March 18, 2005
World bank nominee faces resistance.
There's an Asia Times
article by Sanjay Suri on the reaction of the other World Bank members to the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as its new head. The article is about the possible European reaction to the nomination, and whether they will have the guts to stand up to the Americans about having someone so clearly unsuitable run such an important international legislation.
What's really disgusting is that while the US and Europe combined represent only 46% of the votes, they're the only ones discussed. And actually, it's just Britain, France and Germany that are mentioned. The other EU countries apparently don't even exist, not to mention the rest of the world.
This article at least briefly mentions other countries, who make up the majority, but it's clear that any so-called "democracy" is a justification for legitimizing white rule. Especially nauseating given that the overwhelming bulk of the World Bank's activities take place outside either the US or Europe.
The 25-member European Union has between its member states a larger percentage of the vote than the United States. Britain and France have, for example, 4.3% each, and Germany 4.49%. With about 30% of the vote, the EU has almost twice as many votes as the US's 16%. But the EU is not a single voting bloc on the World Bank board. And traditionally the appointment of the World Bank head has come by consensus, never having been put to the vote.
... EU countries seem to be preparing to challenge the appointment in debates within the World Bank governing body, if not put their opposition to the vote. Analysts believe that major EU countries will engage in active diplomatic talks ahead of the discussions in the World Bank on the appointment. They are expected also to engage in talks with leading developing countries. On their part, developing countries are said to be discussing among themselves the possibility of presenting their own nominee to oppose the tradition of an American heading the World Bank and a European the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Notice that the non-white nations are only briefly referred to as "developing countries." Not a single one of them is named, despite the fact that they are the majority, and not a single representative of them is quoted. But they talk about a vote on "ratifying" the American choice as being "democratic." It's not, they just use it to justify their elitism and contempt for true democracy. There's no way an American would be approved in this office if the organization ran on anything even vaguely resembling democratic processes.
It's so repulsive. Both the IMF and the World Bank at this point are just loan-sharking organizations which strong-arm helpless people into taking on debt they can't afford and then, once they get over their head, moving in to steal their collateral. The World Bank isn't a "bank"; it's a organized crime syndicate.
The World Bank is supposed to be about helping to end poverty. But it's not. It's about using the poverty of others as a way of making the rich richer. That's all it is. It's been in operation for fifty or so years now, and it's record is very, very clear on that.
But I wonder if the appointment of Wolfowitz, the main architect of the war in Iraq and of American militarism in general, may be just the straw that breaks the camel's back, and gets the rest of the world to say "enough." Maybe so. In any case, it's another brick in the wall around America.
Slowly but surely Bush and his cabal are pushing people too far. And this really is going rather far. Wolfowitz is not just a major international war criminal, he's also a known thief, who has actively participated in the theft of billions of dollars from both the Iraqis and from American funds allocated for the war and the reconstuction. He has a proven contempt for the law. Having someone like that in charge of a _bank_ could be a bit much to swallow.
I think it would also make it much more unlikely that people would choose to do business with the World Bank. Regardless of whether or not Wolfowitz is confirmed.
Add: also see Paul Krugman's comments on the World Bank and Wolfowitz in
The Ugly American Bank. And
Smedley Butler, Meet John Perkins, a review of Perkins book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", which tells the very ugly story of how the international financial institutions that are supposed to be "helping" people really operate.
Smedley Butler, by the way, was the very highly decorated American Marine general in the early part of the century who later turned into an anti-war activist and wrote
War Is A Racket. Essential reading for anyone interested in American history, once and future.
