930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: HoyaSaxa03 on March 16, 2005, 11:22:00 am
-
I'm sorry for all you development people out there ...
article (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005031609360001359320&dt=20050316093600&w=APO&coview=)
-
In this administration you fail UPWARDS! Congrats,Paul!
-
I thought Bono was getting that job?
-
I thought he was pretty decent when he was a reporter on CNN. But then again, I only watched CNN when staying at hotels.
Can someone remind me again why the U.S. President gets to choose the leader of the World Bank?
-
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa03:
I'm sorry for all you development people out there ...
article (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005031609360001359320&dt=20050316093600&w=APO&coview=)
The writing was on the wall..the Financial Times wrote about it some weeks back...I just really hoped it wouldn't happen..
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
I thought he was pretty decent when he was a reporter on CNN. But then again, I only watched CNN when staying at hotels.
Can someone remind me again why the U.S. President gets to choose the leader of the World Bank?
I might be off on this but I believe Europeans choose the IMF director and the US appoints the WB director. Still, I might be completely off on this one, read it somewhere.
As for Wolfowitz being the president of the WB, I think this is a disaster, but what can you expect from Bush and the far right?
-
I bet Rummie gets to be ambassador to Amnesty International or something.
I'm still trying to figure out who's the biggest moron, Dubya himself, or those who voted for him.
-
Here's to hoping an American appointee doesn't get approval. It was bound to happen once, right?
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
Can someone remind me again why the U.S. President gets to choose the leader of the World Bank?
I might be off on this but I believe Europeans choose the IMF director and the US appoints the WB director. Still, I might be completely off on this one, read it somewhere.
[/b]
yep.
-
it may be a wee long but it should answer any questions on the topic:
Paul Wolfowitz to Be Nominated as Next World Bank President
2005-03-16 09:24 (New York)
By Simon Kennedy and Julie Ziegler
March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, will be nominated to be the next head of
the World Bank, a U.S. official said.
President George W. Bush will name Wolfowitz later today,
the official said. He would replace James Wolfensohn, 71, who
said in January that he would leave the institution when his term
ends May 31.
Wolfowitz's nomination must be approved by all of the World
Bank's member countries, which analysts said would be largely a
formality. By tradition, the U.S. chooses the head of the World
Bank, and European officials choose the managing director of the
International Monetary Fund.
Treasury Department spokesman Rob Nichols declined to
comment on the nomination.
Other candidates for the World Bank position included former
Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina and
Bush administration AIDS policy chief Randall Tobias.
Wolfowitz was a strong advocate of the Iraq war, advocating
the toppling of Saddam Hussein and helping the administration
craft its rationale for the invasion. The U.S. official said
Wolfowitz is a proven leader, intellectually and operationally.
World Bank Scope
His management experience running the Pentagon, the largest
government agency with nearly 700,000 civilian employees and 1.3
million in uniform will serve him well at the World Bank, the
official said.
Responding to a report in the Financial Times earlier this
month that Wolfowitz was a candidate for the World Bank, a
Defense Department spokesman said he would remain at the
Pentagon. ``Secretary Wolfowitz has been asked to stay on in an
extremely important job, one that he likes doing very much,''
Defense Department spokesman Larry DiRita said March 1.
Under Wolfowitz, the Bush administration may now try to
narrow the focus of the World Bank, returning the international
lending institution to its roots of primarily financing large
infrastructure projects and limiting the practice of handing out
zero-interest loans, analysts such as Alan Meltzer, who led a
2000 congressional inquiry into the World Bank, said.
Management Goal
The lender, the largest financier of projects in developing
nations, broadened its scope under Wolfensohn, who sought a more
``humanizing'' role for the bank, according to Joseph Stiglitz, a
Nobel Prize-winning professor at Columbia University and former
chief economist of the World Bank.
Since taking over in 1995, Wolfensohn cut by 40 percent
financing for dams, bridges and infrastructure projects, and
shifted that money to programs promoting climate change and
development.
The U.S. is seeking to scale back some of Wolfensohn's
projects, overhaul the bank's $20 billion a year lending
operation and more effectively manage more than 10,000 employees
scattered in 109 nations, Meltzer said.
Bush named Wolfowitz, 61, as deputy to Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld in February 2001. Then dean of Johns Hopkins
University School of Advanced International Studies, Wolfowitz
was a veteran of both the State and Defense Departments.
State, Defense Veteran
He served as undersecretary for policy for Vice President
Dick Cheney when Cheney headed the Pentagon during the
administration of former President George Bush, the current
president's father.
