Despite objections from Britain, the Netherlands and a few other nations, the Bush administration is pushing to give China more voting weight at the International Monetary Fund to reflect its growing economic power and encourage Beijing to become a "stakeholder" in the international system. According to the New York Times:
In an effort to gain Chinese cooperation on international economic issues, the Bush administration is pushing for China and other developing nations to get more power in the global institution that has played a central role in easing myriad financial crises since the end of World War II…. "I would argue that by re-engineering the I.M.F. and giving China a bigger voice," Mr. Adams [under secretary of the Treasury for international affairs] said, "China will have a greater sense of responsibility for the institution's mission." China is a particular focus of American interests because of the Bush administration's uneasy relationship with the Beijing government and its desire for China to become a "stakeholder" in the international system, as American officials put it.
A similar "stakeholder" argument was advanced during congressional debate on granting China permanent most-favored-nation trade status. Since that time, Beijing has been less than helpful on numerous fronts: Darfur, North Korea and Iran top the list. It may make perfect economic sense for a greater Chinese role at the IMF but shouldn't the Bush administration request "a greater sense of responsibility" from the Chinese as a member of that other international institution, the UN Security Council, before falling over backwards for them at the IMF?