Those who believe that rich states use their development and foreign aid budgets to advance strategic interests will find additional support in the latest issue of World Politics. Scholars James Vreeland and Daniel Yew Mao Lim examine Japan's approach to the Asian Development Bank, a regional institution in which Tokyo has wielded enormous infuence. Japan has the largest voting share and has always selected the bank president. Vreeland and Lim argue that Japan has used this privileged position in part to reward countries serving on the UN Security Council (link is to abstract only; full article behind paywall):

Japan has leveraged its political influence within the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to facilitate favorable loans to countries useful for its broader foreign policy goals at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)...Because of Japan’s checkered history of
imperialism, the ADB provides a convenient mechanism by which to
obscure from both domestic and international audiences favors granted
to elected UNSC members.

Analyzing the bank's lending patterns, they find that Asian countries serving on (or about to serve on) the Security Council typically get a significant boost in aid. The authors believe the strategic lending through the ADB  has yielded Tokyo both information about and potential influence over Security Council activities:

The dynamic nature of international affairs means that Japan cannot predict just when an elected member may prove useful, so providing assistance through the ADB represents a low-cost insurance policy that places countries in Japan’s debt. Should a significant issue arise, it behooves Japan to have some elected members of the incumbent
UNSC in its pocket.

Whether Japan gets all that much for its trouble is unclear. The authors point out that Asian states serving stints on the Council have always voted with Japan, but given the Council's tradition of consensus resolutions, this isn't as remarkable as it sounds. Many of these votes have come on peripheral issues from a Japanese strategic standpoint, including the African conflicts that are the Council's bread and butter. Moreover, the authors acknowledge that the pattern of lending they have identified may already be ending. China is exerting greater influence in the ADB and contesting traditional Japanese control.

British prime minister David Cameron will deliver a major speech on the country's relationship with the European Union this Friday. Via Reuters:

"He sees it as important to set out his view about it being in the British national interest to remain in the European Union, though (with) a changed relationship," the spokesman said.

Cameron has repeatedly said he wants Britain to remain in the EU but has made it clear he intends to try to repatriate a wide range of powers from the bloc in policy areas where his ruling Conservative party believes Brussels' influence has become overbearing and pernicious.

The government's current strategy is to seek reform in the relationship with the EU (including, likely, the repatriation of some powers) and then subject the new relationship to a referendum, likely in 2017 or 2018. That approach has led certain European leaders to  charge that Britain is "blackmailing" other EU members by holding out the implicit threat of withdrawal.

Others, including the Obama administration, are concerned that by opening fundamental questions about the relationship British leaders may be unleashing a process they cannot control. Anders Aslund argues that Britain is perilously close to a catastrophic decision:

If the United Kingdom were to have a referendum on its relationship with the European Union and actually depart, it would lose most of its relevance in Europe and with the outside world, notably the United States.

With its departure from the European Union, the United Kingdom would more specifically lose all its influence with the European Union. It would decline to the kind of dependence and high costs of financial contributions that Switzerland and Norway face. Little wonder, that the elites of those two countries want their nations to join the European Union.

A British exit could only be understood as a stab in the back to the European project, so the United Kingdom should not expect any sympathy. Such alienation would in all probability lead to the United Kingdom suffering worse conditions than Switzerland and Norway.  A departing United Kingdom cannot take its access to the much-appreciated single European market as granted.

Less commented upon has been the danger that Cameron's strategy poses to the sovereigntist bloc in British politics. If the renegotiation-and-referendum strategy succeeds, the prime minister will have dealt a strong, and perhaps lethal blow to the Euroskeptic wing of his own party.

Earlier this week, U.S. assistant secretary of state Philip Gordon took it upon himself to counsel the British on their relationship with the European Union. Gordon joined other notables, including European Council president Herman Van Rompuy, billionaire Richard Branson, and top German officials, in expressing concern about movement toward a referendum on EU membership. Via yesterday's New York Times:

In London, Mr. Gordon indicated that any British withdrawal from the union would be unwelcome and said that referendums held by other nations on European Union agreements “have sometimes turned countries inward.”