From 1986 to 1989, Wolfowitz was the U.S. ambassador to
Indonesia, and assistant secretary of state for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs from 1982 to 1986. He worked on arms control and
disarmament issues in federal agencies in the 1970s.
Wolfowitz was a critic of former President Bill Clinton's
approach toward China and Russia, and urged tougher stances on
those countries' missile transfers to Iran. He also supported
providing international financial assistance to Indonesia during
the Asian financial crisis, testifying before Congress that it
served U.S. interests.
From 1995 to 2001, Wolfowitz was a director of toy maker
Hasbro Inc. He received a Masters degree in administration and a
Doctorate in political science and economics from University of
Chicago.
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
I might be off on this but I believe Europeans choose the IMF director and the US appoints the WB director. Still, I might be completely off on this one, read it somewhere.
Yeah, that's basically right, except it's not engraved into law, just tradition. If the Europeans had a huge problem with Wolfowitz they could block him, but it would probably result in the U.S. blocking their choice to lead the IMF. Experts on NPR figured the Europeans would grudgingly accept the status quo.
-
Why is this bad?
-
<img src="http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/batman01.jpg" alt=" - " />
NEWS FLASH ! (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/08/maskhadov.shtml)
-
where's Rob Gee's take on this.
i figured he would weigh in , but i guess not.
I'll do it for him
"_____ insurgents _______ fuck em all _______ love Bush _____ defeat ________ my nice paying job :D "
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Why is this bad?
I'm not going to get into any argument over this, but basically because the World Bank is a development agency, not a war agency. Not that the WB is a perfect institution, but to have this guy directing it might end up being a disaster. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and point out to articles talking about the mistakes and corruption in these types of institutions, it's just my opinion. And I believe Bush today talked about him being compassionate? here we go again. The least compassionate people on earth talking about compassion.
-
Wolfowitz's career experience is not limited to his time at DoD. Also, McNamara was at Defense before leading the Bank for 13 years, so this isn't unprecedented.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
I'm not going to get into any argument over this, but basically because the World Bank is a development agency, not a war agency. Not that the WB is a perfect institution, but to have this guy directing it might end up being a disaster. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and point out to articles talking about the mistakes and corruption in these types of institutions, it's just my opinion. And I believe Bush today talked about him being compassionate? here we go again. The least compassionate people on earth talking about compassion.
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
And I believe Bush today talked about him being compassionate? here we go again. The least compassionate people on earth talking about compassion.
he is concerned about oil prices though!
"I'm concerned about what it means to the average American family when they see the price of gasoline going up,"
(it means they're going to be broke, asshole)
-
amazing... virtually everything Wolfowitz predicted in the planning stages about the Iraq war turned out to be wrong, from it being a "cakewalk," to only needing 30,000 troops to keep the peace after the invasion, to the Iraqis welcoming us with flowers.
If this were private industry, he'd have been fired, but since it's an ideology-blinded administration, he gets promoted.
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Wolfowitz's career experience is not limited to his time at DoD. Also, McNamara was at Defense before leading the Bank for 13 years, so this isn't unprecedented.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
I'm not going to get into any argument over this, but basically because the World Bank is a development agency, not a war agency. Not that the WB is a perfect institution, but to have this guy directing it might end up being a disaster. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and point out to articles talking about the mistakes and corruption in these types of institutions, it's just my opinion. And I believe Bush today talked about him being compassionate? here we go again. The least compassionate people on earth talking about compassion.
[/b]
I don't know enough about the World Bank to make a reasonable/well thought out post. I guess it really depends on whether or not you believe Wolfowitz will be someone who has the world's best interests at heart, rather than simply another crony tool in a place that allows Bush to leverage power in the direction he wants to.
At least it's not the WTO.
-
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
I thought Bono was getting that job?
He can pretty much forget about any of that forgiving-of-third-world-debt nonsense now.
-
Why?
Wolfowitz was one of the biggest proponents of forgiving all Iraqi debts, on the basis that these were "odious debts" incurred not by the people, but by the leaders who used the funds for weapons and palaces, not development.
Originally posted by eros:
He can pretty much forget about any of that forgiving-of-third-world-debt nonsense now.
-
"Under Wolfowitz, the Bush administration may now try to narrow the focus of the World Bank, returning the international lending institution to its roots of primarily financing large
infrastructure projects and limiting the practice of handing out zero-interest loans, analysts such as Alan Meltzer, who led a
2000 congressional inquiry into the World Bank, said."
