Wolfowitz nominated to head world bank? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 03-19-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

The poodle and the Wolf

If he's serious about Africa, Blair must oppose Bush's World Banker

Noreena Hertz
Saturday March 19, 2005
The Guardian

This is the year Africa will be saved, and we're going to do it - that, more or less, was the prime minister's message at the launch last week of the report of the Commission for Africa. But not with Paul Wolfowitz in charge of at the World Bank, we won't.

Key recommendations - for example, that corrupt dictators' cash in foreign bank accounts should be repatriated, and that forcing policies such as privatisation on countries in exchange for debt relief and aid needs to be rethought - are highly unlikely to be endorsed by Wolfowitz.

This, after all, is a man who, while US ambassador to Indonesia, was scarcely a vocal critic of the blatantly corrupt Suharto regime; a man who embodies the mindset that compels other countries to adopt a particular set of values and policies, whether they are right or not.

Wolfowitz is hardly even a champion of the values on which the bank itself was founded. He is neither well placed to help it meet its early goal of helping countries rebuild, nor its later one of poverty alleviation. Wolfowitz recently told the US congress that war-ravaged Iraq should pay not only for its reconstruction but also for the war itself out of its oil revenues.

Although the bank today is hardly a collaborative or progressive operation, any moves its current president, James Wolfensohn, has made to include environmental considerations in lending decisions and to broaden the range of nations consulted are unlikely to be continued under Wolfowitz, who has a track record of rewarding subservience. He banned countries that opposed the war with Iraq from bidding for reconstruction contracts.

Perhaps most worryingly he is George Bush's chosen one. And the Bush administration is a very long way from the bank's espoused goals and mandate. Development thinkers are now pretty much unanimous that trade subsidies are a serious barrier to development. Wolfensohn has spoken out against trade subsidies. But the Bush administration continues to reject calls to remove subsidies on its cotton and sugar producers, while its response to the recent World Trade Organisation ruling that US cotton subsidies breached its trade rules has been an attempt to negotiate a way out of the ruling with Mali and Brazil.

There could hardly be a less suitable administration to choose a candidate to lead an organisation whose mission is to alleviate poverty. At home Bush has implemented a series of tax cuts for the rich, and his latest proposal to reduce the US deficit has been to suggest the slashing of food aid to his country's poorest.

Of course, the US hijacking the World Bank to serve its foreign policy interests is not a new phenomenon. But the Bush administration is unabashedly forthright in its pursuit of self-interest, and in its willingness to use aid as a tool to promote its geo-political goals. Bush has said that he nominated Wolfowitz because he had proved himself adept at promoting US interests while ambassador to Indonesia. But the nomination of the World Bank president is being left to a government that has cut off aid to any country that does not exempt it from being held to account by the international criminal court, and that has resisted attempts by Wolfensohn to weaken the US stranglehold over the bank.

It is only a matter of con vention that America gets to nominate the president of the World Bank. The US has twice successfully rejected Germany's candidate to head the IMF, despite the convention that allows Europe to nominate its head.

A rejection of the presumption that the US nominates the bank president would chime well with today's climate of demands for more democracy and transparency in the development arena. It is also something that fits with the Labour government's position on necessary reforms of the international financial institutions.

Jack Straw said of Wolfowitz's nomination: "If his appointment is confirmed, we look forward to working with him." That is not the response the world is looking to Britain for. If Blair is serious about making poverty history, he will have todo away with such diplomatic niceties for once. A U-turn on Blair's wider support for Bush unfortunately remains a pipe dream. But Blair credibly can, and should, oppose the Wolf.

· Noreena Hertz is the author of IOU: The Debt Threat and Why We Must Defuse It, and professor of global political economy at the University of Utrecht

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...441444,00.html

i have been a bit surprised that this nomination--which seems to me just crazy--of paul wolfowitz to head the world bank has not come up for discussion here.

what do you make of the role of the world bank generally?
what do you think of this nomination?
what do you think the agenda behind the nomantion is?