“We have a growing relationship with the E.U. as an institution, which has an increasing voice in the world, and we want to see a strong British voice in that E.U.,” he told British reporters, according to a transcript released by the United States Embassy in London. “That is in the American interest. We welcome an outward-looking E.U. with Britain in it.” He added: “Britain is such a special partner of the United States — that shares our values, shares our interests, has significant resources to bring to the table. More than most others, its voice within the European Union is essential and critical for the United States.”

Launching such a public intervention was a curious choice for the Obama administration. The British relationship with the EU is a sensitive matter that touches on deep questions of national identity, and Euroskeptic British politicans have reacted to the American intervention with predictable annoyance:

Tory MP Bernard Jenkin said today that the US had not "got a clue".

"The Americans don't understand Europe. They have a default position that sometimes the United States of Europe is going to be the same as the United States of America. They haven't got a clue," he told BBC Radio Five Live.

Another eurosceptic Tory MP, Peter Bone, said Mr Gordon should "butt out" and that it was "nothing to do with the Americans".

He added: "It's like us trying to tell Germany or France how to run their affairs. It's quite ridiculous and it's not what you'd expect from a member of the senior executive in the USA, and I hope that the president will slap him down very quickly."

It's at least possible that the intense external pressure could make it harder for prime minister David Cameron to back down on the referendum question. If he does shelve the idea, he'll now appear to have knuckled under to both Brussels and Washington. Some Tory lawmakers are already pointing out that whether British EU membership serves U.S. interests is of questionable relevance:

India's Business Standard reports on scheduled meetings of BRICS officials to discuss their  plan for a joint development bank:

Officials of BRICS countries are scheduled to meet in Pretoria, South Africa on January 10-11 to look at the viability and feasibility of setting up the bank. In February, finance ministers from these nations will meet to finalise the structure and thereafter, the leaders will approve it in March at the Durban summit.

Officials in India said all the countries are committed to creating the development bank for the region and the chances of a consensus are very high.

“It may start with small paid-up capital from BRICS countries and work on the World Bank’s model. The bank will have to raise funds from the market at a concessional rate and lend further to the BRICS countries at a low rate,” said a finance ministry official.

By some accounts, negotiations about the bank are endangered by competing visions of its role. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that China's notion of a bank devoted to its own members and focused on large infrastructure projects is not accepted by other BRICS members:

South Africa wants the funding to be available for other developing nations. India, which proposed the development bank, likes the idea of infrastructure financing but fears that China wants to run the bank mainly to make yuan loans and further the international use of China's currency, "One country wants to dominate due to its financial standing, which would not be acceptable to the others," said Brahma Chellaney, an analyst with the Centre for Policy Research, a New Delhi think tank.

Where to locate the development bank has become another battle. Mr. Liu says India wants the bank headquartered there, while China would "very much appreciate it" if the bank is located in Beijing, Shanghai or Chongqing. China is expected to chip in the largest share of the financing and "money talks," he said.

During a visit to Canada, the current chairman of the African Union called for a NATO role in Mali. Via Agence France Presse:

African Union Chairman Thomas Boni Yayi on Tuesday called for NATO troops to join African Union forces in a mission to stabilize Mali following a coup last year.

"NATO should play a part (in Mali), and the African force would lead the way as was done by NATO in Afghanistan," Yayi, who is also Benin's president, told a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Harper, however, said: "The Canadian government is not considering a direct military mission" in Mali.

It's not yet clear whether the idea represents a consensus position of the African Union, and a NATO spokesperson said that the alliance had received no formal request for assistance. Last month, the UN Security Council approved (with significant caveats) international support for an effort to restore northern Mali to government control. The UN resolution did not designate any single lead organization for that effort. To this point, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has been leading mediation efforts and is seen as the organization most likely to coordinate a response. Its members have pledged several thousand troops to help restore government control. The European Union has also committed to send advisers to help train Mali's armed forces.

