THE PLANK JANUARY 17, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The United States helped found the World Bank in 1945. It was designed initially to aid in postwar reconstruction, but it has developed a focus on alleviating extreme poverty and encouraging development in the world's poorest countries. American officials did not conceive of the bank as a vehicle for carrying out a particular administration's foreign policy objectives. When Robert Macnamara left the Pentagon to become World Bank president in 1968, for instance, he did not use his tenure to advance the American war effort in Vietnam. But Paul Wolfowitz, who left the Pentagon in June 2005 to become World Bank president, may be turning the institution into an instrument of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
According to a report from Christopher Swann of Bloomberg News, half of the World Bank's directors have left since Wolfowitz arrived. Their replacements include conservative Republican operatives who were closely identified with the Bush administration's foreign policy. After serving as Senator Mitch McConnell's top foreign policy aide, Robin Cleveland became an associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, where she was instrumental in getting funding for the Iraq war. Kevin Kelleums was a former spokesman for Vice President Dick Cheney. But more important were the reasons why officials left. Christiaan Poortman, who was vice president for the Middle East, reportedly resigned in protest over Wolfowitz's plan to increase bank funding and staff in Iraq. Subsidizing the American war effort in Iraq would put the World Bank on the side of the Bush administration's invasion and occupation. It is exactly the kind of measure that Macnamara resisted.
--John B. Judis
5 comments
I understand exist at TNR, I believe Mr Judis' entire post is anti-Semitic. Mr Wolfowitz is Jewish, correct? This post is critical of Mr Wolfowitz, correct? Criticism of any Jew = Anti-Semitism, correct? Look, Wolfowitz is one of these neocons who value ideology above everything. They value it more than facts, evidence or competence. Wolfowitz is just doing to the World Bank what the Bush admin did to the Coalition Authority -- staffing it with a gang of political hacks who will, no doubt, run the entire enterprise into the ground. None of this stuff is an accident. This is how the Bush admin operates. It is how they have always operated. It is how they will operate until their last moments in office.
- Fairfax
January 17, 2007 at 12:17pm
exactly the kind of measure that Macnamara resisted And MacNamara sure did a fabulous job, didn't he. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here. The World Bank is an inept, self-serving elephant that is not doing much of anything to reduce poverty. Wolfowitz's tenure is notable for his anti-corruption emphasis, which is long overdue and exactly the tonic that this sick man institution needs. Fevered conspiracy theories aside, the man is doing the right things at the right time for the Bank.
- teplukhin
January 17, 2007 at 12:29pm
There was a lot of internal resistance to Wolfowitz' insistence on reforming some of the more egregious practices at the World Bank. I'm delighted to hear about the resignations, and hope more are in the works. On Iraq, if I'm not mistaken there is a massive UN-supported effort to reconstruct Iraq which has been approved and subscribed to one degree or another by virtually every important nation in the world. Is there any particular reason the World Bank shouldn't be involved? Oh yeah, the president is a "neo-con". That settles everything.
- Robert Powell
January 17, 2007 at 2:09pm
When did Harvey Keitel assume his post?
- teplukhin
January 17, 2007 at 2:56pm
The World Bank and IMF have prescribed, no, forced economic madness on third world countries for decades. Most of the time they are anti democratic reforms and are disastrous for the local populations Actually, I had the impression that in the last decade, decade and a half, the World Bank had more and more changed into a much-needed counterweight against IMF economics. While neoliberal free market orthodoxy kept reigning at the IMF, the World Bank appeared to have swerved somewhat more to the centre: more dialogue and development, less orders and shock therapy. I suppose that development will now be cut short brusquely, under Wolfowitz, though.
- jobeek2
January 17, 2007 at 5:17pm