| |
Viewpoint
Wolfowitz follows Wolfensohn – Commentaries
10/2005 |
|
Wolfowitz will follow Wolfensohn
The World Bank’s executive directors have unanimously agreed to the proposal of US President George Bush to let Paul Wolfowitz succeed James Wolfensohn in the top job at the multilateral institution. Unlike the Bank’s board, the op-ed pages of the international press overwhelmingly opposed the idea of promoting Washington’s deputy secretary of defence. Only a few voices trusted Wolfowitz to make a good job of his new appointment inspite of some explicit scepticism. D+C/E+Z reprints a number of typical opinions.
Financial Times, London
“Mr. Wolfowitz is far from the outstanding candidate that the world needs. That he has no financial experience is relatively unimportant. More significant is his lack of experience in the complexities of development. Yet his biggest drawbacks lie elsewhere. Mr Wolfowitz's comments on the likely costs of the Iraq war and prospective popularity of the invading forces in Iraq put his judgment in question. But, above all, the world would view a bank directed by Mr Wolfowitz as no more than an instrument of US power and US priorities. Every piece of advice the bank gave and condition it set would be made illegitimate, in the eyes of recipients, by the perception that it served the interests of the world’s sole ‘superpower’.”
Süddeutsche Zeitung, Munich
“Wolfowitz’ appointment to head the World Bank, a classical institution of multilateralism, amounts to a clear gesture. As clear as showing one’s counterpart an outstretched middle finger. Bush has chosen John Bolton, who does not rate the United Nations, as US Ambassador to the UN. Now he wants Wolfowitz at the World Bank. Did anybody believe we’d see a different, chastened Bush in his second term?“
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
“It is wrong to lambast the appointment of this political scientist who lacks finance experience as yet another expression of Bush’s disdain for international institutions. Quite to the contrary: The job of World Bank president will, no doubt, put Wolfowitz in a position to promote, by other than military means, democracy in the rest of the world – one of the most important goals of American foreign policy, particularly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. To serve the interests of as many member states as possible, however, Wolfowitz would have to prove that he is not just an extended arm of the White House. His ability to lead a major organisation as the World Bank should be beyond doubt after the work he has done at the Pentagon.”
Daily Nation, Nairobi:
“The only saving grace one can think of regarding Wolfowitz’s appointment is that it at least removes the man from the Pentagon at a time when the neo-conservative warmongers surrounding Bush are baying for Iranian blood, the pretext being Iran’s development of nuclear technology. After the American-instigated bloodletting in Iraq, a fresh slaughter in Iran is something the world does not need.”
The Times of India, Bombay
“Even if Wolfowitz chooses to shed his strong ideological views, the controversy over his appointment must provide the platform for questioning the system of appointments to international agencies. There is no reason why the US and Europe should share the top positions in the World Bank and IMF by virtue of their voting rights. It is shocking that the developed countries have a stranglehold over the top posts of organisations that deal with the problems of the developing world. There is an urgent need to have a fresh look at the selection process. The principles of competition and merit must be allowed to trump political clout and money power. Only then will institutions like the IMF and World Bank stop being viewed as agents of imperialism.”
New York Times
“There was a time when Mr. Wolfowitz might have seemed like a reasonable choice. He served three years as the American ambassador to Indonesia during the Reagan administration. And he was the persuasive communicator who once wrote that security and poverty are connected - that the solutions to global conflicts don't necessarily lie in arms control, but in poverty reduction and economic development. And he obviously has the president's trust - which he will need if he is going to make the wealthiest nations fulfill their vow to make 2005 the year for development in the world's poorest regions. (...) We can only hope that Mr. Wolfowitz reverts to his earlier incarnation in his new job. The World Bank requires a leader with a passion for the job.”
Inq7.net, Manila
“The end does not justify the means. Wolfowitz and company, however, think it does. Now that the invasion of Iraq has been belatedly rationalized as the seizing of a democratic beachhead in the Middle East, the lies and mistakes that led to the war are to be filed away and forgotten. If in the face of incontrovertible evidence, Wolfowitz cannot bring himself to admit any errors in judgment, can we expect him to continue the reform of the World Bank-a process which requires him to publicly accept mistakes? It would be out of character.We worry about his appointment then, because it might cause the return of the unyielding, we-know-what's-good-for-you arrogance of the "old" World Bank. We also worry about his commitment to democracy, when serious money is at stake. Can Wolfowitz take the next step and lead the World Bank in the direction of debt relief? If there is one single policy that will help struggling democracies around the world infuse new life into democratic institutions, it is debt relief.”
Al-Ahram Weekly, Cairo
“Wolfowitz as the Bush administration's chief hawk was allegedly livid when current World Bank President James Wolfensohn pulled his personnel out of Iraq for safety reasons. Having been pressured into rebuilding Iraq while it was still being destroyed by American soldiers and their allies, Wolfensohn at least had the courage to protect his staff. It was not merely that the World Bank was leaving Iraq that made Wolfowitz mad. It was also undoubtedly the fact that Iraq's getting billions in loans would be delayed. This in turn would deprive the United States government of another weapon that it could use for controlling the Iraqi people. Wolfowitz, one can imagine, would have no problem risking his staff to capture a few more Iraqi minds and souls.”
La Nación, Buenos Aires
“Superficially, the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in 2005 resembles the one of Robert McNamara in 1968. Both come from the Defence Department and the names of both are linked to wars. McNamara’s name is identified with Vietnam and Wolfowitz’ with Iraq. But that is the end of similarities, the differences are more important. McNamara was appointed to the World Bank after his leadership in Vietnam had failed. By contrast, Wolfowitz is rising from the Defence Department because his administrations believes it has won the war. (…) Another difference is that Robert McNamara moved on from Lyndon Johnson’s administration, when the Democratic president had already given up and made it clear that he would not run for office again. Wolfowitz, on the other hand, is the candidate of a self-assured administration that feels as a victor and is looking forward to four more years.”
|
