The Philippines is seeing a year of impressive economic growth (at 6.3%) despite the lacking foreign direct investment due to woeful infrastructure constraints. The AIIB can be an additional source of funding for local infrastructure projects. Political disputes surrounding the China Sea disputes were not enough to trump the economic importance of this cooperation.

A more dynamic and flexible AIIB has the chance to develop and showcase strong, new and effective accountability mechanisms supported by all shareholders. Here though, China too must learn from and improve upon its own past practices if it is to prove the skeptics wrong.

Many Western countries, the World Bank and other multilateral institutions are embracing China’s proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Their analysis concludes that the bank is a strategic asset for themselves as well as Asia, and the US could benefit from the same approach.

Chiefs of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund overtly expressed their support and intention for cooperation for the AIIB, for its possibility of fast and sustainable development in new Asian economies. This hasn’t developed with a share of U.S. and Japanese controversy over supposed veto ability, lack of “high standards,” the eclectic membership, and the notion that the U.S. “won” and China “lost.”

U.S. opposition to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a misreading of global international relations trends and development, according to Wu Jianmian. The AIIB wont’ challenge the existing financial institutions, and through infrastructure development, create a new model of “win-win” cooperation. China says the door is still open for the U.S. to join.

Over the past two years, Washington has lobbied against the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Now, nearly 50 countries have joined or applied to become prospective founding members. Dan Steinbock argues that the U.S. opposition is a reflection, not the cause, of a deeper challenge – that of adjusting American exceptionalism into the era of multipolar world economy.

Instead of viewing the AIIB as a symbol of looming Chinese economic hegemony, the AIIB should instead be viewed as a global climate change solution with powerful, vastly distributed benefits. Stewart Taggart claims it would create non-discriminatory access to a massive regional market for energy sources ranging from sun, wind, and biomass to hydro and geothermal. Without the external labor sink of infrastructure projects, domestic Chinese unemployment will also rise.

The move by China to create the AIIB doesn’t imply intention to control the bank; instead it is an attempt to enhance its “soft power,” while avoiding typical international norms of competing for hegemony. Europe’s participation has rendered the AIIB international credibility; yet China is wary that the new institution is already over-politicized even before its official launch and operation.

The U.S. Congress’ inability to pass fair IMF reforms is partly responsible for China’s creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). While the U.S. is not at the center of this newly created institution. America still has time to develop the consensus in Congress to strike a balance between America’s leadership in the international system and the demand of others to have enough space, not only to survive in the system, but also to prosper.

The “One Belt and One Road” initiative concerns 65 countries and 4.4 billion people and is China’s most important and strategic initiative. As the Middle East and Europe faces social, political, and economic turbulence, China invites all major economies to join this endeavor to improve infrastructure and trade throughout the world. Increasingly, China’s development is inseparable from the world; and world’s stability and prosperity are inseparable from China.