America is a nation built on promises. And nothing peeves a nation built on the expectation of greatness and exceptionalism than another emerging superpower offering a new kind of promise and hope to the world. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has caused more than a ripple in Washington and multilateral banking circles. As a former officer of the World Bank group, I believe that while economic history is being made, there is still much uncertainty surrounding its future. Just as the European Union and the euro were in large part a reaction to US trade and financial hegemony, the emergence of the AIIB represents China's natural ambition to define its role as a superpower. It is no surprise that the AIIB's early, non-Asian members were Britain and Luxembourg. Both of them shrewdly and pragmatically needed to defend their financial service industries by looking beyond the US. According to the Asian Development Bank Institute, more than US$8 trillion is required from 2010 to 2020 to develop infrastructure in Asia to meet the region's economic development. The definition of the AIIB's primary role - whether it is a development or investment bank - will probably be a key point of negotiation among its 46 members. China's massive economy is reflected in the yuan's emergence as a global trading currency and its ambition to become a reserve currency. By the sheer weight of the country's trade and investment flows, the world's reserve currencies will eventually be rebalanced more equally among the US dollar, euro and yuan. China's own multilateral institution is a step towards freeing the yuan from the dollar's influence. The global financial crisis and the distortions in world economies caused by US policies and extraterritorial regulatory intrusions have forced the rest of the world to pay for a crisis that was purely an American subprime disaster inflicted by American banks. Diversifying and reducing the dependency on the dollar will confine America's next financial crisis to its own shores, forcing it to pay with a weakening of the dollar and a drastic reduction in its standard of living. The World Bank and the US government should not be too concerned about the AIIB's entrance. The World Bank's mission statement, "Working for a world free of poverty", clearly separates it from the AIIB's mandate. The historical roots and reasons for each organisation's formation give them completely different purposes. For example, World Bank members such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development were formed in Bretton Woods in 1944 as part of the Marshall Plan's goal to rebuild war-torn Europe. If the AIIB pursues its most narrow mandate, it will be a glorified private equity fund to further China's interests rather than a unique force for economic empowerment and poverty alleviation. But, properly developing and managing a multilateral institution demands a world-class level of expertise and commitment cultivated over decades. Achieving the same sense of mission and dedicated culture of the World Bank requires the AIIB to establish a group of dedicated professionals and bureaucrats. The AIIB's development would certainly raise China's banking and investment standards. Such a high-profile, publicly accountable organisation needs to operate with transparent corporate governance and be free from corruption, political influence and scandal. Its formation draws China into the international financial system. China will certainly achieve economic superpower status, but it needs to bear the responsibilities that come with banking prestige. The institution formalises a strategic vehicle for China's banks, allowing them to aggressively lend to infrastructure projects with multilateral guarantees or support. It could be a platform for yuan financial mercantilism. That is not necessarily a bad development as long as the bank leaves behind an improved situation for all stakeholders and creates sustainable development. Of course, this expansive opportunity is not without risks. In the 1970s, American banks felt comfortable loosening their lending policies to Latin American countries. After decades of multilateral supported growth in Latin America, banks believed there was little chance that these countries would become broke or default on their country loans. These countries did not go broke, but some of the banks that made loans to them certainly did. Washington should be encouraging and joining the expansion of multilateral banking. Being the largest shareholder and supporter of the World Bank initially seems like a conflict of interest. However, that is not the reality if their missions are fundamentally different. Peter Guy is a financial writer and former international banker