The AU bid for NATO support likely reflects growing alarm about the advance southward of rebel forces, and the government's continued inability to respond. If the rebel advance continues, the cumbersome multilateral effort may well yield to a very familiar response: French intervention to save a teetering African government. 

The World Bank has sanctioned a Serbian company for corruption related to a roads project in Uganda:

The World Bank Group today announced the debarment of Energoprojekt Niskogradnja, a Serbian civil engineering and contracting company - for a period of 2.5 years following the company’s acknowledgment of misconduct in a Bank-financed roads and development project in Uganda.

Uganda has been the focus of other recent revelations regarding the misuse of international aid funds. For the Bank, the sanctions are the latest in a string of anti-corruption investigations related to the implementation of its projects. In November, the Bank unveiled an "Integrity App" that allows observers to anonymously report on corruption concerns.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) gets a new secretary general this month. Vietnam's Le Luong Minh takes over leadership of the organization from Thailand's Surin Pitsuwan, who served a five-year term.

The right to nominate secretaries-general rotates within the organization, and it was Vietnam's turn to select the organization's leader. In Minh, Hanoi has selected a diplomat with considerable experience in the multilateral realm. He served as Vietnam's United Nations ambassador for seven years (during that time, Vietnam served a two-year stint on the Security Council). Minh has also been posted to Geneva, where he interacted with UN agencies headquartered there as well as the World Trade Organization.

Pitsuwan led ASEAN through a tumultous several years, which included heightened tension with China over the South China Sea and Myanmar's political tranformation. Many of those reading the tea leaves anticipate a more restrained form of ASEAN diplomacy from the Vietnamese diplomat, particularly on the South China Sea. Via Voice of America:

Political analysts say Vietnamese style will be less public and transparent with its efforts.  But, in dealing with China, more subtlety might help.

Beijing is going through a once-every-decade leadership transition until March that observers are watching carefully.

Carl Thayer is professor of politics at the Australian Defense Force Academy.  He says a period of quiet diplomacy between ASEAN and China is most likely and most needed.

"This is not a time to go full steam ahead because of Chinese attitudes and the leadership transition…  Xi Jinping may be the General Secretary but he's not yet assumed the Presidency…So, between now and then is not to challenge China and entrench it, but to wait out this period and then to see if a new leader and a new team in Beijing can be dealt with by ASEAN," explained Thayer. "So, it's low profile on the South China Sea, not putting it away."

For an argument that Minh has big shoes to fill, see this article in the Jakarta Globe. 

Last week, Human Rights Watch's Philippe Bolopion published a devastating indictment of the Rwandan government for its support of brutal rebels in eastern Congo. For Bolopion, the fact that Rwanda has just assumed a seat on the UN Security Council, engaged in "lifesaving work", makes its activity particularly noxious:

Few countries dare challenge the Security Council the way Rwanda does; even fewer get away with it. Yet on Tuesday, despite backing an abusive rebel group that has attacked U.N. peacekeepers in the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda will take a two-year seat on the council. At the famous horseshoe table, Rwanda will get to make life-and-death decisions on the future of countries in crisis, including the very neighbor it is accused of destabilizing. 

Bolopion is right to call out Rwanda and to note the incongruity of a country engaged in nefarious behavior serving on the body charged with maintaining international peace and security. But flouting Security Council resolutions is an activity hardly unique to Rwanda. And the problem of suspect Council membership is much more widespread than Bolopion implies. This month's Council president is Pakistan, which is almost certainly supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan and is likely in violation of Council resolutions on countering terrorist activity. Plenty of other recent Council members have been conflict-ridden, including Lebanon and Nigeria. Gaddafi's Libya was a Council member in 2008-2009. Bosnia took a turn on the Council recently even though it lacks a functioning central government.

Rwanda's election to the Council is a symptom of a much broader problem with the UN's regional rotation and election system. The dominant view is that serving on elite UN bodies is a matter of right, not something that countries earn. It's a view that runs deep and is only beginning to yield.