Tags:
Journalism of Courage
President Bush8217;s decision to nominate Paul Wolfowitz as America8217;s choice to head the World Bank is particularly ill judged. Rewarding divisive and combative architects of a war with the presidency of the World Bank has past precedent. Robert McNamara was so rewarded. But in McNamara8217;s case there was at least a justification: he had run large organisations and had a background in the corporate and financial world. Wolfowitz, despite President Bush8217;s attempts to establish the contrary, has neither.
The choice of Wolfowitz is a disappointing one, not because of he was the ideological architect of the war in Iraq. This is a matter on which people may disagree. His appointment is objectionable because of the message it sends about America8217;s conception of the World Bank. The World Bank remains one of the most powerful financial institutions with an enormous capacity to shape or mis-shape development processes around the world. Under the outgoing president, James Wolfensohn, the Bank had tried hard to shed its image of an ideologically driven organisation that imposes simplistic conditionalities on weak states, irrespective of their local needs and circumstances. His style was less combative and the Bank had come to be seen, rightly or wrongly, as an institution that was more open to negotiation, consultation and participation. Wolfowitz is not known to have a very sophisticated understating of the political economy of development, or of economics in general. And his past track record suggests that he is more likely to bring a dogmatic simplicity to the Bank8217;s outlook on development. It is another sign that the Bush Administration expects multilateral institutions to mirror its preoccupations in every way. It is also, in its own small way, a sign that for all the talk of conciliation, the Bush administration is likely to do as it pleases. This will put the long term viability and credibility of these institutions at risk.