Willravel · 03-19-2005, 08:20 AM

1. The world bank should not exist. It is rumored (though never properly investigated) that the roots of the world bank go back to war profiteering and some very dishonorable actions. Have you ever heard the theory about the rothschild history? Yikes. They earned their money by undermining rulerships, war profiteering, and setting up the credit system (to which most of those who read this are already in debt). They take a direct role in the finances of countries and they see no problem in destroying econemies in the singular mission of aquiring wealth.
2. Wolfowitz is a neocon's neocon, having written much of the framework that sent us to war with Iraq and that is likely to bankrupt our nation. Does that sound like a good banker?
3. The agenda is control.

The wolfowitz nomination did come up....over in paranoia. Check out Neo-con agenda with a purpose?, if you dare to be paranoid.

roachboy · 03-19-2005, 08:52 AM

the origins of the world bank are of a piece with those of the imf. both are functions of the post world war 2 political world, of the particular diagnosis of fascism dear to the americans that linked it to economic crisis (rather than linking it to nationalism--not a wrong interpretation, but a partial one). you can explain all of this without recourse to the trilateral commission and other such pseudo-historical factors.

here is a cliffnotes style history of the two organizations:

http://tntn.essortment.com/worldbankinter_riaw.htm

the functions of the world bank have diverged considerably from it orgins, as a function of the large-scale shifts in capitalist organization--the transition from colonial to neo-colonial systems across the 1950s, peaking (in terms of transition, not implications) in 1960....the abandonment of the bretton woods system in 1972, the development of a globalizing capitalist order, etc.

for a good film analysis of how the world bank and imf operate, understood from the viewpoint of a particular case study (their impact on jamaica in general, its agricultural sector in particular, over the past decade or so) you should check out "life and debt"

it is in these contexts that the wolfowitz nomination should be situated, it seems to me.

wolfowitz has no experience in financial matters.
his policy initiatives have bordered on lunacy--see the war in iraq.
that bush would understand the world bank as a prize for wolfowitz, as reward for the iraq war--gives a pretty good indication of how out of touch with the real world this administration really is internally.
i cannot think of a single reason to support this nomination, not a single god thing that would come of it. in many ways, it is even more absurd than the bolton nomination to the un.

guthmund · 03-19-2005, 12:21 PM

I've read probably a dozen or so articles about this.

I've yet to find the man's qualifications other than that he's a man 'of good experiences' and ran an organization of 'similar size' in the Pentagon.

Does anybody know how qualified he is? I wasn't aware he had any financial experience at all, which seems to me he would have to have to run the world bank.

Willravel · 03-19-2005, 12:38 PM

His record speaks for itself. His bio from the Department of Defence talks about political reform and his secutiry strategy and foreign policy writings. What it fails to mention, of course, is that it was basicly his idea to invade Iraq. He was the source of the "Iraq will welcome us with open arms" intelligence, as well as being linked to the WMD and Iraq/911 information. I think the Hamburgler would do a better job as the head of the world bank.

Dyze · 03-19-2005, 01:18 PM

He was the architect of the Iraq invastion, so it is certain that he has a lobby to back him up. As head of the World Bank, he would have moral duties towards his supporters which would affect his deeds as decision maker. He is definitely the wrong choice.
A little sidenote: Historically, the US nominate the leader of the World Bank and Europe the leader of the IWF/ICF.

KMA-628 · 03-19-2005, 02:04 PM

It makes me wonder if there is any parallel to the way Robert McNamara got shipped off to the World Bank.

Interesting similarities between Wolfowitz and McNamara.

irateplatypus · 03-19-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

It makes me wonder if there is any parallel to the way Robert McNamara got shipped off to the World Bank.

Interesting similarities between Wolfowitz and McNamara.

such as...?

Wolfowitz experience in the nuts-and-bolts of the financial world is scant. However, his nomination is largely due to his nearly unmatched experience as a state department employee in dealing with developing nations.

taken from http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html

Quote:

On February 5, 2001, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Dr. Paul Wolfowitz to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on Feb. 28th and sworn in March 2, 2001 as the 28th Deputy Secretary of Defense. This is Dr. Wolfowitz's third tour of duty in the Pentagon.

