World heading towards a new power structure

The 19th century was the century of Europe.  With its empires and industrial economy, Europe dominated the world. Much of the 20th century was the century of America. America with its wealth and military power had been setting the international agenda and its business and popular culture influenced all nations.
Asian countries like China, India and Japan together produced more than 60 per cent of the manufacturing goods of the world in the 18th century. Still it cannot be said that the 18th century belonged to Asia, because these countries were lagging behind in military and political power. Rather, the military and colonial strength of some of the European powers grew and in the next century they dominated the world.
In the late second half of the 20th century the world witnessed the rise of Japan as the second world economic power. It also heard the roar of Asian Tigers such as South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Thailand. Unfortunately, the south-east Asian economies were severely affected by the 1997 economic tsunami. In the meantime, China has emerged as a dominant global player. India is also moving ahead.
In this backdrop many are speculating whether the paradigm of power would shift from the west to Asia in the 21st century. Mr. Mahathir Mohamad, the former prime minister and architect of modern Malaysia, was the most vocal protagonist of this view. But he himself revised his thought and held out the idea that the 21st century would be a World Century: a century of prosperity for everyone regardless of their geographical location. Let us discuss if the world is moving towards that.
First of all we may see how far the global institutions like World Bank and its all affiliates and the IMF are global. The World Bank-the official name is International Bank for Reconstruction and Development-started its journey in 1945 as a special agency of the United Nations. Its main objective is to provide loans to member countries when private funds are not available on reasonable terms. The USA owns the lion's share of the equities and the president of the bank is appointed by the US President. Subsequently a few other affiliated bodies like the International Development Association (IDA), Multilateral  Investment Grantee Agency (MIGA) and International Finance Corporation (IFC) were set up to provide different types of loans and financial assistance, not covered by the World Bank because of its own rules and regulations.
The fact is that the president of the Bank cannot go beyond the wishes of the mentor that is the president of the USA. In 1971 Robert McNamara was the president of the World Bank. A team under the leadership of Mr. Peter Cargill, the vice president of the bank, visited the then East Pakistan during the War of Liberation. He was deeply shocked at the atrocities caused by the Pakistan occupation army. Mr. Cargil submitted a report accordingly, but as desired by the president of the USA the World Bank chief suppressed the report. If it could have been made public at that time, it would have benefited the people of Bangladesh when they were groaning under the genocide let loose by Pakistan.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), another specialised agency   associated with the United Nations, also started its journey in 1945. It is also closely allied with the World Bank. The IMF seeks to promote international monetary cooperation to help stabilise the rate of exchange and assist in removal of barriers imposed on international payments because of currency restrictions. During the south-east Asian financial crisis in 1997 its role came under bitter criticism. The IMF since its inception has always been headed by a European. Very recently BRICS countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, set up a much-expected global bank, parallel to the World Bank, with the initial paid-up and subscribed capital of US $ 100 billion. None will have monopoly over the affairs of the bank. A series of very informative articles have been published in the FE and the scholars have pinned great hopes on this bank expecting greater benefit for the less fortunate countries from Asia and Africa   
On October 24 last the Asian countries, including Bangladesh, signed a memorandum of understanding for establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Apart from Bangladesh, other countries are Brunei, Cambodia, India, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Oman, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
Other countries can also become prospective founding members and join the process of negotiating the articles of agreement (AoA), if they endorse this MoU and be accepted by the existing prospective founding members.
Original signatories to the AoA will be the founding members of the bank. Therefore, its membership will be not limited to countries that signed the MoU.
The AIIB will become an inter-governmental regional development institution in Asia. As agreed, the headquarters will be in Beijing, China. The Bank will be formally established by the end of 2015. Previously China announced that it was willing to subscribe up to 50 per cent share, but subsequently it made it clear that China would not seek to be the single largest shareholder. The AIIB aims to fund rail, road, power and other projects across the region. There is a great scope and also financial needs for development of the rail, road and power sectors in the Asian countries. In Asia the only connecting link among the neighbouring countries is air. Links by road and rail would not only increase mobility of the people, but also economic cooperation. Poor power production is also a great obstruction to overall economic development of many countries in Asia. Foreign investors always complain of poor power supply and infrastructure in some of the countries in Asia. So, it is expected that the AIIB will play a great role in developing these infrastructure projects which are inextricably linked with the countries` inclusive economic growth.
This initiative, i. e. setting up AIIB, should have been welcome by all. It is not understandable why the USA did not like it. It is reported that Mr John Kerry, US Secretary of State, has advised Australia not to sign the MOU for AIIB. Every region has the right to be developed, for which the strategy is to be chosen by the concerned states. Is it desirable that the world should always be under political or economic dominance by a region or a group of countries? However, these two steps, i. e. establishment of a new development bank (by BRICS countries) and the AIIB, are great strides towards making the 21st century a World Century with the whole world to benefit from it.
 rezaulparvaz@live.com