Build damns=good, HIPC Relief Initiative=Bad.
ps: HIPC=Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
So did Alberto Gonzales get the Human Rights Watch post or what?
-
I think that Wolfowitz will lean toward his NeoCon beliefs and will probably try to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of failed states or oppressive regimes deemed to be threatening to the US or its interests.
I think it's better to try to do that through the allocation of development funds than through the military.
Originally posted by j_lee:
I don't know enough about the World Bank to make a reasonable/well thought out post. I guess it really depends on whether or not you believe Wolfowitz will be someone who has the world's best interests at heart, rather than simply another crony tool in a place that allows Bush to leverage power in the direction he wants to.
At least it's not the WTO.
-
Of course Wolfowitz is a proponent of forgiving Iraqi debt! We invaded the country and now essentially own it (despite the puppet government), that debt is in a sense *our* debt.
Originally posted by ggw?:
Why?
Wolfowitz was one of the biggest proponents of forgiving all Iraqi debts, on the basis that these were "odious debts" incurred not by the people, but by the leaders who used the funds for weapons and palaces, not development.
Originally posted by eros:
He can pretty much forget about any of that forgiving-of-third-world-debt nonsense now.
[/b]
-
Did anyone watch the Simpsons on Sunday?? Condoleeza would've learned a thing or two..
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
I think it's better to try to do that through the allocation of development funds than through the military.
first wise thing I've ever seen you say!
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
I think it's better to try to do that through the allocation of development funds than through the military.
Let's see how he accomplishes this first before we start singing his praises for the concept. I see his development dollars pouring in after military action at this point.
-
At the top, the WB functions a lot like the Pentagon. It's all about getting someone to buy something big they don't need for the profit of certain well-connected US companies. The only difference is that the Pentagon gets Congress to buy things and the WB gets developing nations to buy things. How about a brand new hospital from Bechtel, that 99% of your population can't get access to, and after you get into debt for it you won't have any money for medications
-
Agreed.
Wolfowitz is not one of my favorite people, but most of this thread was simply complaints about the nomination without anyone actually explaining why this was a bad choice (beyond his being part of the Bush Administration, which, in some circles, is ample condemnation).
I think that the NeoCons have relied largely on military action because they have, thus far, been relegated to Defense Department posts and had no other avenue for pursuing their agenda. Putting Wolfowitz in the Bank may change that (or it may not). We'll both have to wait and see.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Let's see how he accomplishes this first before we start singing his praises for the concept. I see his development dollars pouring in after military action at this point.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by ggw?:
I think it's better to try to do that through the allocation of development funds than through the military.
Let's see how he accomplishes this first before we start singing his praises for the concept. I see his development dollars pouring in after military action at this point. [/b]
Sure, lets pour development dollars into the reconstruction of Iraq...yet who benefits of those huge contracts??? Halliburton for one...
-
Originally posted by Fico:
Sure, lets pour development dollars into the reconstruction of Iraq...yet who benefits of those huge contracts??? Halliburton for one...
someone has to build more things for people to blow up!!!!
-
i wrote an op-ed for our president here last month about selecting a new world bank chief, here are some thoughts from an environmental/development think-tank that works closely with the WB: (excerpted from a larger piece)
---------------
With the resignation of current World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn, the United States has a rare opportunity to set a new course for the developing world by appointing an inventive and effective leader who can manage the sprawling organization while leading an inspirational effort to help the poor lift themselves up and compete in global markets.
As the leader of the preeminent institution in development assistance, the World Bank??s president wields extraordinary power over both financial resources and conventional wisdom in the field. For example, Wolfensohn broke the taboo against discussing the effect of corruption on development, a topic deemed ??too political? for World Bank attention only a decade ago.
....
A combination of international development and management experience is essential for the next World Bank president. This is not a field for amateurs. Leaders with flashy private-sector credentials and a limited understanding of international development issues have flopped in the past, and we must learn from these missteps. The business of development is difficult and complex, and lives literally depend on its effective implementation.
The key to alleviating poverty and leveling the playing field for developing nations may be found, as the World Bank??s own analysis demonstrates, in environmental sustainability. Poor people are more likely to be exposed to contaminated air and water, to lose their livelihoods when ecosystems collapse, and to be affected by ??natural? disasters caused by environmental mismanagement.
While the World Bank??s own environmental record is by no means spotless, it has been an important source in many countries of the information, analysis, and finance necessary to address environmental challenges. In some countries, the Bank has also prodded reluctant governments to seek input on environmental decisions from civil society groups and the broader public.
