in a future glory that the United States, for all its indignation, can’t foil. The games, and other events over the next 12 months, will be the next chapter in a story that will ultimately define the 21st century. In spite of China’s optimism, how it ultimately ends is anyone’s guess.

Tom Fowdy is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations with a primary focus on East Asia.

The IMF’s Misstep on Climate Finance

0

The IMF’s allocation of $650 billion in special drawing rights in August was long encouraged and widely welcomed. But its follow-up proposal for channeling finance to the most climate-vulnerable countries is so flawed that it would exclude many of the neediest.

By Sara Jane Ahmed, Alicia Bárcena, and Daniel Titelman

The International Monetary Fund seems determined to dilute one of the best examples of global cooperation in response to the economic disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. It must change course now, before it is too late.
The IMF’s allocation of $650 billion in special drawing rights (SDRs, the Fund’s reserve asset) in August was long encouraged and widely welcomed. Given the IMF’s tight rules, it was clear from the start that the vast majority of SDRs would go to countries that did not need them. As a result, G7 leaders pledged to re-channel upwards of $100 billion of their allocations to “countries most in need of … pandemic [support to] stabilize their economies, and mount a green and global recovery … aligned with shared development and climate goals.”
While these moves seem small compared to the $17 trillion that rich countries have spent to support their economies during the pandemic, they were nonetheless significant. In October, just two months after the allocation, the G20 backed a plan by the IMF and the World Bank to develop and implement a Resilience and Sustainability Trust, which would allow wealthy countries to channel their allotments to low- and middle-income countries vulnerable to economic shocks. Because the RST could be used to address risks related to climate change, it would fill a glaring gap in international finance. The IMF announced that it would have a proposal ready for its 2022 spring meetings.
But will it be enough?
Extreme weather events like floods and hurricanes can trigger financial instability in vulnerable countries as they wipe out capital stock and sources of foreign exchange. Likewise, countries dependent on fossil-fuel exports face fiscal uncertainty as demand for oil and gas decreases to meet climate goals. In both cases, spillover effects can negatively affect trade. Countries confronting such conditions must undertake a structural transformation of their economies. But many low- and middle-income countries lack access to the cost-effective, flexible financing they need.
A well-designed RST would make the IMF criteria for resource allocation and country eligibility more adaptable. Unfortunately, five design flaws in the IMF’s approach would render the planned RST ineffective for most climate-vulnerable countries.
The first flaw concerns eligibility. IMF programs discriminate on the basis of income, but climate change does not. While the G20 explicitly called for the establishment of an RST covering low-income and climate-vulnerable middle-income countries, the IMF has adopted a narrow interpretation according to which middle-income countries would be eligible only if they do not exceed a certain income threshold.
But traditional measures of income are a poor criterion for determining eligibility. The IMF must adjust its thinking to actual circumstances and ensure that eligibility is based on climate vulnerability. It should not be controversial to integrate into the criteria simple measures such as susceptibility to physical climate risks like floods, droughts, and hurricanes, or economic factors like the share of fossil-fuel exports in total foreign-exchange earnings.
Second, there is a problem with the terms and accessibility of the funds. Developing countries lack the fiscal space to mobilize domestic resources to address the structural changes their economies need. Many also lack access to external resources on reasonable borrowing terms. But the IMF is proposing that RST users be charged the SDR interest rate (currently five basis points and on the rise) plus a margin of up to 100 basis points. These rates are not very different from what the Fund currently charges middle-income countries. More problematic is the access limits, which would be 100% of quota, or less than the SDR equivalent of $1 billion. These guidelines would do little to address the financing needs of all but the smallest countries.
The third flaw is the IMF’s insistence on conditionality. The Fund sees the RST as a top-up scheme for existing programs. This is deeply troubling. According to the IMF’s own research, its existing lending facilities are stigmatized, owing to their high levels of conditionality and low levels of performance with respect to economic recovery and other social outcomes. The RST was supposed to be a new instrument that recognizes and channels resources to the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. But what the IMF plans is repackaged business as usual.
The fourth flaw is that even though the IMF is only now devising a climate-change strategy, it would head the RST. Multilateral and regional development banks are also prescribed SDR institutions, and they have a longer view and a stronger track record on climate policy. They need to be part of the RST’s governance.
Lastly, there is the question of scale. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has said the RST would be funded with around $30 billion initially and then scaled up to $50 billion. While the RST alone cannot be expected to substitute finance needed to address the intensifying effects of climate change, the needs assessment released by the Standing Committee on Finance of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change put the figure at $6 trillion, and other estimates are significantly higher. At the recent UN Climate Change Conference (COP26), Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley, whose country is among the world’s most vulnerable, proposed an annual increase in SDRs of $500 billion for 20 years to finance resilience and sustainability.
The IMF’s shareholders and stakeholders must reconsider the RST’s design. To succeed, it must include all climate-vulnerable developing countries, regardless of income level. It must provide low-cost financing that does not undermine members’ debt sustainability and is not linked to pre-existing IMF programs with onerous conditionalities. It must be governed by key stakeholders in development-finance institutions. And it must scale appropriately over time.
The IMF must make the necessary adjustments to its proposal for the RST. If it cannot, creditor countries should refrain from capitalizing it.

