Paul Wolfowitz: Look! It’s our money. So, you do what we tell, how we tell you, or else…
Last week, President Bush nominated John Bolton to be America’s new Ambassador to the United Nations. Many political observers regarded this nomination as an affront to the career diplomats at the UN for whom Bolton has repeatedly shown nothing but contempt and disrespect. (See in Archives US Tough Love at the UN for details on Bolton’s nomination)
Now, Bush has nominated Paul Wolfowitz to be the new President of the World Bank. And, many regard this nomination as a thumb in the eye of this organization because Wolfowitz has repeatedly advocated an imperial and mercantile approach in America’s dealings with other countries. But, as the US is by far the principal donor to the World Bank, the nominee of the American president has traditionally been ratified by acclamation by the other donor nations.
The World Bank provides developing nations loans, policy advice and technical assistance to help them build sustainable economies. And, under the leadership of outgoing president, James D. Wolfensohn, the Bank concentrated its efforts on poverty alleviation and improving the living standards of the poor all around the world.
Previous US administrations have generally deferred to recipient governments for needs assessments and planning for the allocation of bank aid. But all of that is about to change. Because President Bush and Wolfowitz have demonstrated, rather convincingly, that they prefer to impose their own needs assessments upon weak governments (either by intimidation or brute force).
As US Deputy Secretary of Defense for the past four years, Wolfowitz distinguished himself by leading a coterie of neo-conservatives who prevailed upon President Bush to pursue foreign policies that alienated much of the world. Among their more notorious feats were engineering America’s withdrawal from international environmental treaty obligations and orchestrating the invasion Iraq as their first step in America’s march to democratize the Middle East and, eventually, the entire world.
Central to the political agenda of Wolfowitz and his lieutenants was their jihadist belief in American unilateralism as the only means of ensuring order in a world beset by terrorism. And, despite the hatred they engendered by pushing for America’s “you’re either with us or against us” challenge to the world, Wolfowitz & Co. point to the transformation now underway in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan as vindication of their belief. Indeed, even some of America’s most visceral critics – including Muslim fundamentalists, are now acknowledging the salutary new order now taking form throughout the Middle East.
Nevertheless, even if one concedes, however begrudgingly, that Wolfowitz has been good for America’s global political agenda, it remains to be seen whether he will be good for the World (Bank). Of course, this would require examining the results of retiring president Wolfensohn’s 10-year poverty alleviation program. But, given the pandemic of poverty that remains a blight of daily life in the developing world (especially in sub-Saharan Africa), it is self-evident that the World Bank under Wolfensohn’s leadership did little to alleviate poverty and develop the economies of poor countries.
Therefore, Bush’s nomination of Wolfowitz to head the World Bank may be regarded as a reward for his visionary political agenda as well as a message to developing nations that future aid will be tied to uncompromising conditions that are results oriented. Indeed, it would be transformative to hold leaders of chronically poor countries to account for the massive amounts of aid allocated to alleviate poverty in their respective countries. Because, with all due respect to Bono and Professor Jeffery Sachs, it remains an unassailable fact that it is the inhumane policies of tin pot dictators (and not the lack of foreign aid) that have kept many of the world’s poor mired in poverty. (Very politically incorrect, I know.)
At any rate, let’s hope that Wolfowitz begins his poverty alleviation jihad by confronting those rogues in the Sudan and Ethiopia, followed closely by giving the boot to Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe (not to mention that Swaziland potentate Mswati).
So, if only by default, I welcome the appointment of this hawkish American. It may be that an iron fist is needed to break the chains of poverty that many of the rich condemn so heart-wrenchingly but do so little to alleviate. Indeed, what we know about Bush is that when he says the World Bank under Wolfowitz will alleviate poverty, chances are pretty good that that’s exactly what the Bank will do.
Hey, if you can’t beat them, join them. Hail Bush! Hail Wolfowitz!
News and Politics
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.