What's new

Support for China-led development bank grows despite US opposition

Support for China-led development bank grows despite US opposition | World news | The Guardian


Support for a Chinese-led development bank is growing despite US opposition, with Australia indicating that it could join the UK and New Zealand as a founding member.

Analysts predicted that others would follow Britain’s surprise decision to put its weight behind the new $50bn institution, despite the US making its irritation clear in an unusual public rebuke.

“Now the US’s closest ally has been emboldened to do this, there’s very little reason for others not to, because the rubicon has been crossed. If you’re looking at South Korea and Australia, it’s a bit of a no-brainer,” said Stephen Spratt, a research fellow at the UK-based Institute of Development Studies .

The Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) , which is designed to provide funds to the Asia-Pacific region, is viewed with suspicion in Washington, where it is seen as a rival to the World Bank and a possible instrument of Chinese soft power in the region.

One US official told the Financial Times: “We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power.”

But a spokesman for the British prime minister brushed aside US criticism, saying: “There will be times when we take a different approach … We think that it’s in the UK’s national interest.”

Australia’s finance minister said the UK and New Zealand decisions reflected improvements in the governance structure China was proposing.

“This is something that will obviously be taken into account by the government over the next few weeks as we continue our dialogue with those people behind the bank,” said Joe Hockey, the treasurer.

The US has reportedly lobbied Australia, South Korea and others to steer clear of the new institution. But 28 countries are planning to participate, with Indonesia also among those joining early enthusiasts such as India, Pakistan and Singapore. The deadline to become a founding member is the end of this month.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, said Beijing welcomed the UK decision, adding that the AIIB would complement existing development banks.

Zhao Changhui, a senior economist with the Export-Import Bank of China , said China had proposed the AIIB because it understood the importance of infrastructure in light of its own development; it had a huge surplus while many countries in the region lacked the funds they needed for infrastructure; and it knew that restoring the health of the global economy would require large scale cross-border trade and investment.

But he added: “The founding of AIIB is a challenge to the US’s economical and political dominance. It’s also a challenge to the establishments controlled by the US, such as the World Bank.”

Some have suggested that AIIB is designed to compete with the US- and Japan-dominated Asia Development Bank (ADB).

“China has tonnes of dollars in reserves and this seems like a good use,” said Stephany Griffith-Jones , an expert on development banks at Columbia University in New York.

“There’s an estimated $1tn of need in infrastructure and sustainable development [in emerging and developing countries]. In a way, the more, the better … If countries are not happy [with the AIIB], they can still go to the World Bank or ADB.”

Among the unmet needs are an estimated 1.4 billion people without access to electricity, the billion without clean drinking water and 2.6 billion without access to sanitation.

Griffith-Jones added that British involvement would also allow the UK to help shape the institution – but given that China is providing most of the cash, it is unclear how much influence other countries will wield. She suggested that in terms of governance it might have been better if China were not providing quite so much of the funding.

Beijing is also a major player in the New Development Bank being set up by the Brics nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and is providing $40bn for the new Silk Road Fund to improve connectivity across Asia.

The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, told a news conference: “From the perspective simply of the need for more infrastructure spending, there’s no doubt that from our perspective, we welcome the entry of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.”

The White House national security council said the US agreed there was a pressing need to enhance infrastructure investment, but had concerns about whether the AIIB would meet “the high standards, particularly related to governance, and environmental and social safeguards” of the World Bank and regional development banks.

Spratt said: “People have been criticising the World Bank on exactly the same issues for decades and through all of that flak there’s been significant learning.

“The new multilateral organisations do have a lot to learn from the World Bank and regional development banks on the environmental and social side – but [the existing institutions] probably have quite a lot to learn from places like China in terms of how to deal with rapid infrastructure building and so on.”

