由於亞洲基礎設施投資銀行（亞投行）吸引了越來越多國家，包括許多美國最強大的歐洲盟友，如英國、法國和德國，人們開始因為這個美國不想看到的事實而指責美國。多年來，美國一直阻撓國際金融機構的改革，包括最重要的國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）改革。IMF的份額分配無法反映世界經濟發展變化，這在某種程度上也是中國發起創立亞投行的原因。事實上，G20國家早已就IMF改革計劃達成協議，允許增加中國這樣國家的份額，從而增加它們在IMF的決策話語權。奧巴馬政府一再要求國會批准改革方案，但顯然美國國會沒興趣這麼做，這招致國內外的強烈批評。IMF總裁拉加德去年10月表示，希望美國國會“能夠了解IMF作為全球經濟代表、容納所有應該容納的人的重要性”。本月早些時候，美國財長雅各布·盧在國會抱怨說，“我們尋求國會批准IMF份額和治理改革”，而國會的一再拖延“威脅着我們的國際信譽和影響力”。

多年來，奧巴馬政府一直強調與中國這樣的新興大國在國際體系和機構競爭的重要性，他們正確地認識到國際關係發展大勢和大國關係特點。軟實力，如制定和管理國際社會成員所應遵循的規則的能力，在國際政治中越來越關鍵。這也是為什麼過去幾年裡，美國在亞洲大力推動組成其“亞洲再平衡”戰略的跨太平洋戰略經濟夥伴協定（TPP），在歐洲推動跨大西洋貿易與投資夥伴協議（TTIP），同時試圖插手亞太地區的各類區域性機制。美國希望確保不被排除在地區之外，而且地區秩序變化不會有損美國領導地位。

作為世界第二大經濟體，中國自然希望在國際體系中發揮與不斷增長的實力相匹配的作用，以此為本國和別國發展多做貢獻。由於難以對IMF等國際經濟機構進行改革，中國和其他國家為滿足繼續發展的金融需求努力創建金磚銀行和亞投行等國際金融機構，而美國沒有處在這些新機構的中心位置。然而，說到國際體系的領軍者，沒有哪個國家能與美國相比。客觀地說，美國在當今世界仍首屈一指。二戰結束以來，多數重要的多邊政治經濟機構是美國創建的，美國在其中仍發揮着主導作用。美國的價值觀、原則和利益很大程度上體現在當前的國際體系中。幾十年來，不管世界政治發生什麼變化，美國仍然在國際體系中居首，獲得絕大多數發達國家和眾多發展中國家的支持。即使在今天，被許多國家當成美國主導體系頭號挑戰者的中國也真誠地認為這一體系總體上應該維持，推倒重來並不符合中國的利益。

但人們普遍同意，美國在與世界互動時有它自己的問題。美國外交政策總是受孤立主義和自我中心意識掣肘，認識不到世界的變化。作為美國政體一部分的國會更被看成是這種意識的代表。從歷史角度看，拒絕IMF改革並不是美國國會損害美國在國際舞台領導力的孤立事件。早在一戰結束時，美國參議院就拒絕批准威爾遜總統與歐洲列強達成的談判協議，並因為拒不加入國聯失去美國歷史上第一次在國際政治中發揮領導作用的機會。即使在20世紀下半葉，美國處在領導世界的強盛期，國會也沒有停止扮演干擾國家國際行動的負面角色。例如，長期擔任美國參議院外交委員會主席的傑西·赫爾姆斯等人極端敵視聯合國這個當代世界最重要的國際組織，以至於威脅要消減美國給聯合國的撥款。

所以今天我們看到，一方面，奧巴馬政府非常清楚更積極地創建、塑造和改革國際體系與國際機構對於美國的迫切性，並非常努力地推動美國的盟國和夥伴依樣行事。亨利·基辛格等有造詣的思想家也在提醒人們世界秩序的深刻變化和美國搶佔先機的重要性。另一方面，美國仍缺少強大的國內共識，而且由於政治體制的障礙，美國無法高效率採取行動。

約翰·伊肯伯里這類相信國際機構的作用、相信經濟互相依存的自由派學者一直爭辯說，即使美國不坐在司機座位上，只要規則不變，美國建立的、支持美國價值觀的世界體系就依然可行。顯然，在美國這樣的國家這種觀點很難推行。無論是支持美國與世界接觸的美國人，還是不關注美國與國際體系之關係的美國人，他們都難以想像一個其他國家領導下的世界會符合美國的利益。對國會議員所代表的許多美國人來說，保持美國領導地位是最重要的事情，而體系或機構是否真正代表那些充滿理想色彩的價值觀並不重要，或者說，只有美國能把握那些價值觀和原則，而其他國家不行。美國仍有時間培養必要的共識和智慧，在維護美國在國際體系中的領導地位的同時，滿足其他國家在國際體系中有足夠生存與發展空間的要求。其他國家發展了，它們的聲音就會被聽到，它們的利益就會得到關注。為了讓美國創建的國際體系在世界的巨大變化中繼續存在，必須保證其他國家在這個體系中同樣有機會，同樣可以發揮作用。而美國在國內仍有大量工作要做。

