QUEUE TO THE CHINESE BANK

The front pages of major world media have been full of reports about events in the Middle East and Ukraine for many months already. Articles about fighting in Syria, the spread of the influence of ISIS, Iran's nuclear programme and the fighting in the eastern regions of Ukraine create the impression that it is precisely here that the fate of the future world order is being decided. Politicians compete in eloquence, and claiming to have a gift for predictions, philosophize whether Russia will return the strong position it once lost in the world order or bow down unable to cope with the burden of sanctions. Radicals from political science are even happily rubbing their hands, saying that long before the current events they predicted World War III. So, it would seem, that's right - fighting, though hushed for a while, is going on in Europe itself, while the revision of borders is coming up in the Middle East. The war is in full swing, and its locality is only a requirement of time. And now there's indirect "admission" by Vladimir Putin that in the Crimean events Russia could use nuclear weapons if necessary. As if by agreement, the very next day Saudi Arabia states that it has also decided to get hold of this "toy"...

Amid all these emotions, who will seriously take the information that the creation of a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is about to fail somewhere far away from the main theatre of events? The report about the upcoming launch of a new Chinese project - Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) - this year seems even less meaningful.

But in fact, these two seemingly local examples are very significant heralds of upcoming global changes.

The fate of the TPP deserves a separate discussion. Let's take a closer look at the situation around the AIIB. Very interesting events with elements of a political thriller are unfolding here.

This is due to Britain's decision to join the AIIB as a founder, which was a complete surprise to everyone, especially the Americans. With notes of resentment that are completely untypical of Washington, it accused London of no more no less betraying the "special relationship" that has developed between the two countries in recent decades! So what has London done? First things first.

The rapidly growing economic power of China cannot but worry the United States. Although the countries are not in open conflict, a persistent undercover struggle has been going on between these giants of the modern world for two decades. The aforesaid TPP was meant to be one of the main levers to contain China's ambitions.

The Celestial Empire has long been unhappy with its role in international financial institutions. It has repeatedly tried to expand its quota in the IMF, the World Bank and other investment banks to finance infrastructure within the framework of existing international organizations. But the United States has always made it clear that they are willing to take Chinese money, but not willing to share influence.

All these organizations are important tools of US foreign policy and are intended to express only its interests.

However, all these entities simply do not have enough money to meet the interests of even one region - the fast-growing Asian region. According to international financial institutions, developing Asian countries need to invest 8 trillion dollars in the infrastructure from 2010 to 2020 to ensure that their economy can move forward. The capital of the World Bank is 220bn dollars and the ADB - 175bn dollars. In addition, funds from the ADB and the World Bank are directed to any projects - from the environment to gender equality. The amount of IMF assets is determined by Special Drawing Rights (SDR). The amount of SDR is currently 369.52bn dollars. And quotas are distributed in such a way that the G7 countries have the ability to block any decision that does not suit them. It is worth emphasizing that, issuing loans, the IMF imposes a whole set of domestic policy changes, which are often deadly for emerging markets.

And now Beijing is thinking about launching a new generation of international development banks, which, as Washington believes, can challenge global institutions based in the United States.

In July last year, the BRICS Development Bank was created with the participation of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and with an authorized capital of 100bn dollars. Half will be provided by the member countries and half by future partners. Argentina has already expressed a desire to join the bloc, and the accession of other countries in the future is not excluded.

This bank can help, for example, finance the Turkish Stream for which the World Bank will certainly not allocate money. South Africa, which has repeatedly criticized the IMF and World Bank for being too slow in making decisions, counts on the BRICS bank very much.

Beijing is creating a special fund of 40bn dollars to finance the infrastructure of the Silk Road, which will encourage business development in its regions. It is about building roads, railways, airports and seaports throughout the Silk Road, as well as the development of natural resources, industry and finances.

The New Silk Road will connect the countries of Central and South Asia as well as Australia and Chinese ports to the Belgian port of Antwerp.

Finally, on 24 October last year, the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank with estimated assets of 100bn dollars, of which China alone will invest 50bn dollars, was announced. On that day, the agreement was signed by 21 countries of the Asia-Pacific region. These also include two CIS countries - Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which is quite far-sighted on their part.

According to China's Minister of Finance Lou Jiwei, developing Asian countries will be able to improve the infrastructure and maintain sufficiently rapid and stable economic development thanks to the AIIB, while developed countries will get an opportunity to expand their investment needs and stimulate economic recovery.

And although Beijing claims from high tribunes that the bank does not aim to oppose already existing ones, allocating to member countries funds for projects that may be rejected by the World Bank, the AIIB already potentially gets in the way of the political interests of the United States.

Initially, several European countries as well as Australia, Japan, Indonesia and South Korea showed a genuine interest in the AIIB. However, the United States, which responded to the idea with unconcealed irritation in 2013, forced its closest allies to reject it.

Moreover, the United States initiated a discussion in G7 on how to behave with the new financial institution.

And suddenly, Britain's statement on joining the AIIB as a cofounder came like a bolt from the blue. And Washington took so much offence that it did not hold back its emotions at the official level. The US publicly criticized London's decision and said that they are concerned about the tendency of Great Britain "to adjust to China in everything".

In a fairly candid interview with the BBC, the director of the Russia Institute at King's College in London, Sam Greene, confidently said that "Washington is interested in maintaining its influence to determine how international trade needs to be conducted, international monetary policy and so on. If the appearance of such entities as the AIIB and the BRICS bank gives Third World countries the opportunity to get investment without supervisory functions that are provided by Washington institutions, they are definitely worried".

At the same time, Sam Greene suggested that "as a financial and trading power, it would be unwise of Britain to cut itself off from the opportunity to work intensively with the world's second and in the long-term, first economy. The question is on what grounds and by what rules they will play with China. Washington had the idea that it is easier to influence China together using the combined weight of Western economies rather than separately. But for some reason, London decided that it is better to act otherwise."

British participation in the AIIB dramatically enhances the international status of the organization. From this moment, it ceases to be regional and becomes clearly global.

It is not in vain that Washington so rudely and publicly tried to "jerk away" its nearest and until recently staunch ally. They know very well what it could lead to. And they are right. Following London's statement, a desire to reconsider their attitude to the AIIB was immediately expressed by Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Australia, South Korea and South Africa ... It is likely that very soon there will be a queue of those willing to jump on a train that is rapidly gaining speed. But the direction of its movement is directly opposite to where the train with the Stars and Stripes is moving.