What is a wolf doing in a bank meant to help the poor?
May 16, 2007
WHEN Paul Wolfowitz was nominated by President Bush to become the President of the World Bank there was a lot of anger and opposition from both development lobbyists and economists alike.
WHEN Paul Wolfowitz was nominated by President Bush to become the President of the World Bank there was a lot of anger and opposition from both development lobbyists and economists alike.
There was even stronger political opposition from many quarters because of the reactionary neo-con ideological position that the man’s first half of his name is
‘Wolf’. A wolf in name and a very hawkish wolf in practice. What is a wolf doing in a bank that was supposed to be ‘helping’ poorer countries of the world? What is a warmonger with blood of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis dripping from every pore in his body meant to do in a development bank? A man who believed in destruction as a policy of subjugation was put in charge of reconstruction of global economy!
But the appointment was not surprising. It was typical of the I-don’t-care attitude of George Bush and his fundamentalist’s clique. They do not give a damn to the rest of the world not even to their allies. Before the ‘Wolf’ was sent to the bank another hawk had been sent to the UN. Do you remember Bolton? He was made US representative to the UN, an organisation he regarded in deepest contempt and was determined to destroy.
For Bush might is right and the rest of the world could go and hang if they cannot put up with him. The appointment of Wolfowitz, yet again showed the undemocratic power relations in most of the so-called global institutions. In theory, the IMF, World Bank,
WTO, the UN are global institutions to which we all belong. They are meant to serve all the members but in reality they are controlled by powerful countries (predominantly Western Europe and the US).
In the case of the IMF and the World Bank, the convention is that the Europeans get to nominate who heads the former and their American cousins choose the latter.
Despite the fact that many of the European countries were politically and ideologically hostile to the ‘Wolf’ they had to put up with him. In spite of raving noises and lobbying from their INGOs asking them to veto the appointment, they simply wrung their hands because they did not want to lose their own entrenched privileged hold onto the IMF position.
The same unprincipled lack of transparency has bedevilled the UN reforms. Europe and America hold undemocratic sway in the UN Security Council and are unwilling to lose them or even share bits of it with the vast majority of the world. However, with Bush in the White house, the Europeans have developed a perfect ‘blame Bush’ default as a foil for their own lack of commitment to a fundamental reform of these global institutions.
Self-interest is essentially what is holding them back but they can blame an uncooperative, unilateralist White house. So despite the fact that they, along with Japan, hold majority shares and have majority voting power in the World Bank, they continue to blame the US for blocking reforms and policies that could be more friendly to the poor.
Wolfowitz’s current travails offer these hypocritical countries another chance to redeem their timid liberal pastures. If Wolfowitz was heading a normal private bank, his board would have sacked him by now. Since he is not willing to jump he must be pushed and pushed very fast.
The suggestion that because Wolfowitz has support from
African countries or other developing countries is an unoriginal excuse. Since when did the World Bank listen to these poor countries?
They are saying this because they are not yet sure what the US will do! Wolfowitz has lost the confidence of his colleagues, the trust of the bank’s customers so what is the board waiting for? It is about integrity, credibility and legitimacy.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have made themselves the apostles of good political and economic governance, lecturing poor countries on good practices, due process and transparency even when their policies have wrecked whole economies and destroyed many lives.
They never accept responsibility because they always claim that their policy prescriptions were correct, it is country A or B that did not apply them well! In the case of Wolfowitz, he arrived in the bank with triumphalist glee of other mass murderers of the people of Baghdad to ‘shock and awe’ the bank.
He was particularly determined to ‘root out corruption’ and crossed swords with many of his senior colleagues who found his arrogant style unacceptable. So his current problems have become music to the ears of most of his colleagues who had become exasperated with his management style.
Like Tony Blair who promised to be ‘whiter than white’ and is now to be remembered for blood of the innocent Iraqis and the stench of running a government that awarded national honours to the highest bidders, Wolfowitz is going down for not practising what he preached.
It will be correct that Wolfowitz is thrown out immediately but his pillow mortgage is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of allegedly technocratic global institutions whose officials are not elected, and mostly unelectable, and not accountable to those they serve. They do not even take responsibility for the consequences of their ideologically-driven policies which hurt the poor and marginalised peoples of the world they claim they are in business to serve.
