Abstract
The creation of the China-led AIIB has been the most important event in the international financial sphere in recent years, but the comments about it have often been made from a multitude of lenses, thus complicating the recognition of its real implication. By clarifying the inclinations reflected in the AIIB issue and reviewing the problems with the global financial governance system, this article argues that the AIIB is not so much an extension of Chinese influence as a reaction to the demand of transforming this system. This article concludes that the AIIB is an accommodation, rather than confrontation, to the global financial governance system.

I. Introduction

The establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is one of the most eye-catching events in the international financial sphere in recent years. It must be noted, however, that in its early founding stage the AIIB did not garner considerable attention. Only after Britain declared to join the AIIB as a prospective founding member (PFM) in defiance of the dissuasion by the United States, which induced more European developed countries to follow, the AIIB became a hotspot throughout the world, giving rise to various opinions. Some experts think of the AIIB as a landmark event signaling China’s challenge to the current global multilateral order; whereas many others find that the AIIB is just a “pilot project rather than a dominant new model,” which bears no extension of Chinese influence. Now the AIIB has been operational for months, and the debate about it seems to have faded as the U.S. has slightly changed its attitude towards the AIIB. But it is still meaningful to have an in-depth reconsideration of the debate in order to better understand the actual implication of the AIIB towards the global financial governance.

This article proceeds as follows. The first part addresses the background and process of the AIIB’s establishment, so as to provide a framework for discussion. The second part rethinks the AIIB issue by summarizing four characteristics reflected in the debate. The third part discusses the global financial governance system and its existing problems. The fourth part reassesses the AIIB’s contribution to global financial governance. This article concludes that the AIIB accommodates rather than confronts the current system of global financial governance.