two sides, strengthening cooperation and boosting the China-EU Comprehensive
Strategic Partnership. At the multilateral level, as China and the EU member states
are IMF members, China and EU countries engaged in exchanges according to the
IMF framework. Very few regular exchange mechanisms were available between
the two sides except for the above mechanisms.
7.1.1.2 China-EU Exchange Mechanisms in Global Financial
Governance Were Immature and Made It Difficult
for In-Depth Exchanges
Exchanges between China and EU leaders under the annual meeting mechanism
were dominated by some political issues, in which thefinancial governance issue
was not the regular one on the agenda, and a specific work procedure for this issue
was also not very clear. Under the IMF exchange framework, China’s voice in the
IMF and professional competence infinancial governance lagged far behind the
EU, and China and the EU did not share the same level in dialogues; for example,
none of the IMF executives (except the Executive Board) came from China before
the crisis, thus this exchange was conducted in form rather than in substance.
7.1.1.3 The Statuses and Roles of China and the EU in Global
Financial Governance Were Obviously Asymmetric
Actually, China’s status and roles in globalfinancial governance were relatively
marginalized before the crisis. China is one of the IMF founding countries; how-
ever, China’s tranche and voting power in the IMF were always very low. On the
contrary, the EU had a well-developedfinancial market and rich experience in
participating in making and leadingfinancial rules and managing international
financial institutions. There were many channels for the EU to participate in global
financial governance, such as the G7 and G8 summits where most of the member
countries are EU countries. From the perspective of influence, the EU’s voice in
globalfinancial governance cannot be underestimated. According to an unwritten
rule, the position of the IMF’s Managing Director should be held by a European.
EU countries are the principal members of the Basel Committee and can exert great
influence on the Basel Committee through various accords. Currently, this
Committee is not only the platform forfinancial regulators from various countries to
exchange and share information and views, but it also enhances international
cooperation in banking supervision, mitigates bank operation risks and safeguards
globalfinancial stability by means of various cooperation agreements. Although the
Basel Committee does not enjoy regulatory privileges beyond the sovereign rights
of countries, supervision standards and guiding principles advocated by this
7 China-EU Relations in the Context of Global Financial Governance 141