For the last seven years, Dr. Wolfowitz has served as Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University. SAIS is widely regarded as one of the world's leading graduate schools of international relations with 750 students, studying on campuses in Washington, D.C.; Nanjing, China; and Bologna, Italy. As Dean, he led a successful capital campaign that raised more than $75 million and doubled the school's endowment. Also under his leadership, the curriculum and facilities were modernized and new faculty and programs were added to shift the school's focus from the Cold War to the era of globalization.

From 1989 to 1993, Dr. Wolfowitz served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in charge of the 700-person defense policy team that was responsible to Secretary Dick Cheney for matters concerning strategy, plans, and policy. During this period Secretary Wolfowitz and his staff had major responsibilities for the reshaping of strategy and force posture at the end of the Cold War.

Under his leadership, the Policy Staff played a major role in reviewing war plans for the Gulf War, and developing and executing plans that successfully raised more than $50 billion in Allied financial support for the war and prevented Iraq from opening a second front with Israel. Other key initiatives included the development of the Regional Defense Strategy, the Base Force, and two presidential nuclear initiatives that led to the elimination of tens of thousands of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons.

During the Reagan administration, Dr. Wolfowitz served for three years as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia - the fourth largest country in the world and the largest in the Moslem world. There he earned a reputation as a highly popular and effective Ambassador, a tough negotiator on behalf of American intellectual property owners, and a public advocate of political openness and democratic values. During his tenure, Embassy Jakarta was cited as one of the four best-managed embassies inspected in 1988.

Prior to that posting, he served three and a half years as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he was in charge of U.S. relations with more than twenty countries. In addition to contributing to substantial improvements in U.S. relations with Japan and China, Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz played a central role in coordinating the U.S. policy toward the Philippines that supported a peaceful transition from the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos to democracy.

Dr. Wolfowitz's previous government service included:

Two years as head of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff (1981-82):
An earlier Pentagon tour as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs (1977-80), where he helped create the force that later became the United States Central Command and initiated the Maritime Pre-positioning Ships, the backbone of the initial U.S. deployment twelve years later in Operation Desert Shield;
Four years (1973-77) in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, working on the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and a number of nuclear nonproliferation issues; and
A year as a Management Intern at the Bureau of the Budget (1966-67).
Dr. Wolfowitz taught previously at Yale (1970-73) and Johns Hopkins (1981). In 1993, he was the George F. Kennan Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College. He has written widely on the subject of national strategy and foreign policy and was a member of the advisory boards of the journals Foreign Affairs and National Interest.

Among his many awards for public service are:

The Presidential Citizen's Medal,
The Department of Defense's Distinguished Public Service Medal,
The Department of State's Distinguished Honor Award,
The Department of Defense's Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, and
The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's Distinguished Honor Award.

Dr. Wolfowitz received a bachelor's degree from Cornell University (1965) in mathematics, and a doctorate in political science from the University of Chicago (1972).

(Current as of Mar 2001)

KMA-628 · 03-19-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

such as...?

Both were hawks for very unpopular wars.

One was Defense Secretary the other was Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Both were shipped off mid-war.

We know why McNamara was sent to the bank, it makes me wonder if Wolfowitz is being "shipped off" as well.

Willravel · 03-19-2005, 02:37 PM

Watch "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara". It was interesting to hear about what happened from his perspective. I wonder if Wolfowitz will have a movie like that made someday.

I definatally see the parallels between the two men. The real test will not be with the world bank, but how future investigations find the Iraqi war overall with all the information. This might end up being another comparison between Iraqi war and another American war with a bad reputation. Only time will tell.

KMA-628 · 03-19-2005, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Watch "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara".

Saw it.......very, very interesting film. You could tell that he still had a lot demons haunting him.

Willravel · 03-19-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Saw it.......very, very interesting film. You could tell that he still had a lot demons haunting him.

I could have sworn I saw your avatar in his eyes during the second lesson...but it was just my imagination.

james t kirk · 03-19-2005, 06:45 PM

I was kind of hoping Bono would get the job.

Wolfowitz is a frightening man.