It is clear that climate change will be a major threat to poor communities in the years to come. The tsunami etched a grim map of coastal areas that would also likely be affected by sea-level rise and stronger storms associated with the widely accepted forecasts of global warming.
....
A credible candidate for the next president of the World Bank must also demonstrate a record of transparency in his or her professional career. If both the Bank and client governments are to be held accountable for the effectiveness of their efforts, transparency and information disclosure need to be essential components of their work. While the Bank has made significant progress towards these goals under Wolfensohn, processes ranging from deliberations of the Bank??s board of directors to negotiation of private sector concession agreements remain shrouded in secrecy.
Transparency and information disclosure is particularly important now that the Bank, is experimenting with reliance on national systems ?? as an alternative to the Bank??s own safeguards ?? to protect vulnerable human communities and fragile ecosystems from harm caused by Bank-financed projects. Unless such trials are open to public scrutiny, we risk a return to the days of environmental destruction and social disruption caused in the name of efficient development.
....
The Bush administration has a golden opportunity to prove that its overtures regarding multilateralism and economic development for the poor are truly substantial strides by appointing an experienced manager from the development field who has demonstrated commitments to openness and environmental sustainability as the next World Bank president.
-
Originally posted by Fico:
Sure, lets pour development dollars into the reconstruction of Iraq...yet who benefits of those huge contracts??? Halliburton for one...
My understanding is that Halliburton has contracts with the US government, while the World Bank Iraq reconstruction funds exclude all oil and security projects.
-
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?
-
Scott Stapp
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?
-
Originally posted by ggw?:
Scott Stapp
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?
[/b]
I wonder what Scott is up to these days ...
-
Probably on an internet chatboard, wasting valuable work time, talking about the World Bank.
Or maybe at the mall, trying to pick up teenagers.
Originally posted by HoyaSaxa03:
Originally posted by ggw?:
Scott Stapp
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?
[/b]
I wonder what Scott is up to these days ... [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?
<img src="http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Ashcroft_singing.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
Or maybe at the mall, trying to pick up teenagers.
at Hot Topic maybe?
-
Originally posted by eros:
Originally posted by O'Mankie:
I thought Bono was getting that job?
He can pretty much forget about any of that forgiving-of-third-world-debt nonsense now. [/b]
Why doesn't the twat just pay it all himself with all the tax he's not paying in Ireland?
-
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3763922 (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3763922)
A hawk to ruffle the World Bank's feathers
Mar 17th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda
George Bush has nominated Paul Wolfowitz, one of the main architects of the Iraq war, to run the World Bank. Though this is normally America??s prerogative, Europeans and others may object to the candidacy of so hawkish a figure
FOREIGNERS can be forgiven for not knowing what to make of George Bush in his second term. On one hand, he and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, have made mollifying trips to Europe, trying to reassure America??s oldest allies that despite the Iraq war, it wants to remain friends. On the other hand, contrition is not one of Mr Bush??s strongest characteristics. Last week he nominated John Bolton, one of the State Department??s leading hawks and an outspoken critic of the United Nations, to be America??s ambassador to the UN. With Europeans still scratching their heads about that choice, Mr Bush has surprised them again by nominating Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, to head the World Bank.
By tradition, the Europeans name the head of the International Monetary Fund, and the Americans pick the boss of the World Bank. This arrangement worked well for some time, but five years ago America blocked the Europeans?? choice to run the IMF, Caio Koch-Weser, and the job eventually went to Horst Köhler (who has since become Germany??s president).
Will the Europeans now try to block the controversial Mr Wolfowitz? Reuters news agency reported on Wednesday March 16th, the day the nomination was announced, that Mr Wolfowitz??s name had already been unofficially floated among members of the Bank??s board, and rejected. The reaction to his nomination in Europe ranged from mildly positive to hostile. As Germany's development minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, put it: ??Enthusiasm in old Europe is rather limited.? But there may be little the Europeans can do to stop Mr Wolfowitz taking the Bank's reins, as America is its biggest shareholder and the second-biggest, Japan, has backed Mr Bush's man.
At a press conference on Wednesday, the president described his nominee as ??a compassionate, decent man? and a ??skilled diplomat?. Mr Wolfowitz, who is currently America??s deputy secretary of defence, has had several stints in government. In the late 1980s he was America's ambassador to Indonesia, where he came to love the culture of the world??s most populous Muslim country.
