With nearly 50 applicants so far, the attention of the China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has shifted from concerns that it would not secure enough participants for a credible presence on the international stage to having possibly too many to coalesce on important issues. Now comes the hard part: creating a development institution that is responsive to both the diverse needs of its Asian borrowers and the governance concerns of its broader funding countries in Europe and elsewhere.
Joining the bank is not politically feasible for Washington in the foreseeable future given the negative congressional sentiments, but the messages coming from the US have become more constructive, shifting from adamant opposition to signalling a willingness to co-operate in statements from senior Treasury officials. Yet these statements continue to raise concerns about whether the AIIB — with an intended $100bn registered capital — will adhere to the “highest standards” and over conditions on safeguards relating to social and environmental consequences at project level. Some of the later applicant countries such as Australia have cited such reservations to justify their initially lukewarm approach to joining.
Such admonitions miss the point. The objective — as implied at press conferences — is not simply to duplicate the supposedly “highest standards” of existing institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF and the Asian Development Bank but to use this unique opportunity to establish the “right standards”.