As the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) attracts more and more countries — many of which representing America's strongest allies in Europe like Britain, France and Germany — people have begun blaming the U.S. for a reality it doesn't want to see. For many years, the U.S. has been blocking the reform of international financial institutions, most importantly among them, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Its quota allocation still doesn't reflect the changes in world economic development. To a certain degree, that is why China initiated the establishment of the AIIB. As a matter of fact, G20 countries have long reached an agreement on a reform plan of the IMF that allows countries like China to have an increased quota so that they can have a greater say in the organization's decision making. The Obama administration has repeatedly asked Congress to ratify the reform package, but obviously, the U.S. Congress does not have the interest in doing so, eliciting fierce criticism both home and abroad. Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF, said last October that she hoped the U.S. Congress, “will understand the relevance of having an IMF that is representative of the global economy and includes the people that should sit at the table.” Earlier this month, people heard Jacob Lew, US Secretary of Treasury, complain to Congress that “we are seeking Congressional approval of the IMF quota and governance reforms,” and as Congress keeps delaying, “our international credibility and influence are being threatened.”

For years, the Obama administration has emphasized the importance of competing with rising powers like China over international systems and institutions. They correctly see the megatrend of international relations and the character of major power relations. Soft power, such as the ability to make and control rules that members of international community follow, is becoming more and more critical in world politics. That's why the U.S., for the past several years, has been pushing hard the building of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Asia as an integral part of its “rebalancing toward Asia” strategy, and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in Europe, while at the same time trying to get involved in all kinds of regional mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific. America wants to be sure that it is not excluded from the region and that a change of regional order does not hurt America's position as a regional leader.

With the second largest economy in the world, it is natural that China wants to play a role in international system in accordance with its increased power, contributing more to the development not only of itself but also others. Facing the difficulties in the reform of international economic institutions like the IMF, China, together with other countries, has made an effort to establish international financial institutions like BRICS Development Bank and the AIIB to meet the financial demand for further development, while the U.S. is not at the center of these newly created institutions. However, when it comes to the leadership of the international system, no one can compare with the U.S. Objectively speaking, America is still No. 1. in today's world: since the end of WWII, most of the important political and economic multilateral institutions are America-made, and the U.S. still plays a leading role in them. American values, principles, and interests are to a great extent reflected in today's international system. For decades, regardless of the changes happened in world politics, the U.S. retains primacy in the international system with the support of most of the developed countries and many of the developing countries. Even today, China, who is seen by many as the top challenger to the U.S.-dominated system, sincerely believes that generally the system should be maintained and overthrowing it is not in China's interest.

However, it is widely accepted that America has its own problem when interacting with the world. U.S. foreign policy has always been frustrated by isolationism, self-centeredness, and ignorance of the change in the world. Congress, as a branch of the U.S. government, is more likely to be seen as a representative of this kind of sentiment. From a historical perspective, the refusal of IMF reform is definitely not an isolated case of the U.S. Congress tarnishing the country's leadership on the international stage. As early as the end of WW I, U.S. Senate refused to ratify the agreement President Wilson negotiated with European powers and America lost the opportunity to play a leading role in world politics for the first time in history by not joining the League of Nations. Even in the second half of the twentieth century when the U.S. was in its heydays of world leadership, Congress didn't stop playing a negative role to interrupt the country's international behavior. For example, people like Jesse Helms, the longtime Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, were so hostile to the United Nations, the most important international organization in modern world, that they threatened to cut U.S. funding．

So what we see today is, on the one hand, the Obama administration clearly understands the urgency for the U.S. to be more active in creating, shaping and reforming the international system and international mechanisms, and they are working very hard, pushing America's allies and partners to follow suit. Deep thinkers like Henry Kissinger are reminding people of the profound changes in the world order and the importance for America to take the lead. On the other hand, a strong domestic consensus in still not in place, and because of obstacles in its political system, America just cannot act in an efficient way.

Liberal scholars who believe the role of international institutions and economic interdependence like G. John Ikenberry have long argued that a world system made by America and supports the values of America will work even if America itself is no longer in the driver's seat and countries like China take that position, so long as the rules don't change. Obviously, for America as a country, this is a hard sell. It is still very difficult for Americans, both those who support America's engagement with the world and those who don't care so much about the country's relations with the international system, to imagine a world in which others take the leadership is in America's own interest. For many Americans, represented by members of U.S. Congress, it is the most important thing that America stays as the leader, whether the system and the institutions truly represent those idealistic values doesn't matter so much, or, only America can hold those values and principles while others just cannot. America still has time to develop the consensus and the wisdom necessary 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. As they prosper, their voices will be heard and their interest will be considered. For the international system created by America to survive the tremendous change the world is undergoing, others need to be assured that they also have the opportunities in it and they have something to offer, and America still has a lot of homework to do.