It is not just the personal hypocrisy of Wolfowitz that is on display but the hypocrisy of the powers that control these institutions.
There was even stronger political opposition from many quarters because of the reactionary neo-con ideological position that the man’s first half of his name is
‘Wolf’. A wolf in name and a very hawkish wolf in practice. What is a wolf doing in a bank that was supposed to be ‘helping’ poorer countries of the world? What is a warmonger with blood of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis dripping from every pore in his body meant to do in a development bank? A man who believed in destruction as a policy of subjugation was put in charge of reconstruction of global economy!
But the appointment was not surprising. It was typical of the I-don’t-care attitude of George Bush and his fundamentalist’s clique. They do not give a damn to the rest of the world not even to their allies. Before the ‘Wolf’ was sent to the bank another hawk had been sent to the UN. Do you remember Bolton? He was made US representative to the UN, an organisation he regarded in deepest contempt and was determined to destroy.
For Bush might is right and the rest of the world could go and hang if they cannot put up with him. The appointment of Wolfowitz, yet again showed the undemocratic power relations in most of the so-called global institutions. In theory, the IMF, World Bank,
WTO, the UN are global institutions to which we all belong. They are meant to serve all the members but in reality they are controlled by powerful countries (predominantly Western Europe and the US).
In the case of the IMF and the World Bank, the convention is that the Europeans get to nominate who heads the former and their American cousins choose the latter.
Despite the fact that many of the European countries were politically and ideologically hostile to the ‘Wolf’ they had to put up with him. In spite of raving noises and lobbying from their INGOs asking them to veto the appointment, they simply wrung their hands because they did not want to lose their own entrenched privileged hold onto the IMF position.
The same unprincipled lack of transparency has bedevilled the UN reforms. Europe and America hold undemocratic sway in the UN Security Council and are unwilling to lose them or even share bits of it with the vast majority of the world. However, with Bush in the White house, the Europeans have developed a perfect ‘blame Bush’ default as a foil for their own lack of commitment to a fundamental reform of these global institutions.
Self-interest is essentially what is holding them back but they can blame an uncooperative, unilateralist White house. So despite the fact that they, along with Japan, hold majority shares and have majority voting power in the World Bank, they continue to blame the US for blocking reforms and policies that could be more friendly to the poor.
Wolfowitz’s current travails offer these hypocritical countries another chance to redeem their timid liberal pastures. If Wolfowitz was heading a normal private bank, his board would have sacked him by now. Since he is not willing to jump he must be pushed and pushed very fast.
The suggestion that because Wolfowitz has support from
African countries or other developing countries is an unoriginal excuse. Since when did the World Bank listen to these poor countries?
They are saying this because they are not yet sure what the US will do! Wolfowitz has lost the confidence of his colleagues, the trust of the bank’s customers so what is the board waiting for? It is about integrity, credibility and legitimacy.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have made themselves the apostles of good political and economic governance, lecturing poor countries on good practices, due process and transparency even when their policies have wrecked whole economies and destroyed many lives.
They never accept responsibility because they always claim that their policy prescriptions were correct, it is country A or B that did not apply them well! In the case of Wolfowitz, he arrived in the bank with triumphalist glee of other mass murderers of the people of Baghdad to ‘shock and awe’ the bank.
He was particularly determined to ‘root out corruption’ and crossed swords with many of his senior colleagues who found his arrogant style unacceptable. So his current problems have become music to the ears of most of his colleagues who had become exasperated with his management style.
Like Tony Blair who promised to be ‘whiter than white’ and is now to be remembered for blood of the innocent Iraqis and the stench of running a government that awarded national honours to the highest bidders, Wolfowitz is going down for not practising what he preached.
It will be correct that Wolfowitz is thrown out immediately but his pillow mortgage is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of allegedly technocratic global institutions whose officials are not elected, and mostly unelectable, and not accountable to those they serve. They do not even take responsibility for the consequences of their ideologically-driven policies which hurt the poor and marginalised peoples of the world they claim they are in business to serve.
It is not just the personal hypocrisy of Wolfowitz that is on display but the hypocrisy of the powers that control these institutions.