World Bank democracy
World Bank democracy
Posted 08:56pm (Mla time) Mar 19, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 20, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
BY TRADITION, it is the United States which nominates the president of the World Bank; Europeans choose the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. In nominating the controversial Paul Wolfowitz, a leader of the American neoconservative movement and the most influential No. 2 man in the history of the Pentagon, US President George W. Bush has prompted other industrialized countries to rethink that tradition.
We doubt whether much will come out of this collective soul-searching. The Europeans, too, have a stake in the post-Iraq, post-reelection thawing of transatlantic relations; they will feel needlessly provoked but, in the end, they will grit their teeth and swallow their pride.
The rest of the world, of course, has no say in the matter. To be blunt about it: beggars can't be choosers, especially when it comes to choosing the new creditor-in-chief.
But those of us who have been on the sometimes sharp end of the World Bank stick can certainly use the next few days-while Europe thinks and US allies in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East come to terms with Wolfowitz's nomination-to raise the necessary questions.
Under James Wolfensohn, the World Bank tried mightily to reckon with some of the unintended consequences of its brand of economic development. Can Wolfowitz take the next step and lead the World Bank to accept its mistakes and change some of its policies?
We ask, because the man Bush affectionately calls "Wolfie" is one of the principal architects of the US invasion of Iraq. The war was waged on non-existent grounds: there was no immediate terrorist threat from Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no conspiracy between Saddam Hussein's odious regime and Osama bin Laden's equally monstrous terrorist network. All of these have been confirmed many times since the invasion was launched two years ago. But have Wolfowitz and the rest of the Bush administration's war council taken the opportunity to tender their regrets or issue an apology for essentially misleading the American nation and the rest of the world?
Regrettably, no. They have all taken refuge behind the banner of democracy.
Democracy, Churchill famously said, is the worst form of government, until you consider the alternatives. Many of the alternatives in the Middle East are unsavory indeed, and like many around the world, we share the hope that democracy's meandering march will also take it through that volatile region.
But 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. The policy will release billions of dollars into the necessary work of easing poverty, stimulating the economy, raising living standards, and investing in education. Instead of essentially working for the creditors, many of whom have already profited from the debt, developing countries around the world can finally work for their own benefit. Like democracy's rising tide, that of economic growth can lift all boats too.
But for many creditors, the real issue behind debt relief is the often-forgotten conflict between capitalism's requirements and democracy's needs. When billions of dollars are at stake, whose side will Wolfowitz be on?
Posted 08:56pm (Mla time) Mar 19, 2005
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 20, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
BY TRADITION, it is the United States which nominates the president of the World Bank; Europeans choose the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. In nominating the controversial Paul Wolfowitz, a leader of the American neoconservative movement and the most influential No. 2 man in the history of the Pentagon, US President George W. Bush has prompted other industrialized countries to rethink that tradition.
We doubt whether much will come out of this collective soul-searching. The Europeans, too, have a stake in the post-Iraq, post-reelection thawing of transatlantic relations; they will feel needlessly provoked but, in the end, they will grit their teeth and swallow their pride.
The rest of the world, of course, has no say in the matter. To be blunt about it: beggars can't be choosers, especially when it comes to choosing the new creditor-in-chief.
But those of us who have been on the sometimes sharp end of the World Bank stick can certainly use the next few days-while Europe thinks and US allies in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East come to terms with Wolfowitz's nomination-to raise the necessary questions.
Under James Wolfensohn, the World Bank tried mightily to reckon with some of the unintended consequences of its brand of economic development. Can Wolfowitz take the next step and lead the World Bank to accept its mistakes and change some of its policies?
We ask, because the man Bush affectionately calls "Wolfie" is one of the principal architects of the US invasion of Iraq. The war was waged on non-existent grounds: there was no immediate terrorist threat from Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no conspiracy between Saddam Hussein's odious regime and Osama bin Laden's equally monstrous terrorist network. All of these have been confirmed many times since the invasion was launched two years ago. But have Wolfowitz and the rest of the Bush administration's war council taken the opportunity to tender their regrets or issue an apology for essentially misleading the American nation and the rest of the world?
Regrettably, no. They have all taken refuge behind the banner of democracy.
Democracy, Churchill famously said, is the worst form of government, until you consider the alternatives. Many of the alternatives in the Middle East are unsavory indeed, and like many around the world, we share the hope that democracy's meandering march will also take it through that volatile region.
But 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. The policy will release billions of dollars into the necessary work of easing poverty, stimulating the economy, raising living standards, and investing in education. Instead of essentially working for the creditors, many of whom have already profited from the debt, developing countries around the world can finally work for their own benefit. Like democracy's rising tide, that of economic growth can lift all boats too.
But for many creditors, the real issue behind debt relief is the often-forgotten conflict between capitalism's requirements and democracy's needs. When billions of dollars are at stake, whose side will Wolfowitz be on?
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home