Sara Jane Ahmed is Finance Adviser to the Vulnerable Twenty Group of Ministers of Finance.
Alicia Bárcena is Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Daniel Titelman is Director of the Economic Development Division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Dashen Bank changes its Board chair

0

Following the resignation of Neway Beyene, as chairmanship of the Board of Directors of Dashen Bank, Dulla Mekonnen has assigned to lead the bank.

On the statement Dashen sent to Capital the Board of Directors of Dashen Bank has elected Dulla Mekonnen as its chairperson effective December 21, 2021.

It added that Dulla took over the chairmanship from Neway, who resigned from the post for personal reasons. The outgoing chairman joined the Board in 2014 and had been in the post since 2018.

The newly appointed chairman, Dulla Mekonnen, has academic background in agricultural and electrical engineering. He received his BSc. in Electrical Engineering from Adama Science and Technology University, where he also pursued an MBA. Dulla is a veteran of Ethiopia’s sugar processing industry, having served the sugar plants, Wonji/Shoa, Matahara, and Fincha, for over 18 years. He was General Manager of Fincha Sugar Factory before joining Limu Coffee Farm PLC in February 2016. In July 2018, he moved to Ethio Leather Industry PLC as General Manager. Dulla then joined Horizon Plantation PLC in October 2019 where he served as Assistant to the Managing Director. Currently, he is Deputy CEO of Midroc Investment Group. Dulla joined the Board of Dashen Bank in early 2021.

 

በድሬዳዋ ኤርፖርት የጦር መሳሪያ ፍንዳታ ተከሰተ ተብሎ የተሰራጨው መረጃ ሐሰት መሆኑ ተገለፀ።

0

በድሬዳዋ ኤርፖርት የጦር መሳሪያ ፍንዳታ ተከሰተ ተብሎ በተለያዩ ማህበራዊ ሚዲያዎች የተላለፈው መረጃ ሐሰት መሆኑን
የድሬዳዋ ሲቪል አቪየሺን ቅርንጫፍ ፅህፈት ቤት ኃላፊ አቶ ተስፋዬ ሽመልስ ገልጸዋል።

ፍንዳታው የተከሰተው በትላንትናው ዕለት ከቀኑ 10 ሰዓት ከ50 ደቂቃ የአውሮፕላኑን አቅጣጫና የርቀት መለኪያ፣ የኃይል መቆጣጠሪያና የመገናኛ መሳሪያ በኤሌክትሪክ ኃይል መጨመር በተከሰተ ቃጠሎና ፍንዳታ የኃይል መቆጣጠሪያ ስርዓቱ ላይ አደጋ መድረሱን ገልፀዋል፡፡

ምንም አይነት የፀጥታ ችግር እንዳልተከሰተና ኤርፖርቱ የተለመደ በረራውን እያካሄደ መሆኑንም ተናግረዋል፡፡