No pain, only gain for the West

Chinese approach with new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is one of peace and inclusiveness

A few weeks ago, the official launch of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank took place in Beijing with 57 founding member states, including four members of the G8: the UK, France, Germany and Italy.

But despite overwhelming support and the widespread view that the AIIB is much-needed if significant growth is to take place across the entire Asia-Pacific region, this news has been met with a far from celebratory mood.

I suspect strongly that there are two main reasons for this: One, the United States-led, pernicious propaganda campaign against the AIIB's inception, and two, a lack of understanding of the AIIB and the role of China and its international emergence generally.

If we take the latter first, it is vital to place the China-initiated AIIB and China's economic emergence since 1979-80 in a wider context before jumping to any hasty and ill-informed judgments. Chinese history, which stretches back more than 5,000 years, and the international and interregional role played by the Chinese over this time, is the context in which recent developments should be placed.

Historians and many other people around the world all agree that Chinese history persistently paints a picture of the Chinese as characterized by peace, cooperation and protection.

It is abundantly clear, therefore, that the AIIB initiative and China's plans for major economic development for western China and the Asia-Pacific region have nothing to do with power and dominance, and everything to do with peaceful cooperation across the Asia region.

Why have so many European nations rushed to become founding AIIB members? Simply because they appreciate the conciliatory nature of this initiative coupled with the firm belief that China is working in the interests of the overall Asia-Pacific region.

Of course, regional development, wherever this may be, takes place much more effectively with a leader, as has been the case with Europe and Germany. Critics of the AIIB sadly and mistakenly interpret China's leading role in Asia-Pacific economic integration as a US-like need for absolute power and dominance.

Instead, the opposite is true, and it is not just Chinese altruism that needs to be appreciated here, it is also the encyclopedic knowledge and experience China has gained as a result of their economic miracle in recent years. China has also demonstrated deep understanding of the economic development needs and imperatives across Asia, with infrastructure the essential building block, and financial and political engagement needed across the entire region.

No Asian country is better placed than China to lead economic integration, and with this, significant and rapid development.

But Europe and the West must understand this is a leadership defined by inclusivity, not exclusivity. China will serve and support the entire Asia-Pacific region. Any US-style arrogance and aggression is simply not the Chinese way.

One cynical view that also runs counter to just about every act of international engagement carried out by the Chinese is that China has the largest percentage of voting rights and will exercise a veto on policy proposals.

Once again, only a superficial glance at Chinese history leads to the unequivocal conclusion that a veto is completely anathema to the Chinese style of negotiating.

With the injection of almost $30 billion of the authorized $100 billion capital, China has every right to have a major say in policy formation and implementation, but widespread agreement and compromise will dominate the day-to-day AIIB operation and modus operandi.

Another cynical and wildly inaccurate rumor is that the AIIB is part of some push by the Chinese government to help Chinese companies expand internationally. In response to this, it is first important to note the increasing international success of Chinese companies and their brands. But even more apposite is the fact that China's economic emergence, and that of the surrounding region, has benefited Western brands enormously. The Chinese government has not only welcomed this, but continues to attract foreign investment across all parts of the Chinese mainland.

Moving on to the US-led propaganda war against the AIIB, which has been running for at least two years, we also find untruth after untruth, and specious after specious argument.

Central to the US' raucous rant where the AIIB is concerned has been the suggestion that other organizations already fulfill such a role, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The US appears to persist with this line in spite of the fact that fierce criticism of the World Bank has been descending on the acerbic Americans for more than 10 years, and despite the fact that the AIIB has both an infrastructure and regional focus, unlike the amorphous US-led World Bank.

So, not only is there little or no overlap, it is also clear to many that a root-and-branch review of the World Bank's operation is long overdue.

That the US-dominated World Bank has received the most pernicious and persistent criticism over many years might explain partly the overwhelming support by the Europeans for the AIIB. Even former presidents of the World Bank, as well as former senior members of staff, have contributed to the widespread view that this bank is just not working.

Much of this considerable criticism centers on the apparent servitude shown to the US government and its worrisome foreign policy.

The World Bank's credibility will continue to be questioned with the continuation of this state of servitude, where US foreign policy drives much of this bank's activity. The US also claims the AIIB will diminish the role of the IMF.Once again, this argument flies directly in the face of the facts. First and foremost, the AIIB is about long-term development with persistent pumping of investment into the poorest Asian economies.

The AIIB has been set up to support sustainable economic growth across the region, too, and is unlikely to focus investment on one single country. Instead, critically important infrastructure projects across many of the poorest Asian nations will be established.

The IMF, on the other hand, is there to support specific governments with short-term liquidity challenges. The IMF is also not far behind the World Bank with the volume of increasingly vociferous criticism it has received in recent years. Witness the Greek debt crisis for a perfect example of the IMF's failings. Certainly under Christine Legarde's leadership the IMF has shown little or no understanding of the challenges faced by Greece and absolutely no flexibility in its lending program.

Clearly, the World Bank and the IMF need to be redesigned totally to meet the challenges facing today's world economy. Perhaps any redesign may follow the approach taken by China and the AIIB, such as inclusivity and engagement, rather than the US-led aggressive and arrogant approach.

Fundamentally, it should be accepted the world over that the launch of the AIIB and the rise of China will inevitably lead to a consequential rise in stability, peace and prosperity across Asia, which, in time, will spread worldwide. Chinese cultural values-still shaped largely by Confucian philosophy, such as togetherness, friendship and pacifism-will infuse the AIIB's and Asia's overall development. There is nothing to be feared, but much for the West to gain.

The author is a visiting professor at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing and a senior lecturer at Southampton University. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.