Can you please post the voting percentage each country will hold
On topic
Developing countries like India needs such institution also IMF,ADB & other such institutions are to much influenced by some countries to get loans sanctioned hope this bank will also not head the same way
 
Can you please post the voting percentage each country will hold
On topic
Developing countries like India needs such institution also IMF,ADB & other such institutions are to much influenced by some countries to get loans sanctioned hope this bank will also not head the same way
Indian offcial said India has the second biggest voting power--about 19%, and China has about 42%.
News of 2014.Oct
印度将成为亚投行第二大股东 约占19%的投票权 - 中投顾问|中国投资咨询网
 
images





3/16/2015 @ 1:48PM 3,000 views

The AIIB Debacle: What Washington Should Do Now

Washington to take a step back and regroup. Its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) strategy, ill-considered from the get-go, has now taken a major hit with the announcement this past week by the United Kingdom that it plans to join the Chinese-led AIIB. Washington’s concerns over the AIIB are well-established: the competition the AIIB poses to pre-existing development institutions such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank; concern over the potential for weak environmental standards and social safeguards within the AIIB; and the opportunity for China to use AIIB-financed infrastructure for greater leverage in the region. From all accounts, the Obama administration has expended serious energy trying to dissuade its allies from joining the bank at least until greater clarity is offered as to the decision-making structure of the institution. With the defection of the UK, however, it appears likely that Washington’s carefully constructed coalition will gradually unravel—both Australia and South Koreaare apparently reconsidering their earlier reluctance to join the bank and could well use the UK’s decision as political cover for deciding to join the bank.

At this point, therefore, Washington has three choices:

1) Continue to press its allies not to join the AIIB until governance procedures for the bank are assured;

2) Join the AIIB itself; or

3) Drop the issue.

Option one is clearly a losing proposition. There is no sense expending further political capital trying to persuade regional and other actors not to join the bank. It is a small-potato issue that is making the United States look weak at a time when U.S. influence in the region is otherwise quite strong.

Option two, which I—along with virtually every other China analyst outside the U.S. government—supported back in October is that the United States join the AIIB. There are several reasons why this is a good idea. It would allow the United States a seat inside the tent where it could be both a positive force for best governance practices and an internal critic if things go awry. It also would likely help ensure that U.S. companies have fair access to the bidding opportunities that will arise from the AIIB’s investment financing. Joining now will be hard to accomplish in a face-saving manner, but the United States could begin by publicly recognizing the need for the financing capabilities in Asia that the AIIB can provide and by moving quickly to work with Australia, South Korea, and Japan to work out common principles of accession.

Option three is for the United States to back away from the AIIB, release other countries from any pressure they might feel from the United States not to join, and let the AIIB rise or fall on its own merits. Chinese-led resource and infrastructure investment has encountered significant difficulty in a number of countries, including Zambia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Brazil and Sri Lanka, among others. If the AIIB does not do a better job than China’s own development banks, it will be a stain not only on Beijing but also on all the other countries that are participating. If it does operate at the same standard as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, then it will be a welcome addition to the world of development financing. The United States does not have to be in every regional organization in the Asia Pacific; it is not in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, for example, and it is only an observer in the Conference on Interactions and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia. It can sit out the AIIB or assume observer status as well.

Washington’s priority should be on advancing U.S. ideals and institutions through the pivot or rebalance rather than blocking Chinese initiatives unless absolutely necessary. (Let’s not confuse China’s effort to develop the AIIB with its push to implement an Air Defense Identification Zone, for example.) Opposition to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has become a millstone around Washington’s neck. It is time to remove it one way or another.

This article originally appeared on the Council on Foreign Relations’ Asia Unbound blog and can be found here.


images

邹达清 版画
Art-print painting
Painter: Zou Daqing
 
Last edited:
3/16/2015 @ 1:48PM 3,000 views
The AIIB Debacle: What Washington Should Do Now

Washington to take a step back and regroup. Its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) strategy, ill-considered from the get-go, has now taken a major hit with the announcement this past week by the United Kingdom that it plans to join the Chinese-led AIIB. Washington’s concerns over the AIIB are well-established: the competition the AIIB poses to pre-existing development institutions such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank; concern over the potential for weak environmental standards and social safeguards within the AIIB; and the opportunity for China to use AIIB-financed infrastructure for greater leverage in the region. From all accounts, the Obama administration has expended serious energy trying to dissuade its allies from joining the bank at least until greater clarity is offered as to the decision-making structure of the institution. With the defection of the UK, however, it appears likely that Washington’s carefully constructed coalition will gradually unravel—both Australia and South Koreaare apparently reconsidering their earlier reluctance to join the bank and could well use the UK’s decision as political cover for deciding to join the bank.

At this point, therefore, Washington has three choices:

1) Continue to press its allies not to join the AIIB until governance procedures for the bank are assured;

2) Join the AIIB itself; or

3) Drop the issue.