NCB · 03-21-2005, 12:28 PM

Canada Welcomes Wolfowitz's World Bank Nomination

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada welcomes the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the head of the World Bank, a spokesman for the Department of Finance said on Monday.

"Canada welcomes the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz for the post of president of the World Bank. Mr. Wolfowitz is a very serious and credible candidate. Until such time as nominations are put forward we are unable to comment further," he said.

http://tinyurl.com/6f2vh

Willravel · 03-21-2005, 12:31 PM

I would have thought Canada's liberal nature would reject Wolf at all costs. Huh.

NCB · 03-21-2005, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I would have thought Canada's liberal nature would reject Wolf at all costs. Huh.

Yeah, me too.

Charlatan · 03-21-2005, 01:17 PM

I wouldn't say that was a glowing affirmation of Wolfowitz... rather it was level endorsement.

I would expect nothing less from *any* government official.

I would suspect there is a lot more being said behind the scenes.

james t kirk · 03-23-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I wouldn't say that was a glowing affirmation of Wolfowitz... rather it was level endorsement.

I would expect nothing less from *any* government official.

I would suspect there is a lot more being said behind the scenes.

Yeah, like, "Holy Christ, if Wolfowitz gets the job, it will be like putting the arsonist in charge of the gasoline station."

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-23-2005, 05:49 PM

^^^ Sherman as the Fire Marshall of Atlanta.

All things aside, Wolfowitz is a smart guy, whether or not you agree with the various policies he has come up with.

Manx · 03-23-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

All things aside, Wolfowitz is a smart guy, whether or not you agree with the various policies he has come up with.

There are lots of "smart guys". Not all of them architected a war based on two rather major assumptions (no trouble after Saddam falls, pays for itself with oil resources) that turned out to be rather horrendously false.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-23-2005, 05:58 PM

Well if you are going to knock him, you may want to give him props too. Like his contributions to the RMA, and as an architect to the war that has removed a despot, spurred political change in the Arab world, and will continue to have long term geo-political effects regarding the regulation and policies of foreign militaries and global oil dependency.

Manx · 03-23-2005, 06:45 PM

But then I'd have to agree that those things are valuable or true.

trickyy · 03-23-2005, 07:48 PM

i'm sure he's got plenty of ideas. i really haven't studied the neocon influences, but i hear bits and pieces of their strategies. just found out that the neocons originally hoped to completely privatize the iraqi oil industry. theoretically, this would allow increased production in iraq and over time opec would be marginalized. as a result, other arab regimes would eventually crumble.

for a variety of reasons, this plan did not go forward. but it's interesting to see some of the thought processes of these people. seems like change is a pervasive element...not what you expect from a typical "conservative."

03-19-2005, 08:20 AM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	1. The world bank should not exist. It is rumored (though never properly investigated) that the roots of the world bank go back to war profiteering and some very dishonorable actions. Have you ever heard the theory about the rothschild history? Yikes. They earned their money by undermining rulerships, war profiteering, and setting up the credit system (to which most of those who read this are already in debt). They take a direct role in the finances of countries and they see no problem in destroying econemies in the singular mission of aquiring wealth. 2. Wolfowitz is a neocon's neocon, having written much of the framework that sent us to war with Iraq and that is likely to bankrupt our nation. Does that sound like a good banker? 3. The agenda is control. The wolfowitz nomination did come up....over in paranoia. Check out Neo-con agenda with a purpose?, if you dare to be paranoid. Last edited by Willravel; 03-19-2005 at 08:22 AM..

