I just have a couple of points to make, in addition to what John said.
First of all, the international imbalance that John is alluding to is the more than $2 trillion worth of foreign exchange reserves being held in Asian banks. Those are being generated by something, and that something is the huge and growing balance of payments deficits by the United States.
Here is a problem where the IMF could play a role, and there's been some discussion of that under the rubric of multilateral surveillance. In other words, the IMF should find ways of engaging with the key partners to these imbalances—the Americans on the one side and the Asians and the Europeans on the other side—to stop this careening toward a financial crisis of huge magnitude.
The problem is that the IMF doesn't have the leverage this would take. You could almost say that the IMF is now too large to handle the small problems it's looking at, and it's too small to handle the really large problems it should be looking at concerning international financial crises and instability. There's a good piece on that in today's Globe and Mail by Eric Helleiner, who has written a book and just won a prize on this.
On the China issue, I would add that the Chinese aren't just giving money away; quite often they're lending it. So we've come out of a period of debt forgiveness for the poorest countries, we've come out of the tunnel, and, all of a sudden, they're starting to borrow again. And who are they borrowing from? Well, among others, they're borrowing from the Chinese and the Indians. So in addition to all of the other concerns that John mentioned, there's also the issue of the rebuilding debt, which is recreating the problem we thought we had resolved. But I would also say that it's actually important for developing countries to have some competition in the field when it comes to looking for resources for development. That's a factor I wouldn't dismiss lightly.