Option one is clearly a losing proposition. There is no sense expending further political capital trying to persuade regional and other actors not to join the bank. It is a small-potato issue that is making the United States look weak at a time when U.S. influence in the region is otherwise quite strong.

Obama-1940x1313.jpg


Option two, which I—along with virtually every other China analyst outside the U.S. government—supported back in October is that the United States join the AIIB. There are several reasons why this is a good idea. It would allow the United States a seat inside the tent where it could be both a positive force for best governance practices and an internal critic if things go awry. It also would likely help ensure that U.S. companies have fair access to the bidding opportunities that will arise from the AIIB’s investment financing. Joining now will be hard to accomplish in a face-saving manner, but the United States could begin by publicly recognizing the need for the financing capabilities in Asia that the AIIB can provide and by moving quickly to work with Australia, South Korea, and Japan to work out common principles of accession.

Option three is for the United States to back away from the AIIB, release other countries from any pressure they might feel from the United States not to join, and let the AIIB rise or fall on its own merits. Chinese-led resource and infrastructure investment has encountered significant difficulty in a number of countries, including Zambia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Brazil and Sri Lanka, among others. If the AIIB does not do a better job than China’s own development banks, it will be a stain not only on Beijing but also on all the other countries that are participating. If it does operate at the same standard as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, then it will be a welcome addition to the world of development financing. The United States does not have to be in every regional organization in the Asia Pacific; it is not in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, for example, and it is only an observer in the Conference on Interactions and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia. It can sit out the AIIB or assume observer status as well.

Washington’s priority should be on advancing U.S. ideals and institutions through the pivot or rebalance rather than blocking Chinese initiatives unless absolutely necessary. (Let’s not confuse China’s effort to develop the AIIB with its push to implement an Air Defense Identification Zone, for example.) Opposition to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has become a millstone around Washington’s neck. It is time to remove it one way or another.

This article originally appeared on the Council on Foreign Relations’ Asia Unbound blog and can be found here.


images

邹达清 版画
Art-print painting
Painter: Zou Daqing

Obama shall apologise his mistakes to his allies of NATO and stop being a petty idiot opposing something so constructive for the developing world.
 
Indian offcial said India has the second biggest voting power--about 19%, and China has about 42%.
News of 2014.Oct
印度将成为亚投行第二大股东 约占19%的投票权 - 中投顾问|中国投资咨询网
That is a lot of voting power for country with less than $2t economy.

Obama shall apologise his mistakes to his allies of NATO and stop being a petty idiot opposing something so constructive for the developing world.
Be realistic man. US still have her allies balls and can squeeze it hard when the time is right. This bank is just a small step.
 
That is a lot of voting power for country with less than $2t economy.
Quite a partition. Besides China, India is the only big economy among the establishers. Voting powers for non-Asian countries is only 25% in sum, so those larger Western economy is not to threaten Asian countries' profit.
 
Indian offcial said India has the second biggest voting power--about 19%, and China has about 42%.
News of 2014.Oct
印度将成为亚投行第二大股东 约占19%的投票权 - 中投顾问|中国投资咨询网

Good to see this I hope we will be Abel to get large amounts for development projects sanctioned

That is a lot of voting power for country with less than $2t economy.


Be realistic man. US still have her allies balls and can squeeze it hard when the time is right. This bank is just a small step.

1st we are already a 2trillion economy & we are one of the few major economies who are increasing their speed of growth

2nd Sino-Indian relations beyond ODF are very stable & are on the path of growth
3rd if you really want to displace IMF & World bank from their current position you will need our support
 
That is a lot of voting power for country with less than $2t economy.


Be realistic man. US still have her allies balls and can squeeze it hard when the time is right. This bank is just a small step.
The allies all desperate to prove they are not lackey of US and will go with the wind. British is first and soon many will follow.
 
That is a lot of voting power for country with less than $2t economy.

Indeed
India has been facing challenges of many financial crisis before, esp in 1991 and some others
1991 Indian economic crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
India and the credit crisis | The Economist
India on the brink of its own financial crisis | Business | The Guardian
7 reasons why India is staring at a currency crisis - NDTVProfit.com

and it is also one of the most vulnerable to a financial crisis. So much of a self serving move

Countries Most Vulnerable To Crisis - Business Insider


But I thought China being the prime founder is having a shareholding of 49%

images

Art print painting
 
Back
Top Bottom