But Mr Wolfowitz is also a favoured bogeyman of critics of the Iraq war. He is the best known of the ??neoconservatives?, a group of Washington policymakers who believe that American power must be used to spread democracy and American values. He was a passionate advocate of moving against Iraq soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, believing not only that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that the lack of democracy in the Middle East was a key reason why the region had become a breeding ground for terrorism.
If Mr Wolfowitz was controversial in the run-up to the war, he has become even more so since. In late 2003, he signed a memorandum banning Pentagon contracts for Iraq??s reconstruction being given to countries that had opposed the war. Moreover, his pre-war estimates for how much the conflict would cost and how many troops it would require turned out to be wildly optimistic??as was his prediction that Iraqis would welcome coalition forces as liberators.
A revolution in development?
At the World Bank, Mr Wolfowitz will be dealing not with tank divisions and theories of deterrence but rather with using America??s ??soft power? to tackle poverty. Two well-known development economists, Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz, have bemoaned his nomination, as have the world's aid agencies. But Mr Wolfowitz's lack of experience in the development community does not necessarily make him a bad candidate. Having served under Donald Rumsfeld during the controversial ??Revolution in Military Affairs?, Mr Wolfowitz might, some argue, be well placed to bring radical change to an organisation sorely in need of it.
The World Bank has spent much of the past decade responding to charges that its funding did little to achieve its primary mission: helping developing countries to grow their way out of poverty. The conventional wisdom is that aid is of little benefit unless the recipient country is a model of political and economic rectitude. These are hard qualities to find in a developing nation, and many complained that the Bank wasn??t looking very hard, preferring the showy headlines of massive infrastructure projects to the tedious slog of gradual poverty reduction.
James Wolfensohn, the Bank??s outgoing president, has worked hard to ensure better allocation of its funds during his decade at the helm. More money now goes to countries with good policies than bad. And he has placed more emphasis on fighting poverty, less on dams and superhighways to nowhere. But the Bank still lends lots of money to middle-income countries that arguably don??t need it, and to poor ones that can??t use it because their governments steal or squander any funds that come their way.
Mr Wolfowitz has certainly demonstrated that he can articulate and put into practice a bold vision. But some worry that his desire to push democracy sits uncomfortably with the Bank's mission. His belief in the power of political freedom will colour his views of economic development as well. But is this the right agenda for the Bank, whose job is to spread prosperity? And the relationship between democratic reform and poverty alleviation is complicated. The most successful poverty reduction in the past generation, after all, is in communist China.
A related worry is that Mr Wolfowitz will not be able to separate himself from the White House. It is perhaps instructive to look at the history of another man who came out of America??s defence department to head the World Bank: Robert McNamara, who as defence secretary was an architect of the Vietnam war. Mr McNamara was accused of picking aid recipients based on their support for America??s foreign policy, rather than their suitability for assistance.
Mr Wolfowitz's nomination may be as important for what it says about the Bush administration as for the future of the Bank itself. Is the administration trying to show Europe, as some have claimed, that America doesn't care what its allies think? Perhaps. But there is a more heartening possibility: that Mr Bush is sending out his trusted deputies to the World Bank and the UN because he is interested in getting things done in the global arena.
A boost for the latter theory came on Thursday, when Mr Bush nominated a new trade representative to replace Robert Zoellick. His nominee, Rob Portman, comes with strong credentials. A trade lawyer before becoming a congressman, representing Ohio, he has served on the House Ways and Means subcommittee on trade. He looks like the administration's best bet for pushing the Central America Free Trade Agreement through Congress. It will also be a lot easier to salvage the Doha round of world trade talks if America's top trade representative can finesse his country's legislators.
This does not, of course, erase concerns about just whose team Mr Wolfowitz is playing on. But it is a hopeful sign that the coach has his eyes on the right prize.
-
What's more disturbing is this trend developing of World Bank leaders having "Wolf" in their surnames. Coincidence? I think not.
-
My take on all of this is that the powers that be have decided to take over the Middle East by hook or by crook with the hook being the military and the crook being the banks.
-
nah, the World Bank's mission is poverty reduction, not world domination, despite what patchouli-drenched neo-hippies will tell you.
As for the Economist article about Europeans being confused about what to expect from Bush in a second term, between appointments like this, and the sweet talk coming from Condi -- actions speak louder than words. Bush did the same thing in the first term, appointing insane radicals like Ashcroft even as he was talking about "compassionate conservatism." Ignore the talk.