Wolfowitz Bid for World Bank Post Torpedoed [correction] |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
31097 readings
Justice News |
Sunday, 20 March 2005 02:51 |
Wolfowitz Bid for World Bank Post Torpedoed
Europeans reject Bush attempt to unload Neo-con "architect" of Iraq war on World Bank. -{lex} [correction- it looks like Bush got his way. Wolfie is indeed to be the master of the mint at the World Bank. But what does that mean, exactly? According to ScrappleFace.com it means an ATM's replacing NGO's and government oversight for the delivery of aid around the world. - {lex} http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,346951,00.html WOLFOWITZ, NEIN DANKE
At issue is Bush's Wednesday nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head up the World Bank. The news arrived here with the sobering effect of a cold shower, coming as it did after Bush's apparently short lived charm offensive to improve relations with Europe. Many in Europe view the current US Deputy Secretary of Defense as an aggressive hawk and as one of the primary movers and shakers behind America's highly unpopular decision to go to war in Iraq. He is also seen as a symbol of the Bush administration's aggressive go-it-alone nature that has soured trans-Atlantic relations during much of Bush's presidency. "The enthusiasm (over the nomination) in old Europe is not exactly overwhelming," said German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul -- a reference to US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's infamous characterization of anti-Iraq war sentiment as coming from "Old Europe." Not the only unpopular nomination The nomination comes on the heels of another unpopular Bush appointment, that of John R. Bolton as the US ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has long been an outspoken critic of the UN -- an institution Europe would like to see strengthened -- and once said "if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Rumors of a possible Wolfie (as he is called by Bush) nomination have been circulating for quite some time and his name was even circulated among the 23-member World Bank board several weeks ago. But as recently as March 3, it appeared that he was out of the running and current World Bank head James Wolfensohn even went on record as saying that Wolfowitz, 61, was no longer a candidate.
"This is a truly terrifying appointment," said Peter Hardstaff, head of policy for the London-based World Development Movement, an organization committed to development in the Third World. "Here we've got a man who has a track record of pursuing US military interventionism and US business interests. It's shocking that such a person is perceived to be the best person for the job." Negativity not universal Barbara Unmuessig from the Heinrich-Boell Foundation, a think tank aligned with Germany's junior governing coalition partner the Green Party, agreed. "Wolfowitz's nomination is, in my view, a disastrous decision," she said. "He has never shown any concern for the Third World. He has a bilateral political understanding and not the multilateral viewpoint necessary to lead the World Bank." For all the shaking of heads on this side of the Atlantic, the negative reaction was not universal. Most European leaders have remained silent on the issue on Thursday with the offices of both French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair saying they have "taken note of this candidacy." Conservatives in Germany have gone so far as to express support. The coordinator of security policy for the conservative think tank Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Karl-Heinz Kamp, even said that Wolfowitz's appointment could be seen as an olive branch extended to the Europeans.
Some American observers have also interpreted the nomination of Wolfowitz as the equivalent of a White House spring cleaning and a move that gives newly appointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice the opportunity to put her stamp on US foreign policy. While Europeans are mostly skeptical of Wolfowitz because of his hawkish record, many are also concerned about what his term at the top of the World Bank food chain might bring. With recent signs that democracy may be gaining a foothold in the Middle East, Wolfowitz -- who has long been a staunch, neoconservative advocate for the American export of democracy -- is seen as being at the height of his power. What, exactly, that will mean for the future of the World Bank is a question many here are asking. It's unlikely Wolfowitz will handle the Washington-based global institution with kid gloves. He'll talk the talk, but will he walk the walk? "I am sure he'll come out with the right rhetoric," says Hardstaff. "But his track record would seem to suggest that the World Bank will be shaped to ensure that the US domestic and business interests will be served. We can probably expect to see more vociferous or more committed pursuit of so-called free-market liberalization and market deregulation which have, unfortunately, proven to be a disaster in Africa over the past 20 years."
One final worry that many have centers around the reputation the World Bank might develop under a Wolfowitz leadership. Because he has little experience in the field of poverty reduction -- one of the core missions of the World Bank -- and because of Wolfowitz's reputation as a unilateralist and the deeply divisive role he played in the Iraq war, some feel that his appointment will mean that the bank will come to be seen as a political instrument of the United States. "He's inexperienced in development policy and poverty reduction -- the core issues of the World Bank," said Jochen Steinhilber, who works on development issues for Germany's center-left Friedrich Ebert Foundation. "The question we're asking is what qualifies him for this job at all?" "I think the unrestrained responses you've seen show that there is going to be major discord between Europe and the United States over this," he said. |
Last Updated on Sunday, 20 March 2005 02:51 |