03-19-2005, 08:52 AM	#3 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the origins of the world bank are of a piece with those of the imf. both are functions of the post world war 2 political world, of the particular diagnosis of fascism dear to the americans that linked it to economic crisis (rather than linking it to nationalism--not a wrong interpretation, but a partial one). you can explain all of this without recourse to the trilateral commission and other such pseudo-historical factors. here is a cliffnotes style history of the two organizations: http://tntn.essortment.com/worldbankinter_riaw.htm the functions of the world bank have diverged considerably from it orgins, as a function of the large-scale shifts in capitalist organization--the transition from colonial to neo-colonial systems across the 1950s, peaking (in terms of transition, not implications) in 1960....the abandonment of the bretton woods system in 1972, the development of a globalizing capitalist order, etc. for a good film analysis of how the world bank and imf operate, understood from the viewpoint of a particular case study (their impact on jamaica in general, its agricultural sector in particular, over the past decade or so) you should check out "life and debt" it is in these contexts that the wolfowitz nomination should be situated, it seems to me. wolfowitz has no experience in financial matters. his policy initiatives have bordered on lunacy--see the war in iraq. that bush would understand the world bank as a prize for wolfowitz, as reward for the iraq war--gives a pretty good indication of how out of touch with the real world this administration really is internally. i cannot think of a single reason to support this nomination, not a single god thing that would come of it. in many ways, it is even more absurd than the bolton nomination to the un. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-19-2005, 12:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I've read probably a dozen or so articles about this. I've yet to find the man's qualifications other than that he's a man 'of good experiences' and ran an organization of 'similar size' in the Pentagon. Does anybody know how qualified he is? I wasn't aware he had any financial experience at all, which seems to me he would have to have to run the world bank. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

03-19-2005, 01:18 PM	#6 (permalink)
Dyze Crazy	He was the architect of the Iraq invastion, so it is certain that he has a lobby to back him up. As head of the World Bank, he would have moral duties towards his supporters which would affect his deeds as decision maker. He is definitely the wrong choice. A little sidenote: Historically, the US nominate the leader of the World Bank and Europe the leader of the IWF/ICF. __________________ Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do.

03-19-2005, 02:04 PM	#7 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	It makes me wonder if there is any parallel to the way Robert McNamara got shipped off to the World Bank. Interesting similarities between Wolfowitz and McNamara. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-19-2005, 12:38 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	His record speaks for itself. His bio from the Department of Defence talks about political reform and his secutiry strategy and foreign policy writings. What it fails to mention, of course, is that it was basicly his idea to invade Iraq. He was the source of the "Iraq will welcome us with open arms" intelligence, as well as being linked to the WMD and Iraq/911 information. I think the Hamburgler would do a better job as the head of the world bank.

03-19-2005, 02:37 PM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Watch "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara". It was interesting to hear about what happened from his perspective. I wonder if Wolfowitz will have a movie like that made someday. I definatally see the parallels between the two men. The real test will not be with the world bank, but how future investigations find the Iraqi war overall with all the information. This might end up being another comparison between Iraqi war and another American war with a bad reputation. Only time will tell.

03-19-2005, 06:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	I was kind of hoping Bono would get the job. Wolfowitz is a frightening man.

03-21-2005, 12:31 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I would have thought Canada's liberal nature would reject Wolf at all costs. Huh.

03-21-2005, 01:17 PM	#17 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I wouldn't say that was a glowing affirmation of Wolfowitz... rather it was level endorsement. I would expect nothing less from any government official. I would suspect there is a lot more being said behind the scenes. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-23-2005, 05:49 PM	#19 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	^^^ Sherman as the Fire Marshall of Atlanta. All things aside, Wolfowitz is a smart guy, whether or not you agree with the various policies he has come up with. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-23-2005, 05:58 PM	#21 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well if you are going to knock him, you may want to give him props too. Like his contributions to the RMA, and as an architect to the war that has removed a despot, spurred political change in the Arab world, and will continue to have long term geo-political effects regarding the regulation and policies of foreign militaries and global oil dependency. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-23-2005, 06:45 PM	#22 (permalink)
Manx Loser	But then I'd have to agree that those things are valuable or true.

03-23-2005, 07:48 PM	#23 (permalink)
trickyy ►	i'm sure he's got plenty of ideas. i really haven't studied the neocon influences, but i hear bits and pieces of their strategies. just found out that the neocons originally hoped to completely privatize the iraqi oil industry. theoretically, this would allow increased production in iraq and over time opec would be marginalized. as a result, other arab regimes would eventually crumble. for a variety of reasons, this plan did not go forward. but it's interesting to see some of the thought processes of these people. seems like change is a pervasive element...not what you expect from a typical "conservative."