由于亚洲基础设施投资银行（亚投行）吸引了越来越多国家，包括许多美国最强大的欧洲盟友，如英国、法国和德国，人们开始因为这个美国不想看到的事实而指责美国。多年来，美国一直阻挠国际金融机构的改革，包括最重要的国际货币基金组织（IMF）改革。IMF的份额分配无法反映世界经济发展变化，这在某种程度上也是中国发起创立亚投行的原因。事实上，G20国家早已就IMF改革计划达成协议，允许增加中国这样国家的份额，从而增加它们在IMF的决策话语权。奥巴马政府一再要求国会批准改革方案，但显然美国国会没兴趣这么做，这招致国内外的强烈批评。IMF总裁拉加德去年10月表示，希望美国国会“能够了解IMF作为全球经济代表、容纳所有应该容纳的人的重要性”。本月早些时候，美国财长雅各布·卢在国会抱怨说，“我们寻求国会批准IMF份额和治理改革”，而国会的一再拖延“威胁着我们的国际信誉和影响力”。

多年来，奥巴马政府一直强调与中国这样的新兴大国在国际体系和机构竞争的重要性，他们正确地认识到国际关系发展大势和大国关系特点。软实力，如制定和管理国际社会成员所应遵循的规则的能力，在国际政治中越来越关键。这也是为什么过去几年里，美国在亚洲大力推动组成其“亚洲再平衡”战略的跨太平洋战略经济伙伴协定（TPP），在欧洲推动跨大西洋贸易与投资伙伴协议（TTIP），同时试图插手亚太地区的各类区域性机制。美国希望确保不被排除在地区之外，而且地区秩序变化不会有损美国领导地位。

作为世界第二大经济体，中国自然希望在国际体系中发挥与不断增长的实力相匹配的作用，以此为本国和别国发展多做贡献。由于难以对IMF等国际经济机构进行改革，中国和其他国家为满足继续发展的金融需求努力创建金砖银行和亚投行等国际金融机构，而美国没有处在这些新机构的中心位置。然而，说到国际体系的领军者，没有哪个国家能与美国相比。客观地说，美国在当今世界仍首屈一指。二战结束以来，多数重要的多边政治经济机构是美国创建的，美国在其中仍发挥着主导作用。美国的价值观、原则和利益很大程度上体现在当前的国际体系中。几十年来，不管世界政治发生什么变化，美国仍然在国际体系中居首，获得绝大多数发达国家和众多发展中国家的支持。即使在今天，被许多国家当成美国主导体系头号挑战者的中国也真诚地认为这一体系总体上应该维持，推倒重来并不符合中国的利益。

但人们普遍同意，美国在与世界互动时有它自己的问题。美国外交政策总是受孤立主义和自我中心意识掣肘，认识不到世界的变化。作为美国政体一部分的国会更被看成是这种意识的代表。从历史角度看，拒绝IMF改革并不是美国国会损害美国在国际舞台领导力的孤立事件。早在一战结束时，美国参议院就拒绝批准威尔逊总统与欧洲列强达成的谈判协议，并因为拒不加入国联失去美国历史上第一次在国际政治中发挥领导作用的机会。即使在20世纪下半叶，美国处在领导世界的强盛期，国会也没有停止扮演干扰国家国际行动的负面角色。例如，长期担任美国参议院外交委员会主席的杰西·赫尔姆斯等人极端敌视联合国这个当代世界最重要的国际组织，以至于威胁要消减美国给联合国的拨款。

所以今天我们看到，一方面，奥巴马政府非常清楚更积极地创建、塑造和改革国际体系与国际机构对于美国的迫切性，并非常努力地推动美国的盟国和伙伴依样行事。亨利·基辛格等有造诣的思想家也在提醒人们世界秩序的深刻变化和美国抢占先机的重要性。另一方面，美国仍缺少强大的国内共识，而且由于政治体制的障碍，美国无法高效率采取行动。

约翰·伊肯伯里这类相信国际机构的作用、相信经济互相依存的自由派学者一直争辩说，即使美国不坐在司机座位上，只要规则不变，美国建立的、支持美国价值观的世界体系就依然可行。显然，在美国这样的国家这种观点很难推行。无论是支持美国与世界接触的美国人，还是不关注美国与国际体系之关系的美国人，他们都难以想象一个其他国家领导下的世界会符合美国的利益。对国会议员所代表的许多美国人来说，保持美国领导地位是最重要的事情，而体系或机构是否真正代表那些充满理想色彩的价值观并不重要，或者说，只有美国能把握那些价值观和原则，而其他国家不行。美国仍有时间培养必要的共识和智慧，在维护美国在国际体系中的领导地位的同时，满足其他国家在国际体系中有足够生存与发展空间的要求。其他国家发展了，它们的声音就会被听到，它们的利益就会得到关注。为了让美国创建的国际体系在世界的巨大变化中继续存在，必须保证其他国家在这个体系中同样有机会，同样可以发挥作用。而美国在国内仍有大量工作要做。

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.