Dismay at Wolfowitz's nomination

[Gav]

Dismay at Wolfowitz's nomination

What do you think? The consensus round here ....

[esskreemr]

This comes as no surprise. Bush is merely trying to place his cabinet of neo-con s in positions of power that are better suited to advance the notion of the "iron-fist of democracy".

Sooooo... any takers on what will cause the next world war and when?

[scrapinpeg]

Wolfowitz has a proven track record of getting results from large organizations, effective management, and diplomatic experience.

His proactive nature would of course have put him in the hawks' nest while he was with the DoD.

But that same proactivity could do wonders for this agency, which desperately needs to do more to lift the burden of poverty throughout the developing world.

With respect to spreading the "iron fist of democracy" (what an insane phrase)... As is widely recognized, much of the world's poverty is the direct result of the looting, corruption and inefficiencies of dictatorial governments, which tend to misappropriate aid as well. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the agency under his leadership makes efforts to give bad governments financial incentives to shape up. And I fail to see how this is a bad thing to be feared.

We're handing out OUR money, to improve the lives of people who desperately need help. What's wrong with imposing conditions on such gifts in order to ensure that the people who need the help actually GET it?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

We're handing out OUR money, to improve the lives of people who desperately need help. What's wrong with imposing conditions on such gifts in order to ensure that the people who need the help actually GET it?

At what point do you draw the line?

Charity is supposed to be given freely; unconditionally; without strings.

I'll leave that aside as that is not really what we are discussing.

These conditions, what are they? If their religion differs from yours do you insist that they change it? If their customs or dress differs do you ask them to change? Where do you draw the line? The solution for one country does not fit another.

You might find this interesting.

Also, this ... poverty has never been caused by outside governments (and lets not forget large corporations) meddling in the internal affairs of others?

[Philistine]

Interesting parallel that Johnson nominated MacNamara as Head of the World Bank.

--Philistine

[Have At You]

You blame poverty on outside governments and corporations "meddling"? Are you insane? What you call "meddling" is called "development" and "capital infusion" and "charity."

But as to the World Bank:

A recent bipartisan report, with prominant liberals among the authors, found that 70% of the World Bank's non-aid funds go to countries that don't need it, that have easy access to capital markets. The rest "remain poor because their political system is unstable, private property rights are very limited, the judicial system is weak or subservient, or the government is corrupt," and that assistance to such countries "at best provides relief [and] at worst . . . supports corruption or programs that waste scarce local and external resources."

The report was very disapproving of the way the World Bank worked. It found "weak counterbalance to the incentive to lend" and "no penalties for project failure." By the Bank's own evaluations, 59% of its investment programs in the 1990s failed. Although Bank lending doubled over 30 years, to $32.5 billion in 1999, by then it only provided 2% of overall private sector capital flows to developing countries -- a statistically irrelevant figure.

The World Bank, in short, is in desperate need of new strong leadership. To be effective, it is widely recognized that the World Bank must demand "good governance" from the countries it lends money to. It's not there just to be a feel-good donation machine, it's there to put an end to devastating poverty.

Wolfowitz has significant experience in the developing world, knows what the problems are in the countries that cause poverty, and has a good record for getting results. I fail to see how he could be worse than the outgoing head of the WB, who has spent his tenure whining instead of fixing the problems that make the WB ineffective and irrelevant.

Is Wolfowitz going to upset other countries? Of course. But I for one am surprised that Bush nominated him, because it means that Bush actually takes the WB seriously enough to want to fix it up.

[Gav]

While I'm looking at BBC news:

Wolfowitz seeks to calm critics
Wolfowitz to spread neo-con gospel
In quotes: Wolfowitz reaction

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Have At You

You blame poverty on outside governments and corporations "meddling"? Are you insane? What you call "meddling" is called "development" and "capital infusion" and "charity."

I never said anything of the sort.

[scrapinpeg]

What exactly is a "neo-con"?

I haven't found a reliable definition, and it's high time I made the effort to understand what people are talking about. Some places I've seen it used, it seems to be just a euphemism for "jewish," while other places seem to use it to mean "reactionary," and others use it to mean "progressive." I'm probably just confused, which wouldn't be the first time!

[Have At You]

Originally Posted by Gav

I never said anything of the sort.

APOLOGIES!!!!!

I caught the error and fixed it, but too late. You read fast!

[Larrison]

I think its an interesting nomination -- and one after thinking about a while, that I support.

Let's go back and look at how effective the World Bank has been. After the international financial meltdowns in the 1990s, its been reported (Metzler A. (Dir.), Report of the International Financial Advisory Commission,
Washington, 2000) that 70% of the World Bank's "non-aid" funds go to 11 countries which already have easy access to world capital markets, including such countries as China, Mexico, Brazil and Thailand.

The smaller countries which really do need better access to international financial capital markets, such as World Bank, haven't been really helped by World Bank projects. In many cases the World Bank has been funding projects pushed for prestige purposes and for personal enrichment of the elites of the countries, and have turned out to be not very useful, not sustained by follow-on economic activities, and tend to promote corruption and waste of local and international resources. At best these projects provide short term relief through low-level jobs projects -- which is not why the World Bank was set up.

By the World Bank's own asessment, 59% of its investment programs in the 1990s failed (this is out of the 2000 Metzler report)

The emphasis from Wolfowitz seems to be to focus on investments to produce development to encourage betterment in other countries, particularly those which need it. Mr Wolfowitz told the Financial Times (17 Mar) "This is not about changing the agenda of the World Bank. The agenda of the World Bank is about poverty reduction, about helping billions of people lift themselves up out of misery. ... Problems like poverty and HIV/AIDS need to be addressed for their own sake as humanitarian issues, but it's also the case that soundly-based economic development supports the advance of liberty and freedom as well."

In the US, his nomination has been strongly supported by Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat), and Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who is the opposition (Democratic Party) voice on foreign policy described Wolfowitz, as a man with an "active and fertile mind" who believes in the work of multilateral institutions. Asked for his reaction to the selection, Biden responded with one word: "Solid."

The outgoing head of the World Bank James Wolfensohn (nominated by Bill Clinton, I believe in 1995) said of Wolfowitz ''He is a person of high intellect, integrity and broad experience both in the public and private sectors, and has qualifications that would be critical to leading the bank.

Internationally, Japan has said it gives "full support" to Wolfowita, and China has stated he is "someone they can work with".

Wolfowitz's background is that he was US Ambassador to Indonesia, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific, held other diplomatic posts in East Asia, and has been deputy secretary of the Department of Defense. These are not lightweight positions, including both opertational and political positions.

My personal opinion? Not a bad nominee --

[scrapinpeg]

I just saw the lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal (I know, I know...) that makes a lot of the same points as people have made here. It ends with this little observation:

"In fact, it is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. And it seems to us that if anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein. "

[Larrison]

Whoa -- active discussion.

My opinion specifically? The world bank is not an aid organization -- money spent by the WB is expected to be *invested* in economic development projects, that produce tangible economic development results. Else you'd be getting money from USAID or other organizations. The emphasis on WB investments has to producing long term results to move people out of poverty, and the majority of funds and projects should be with countries that don't have good access to world capital markets, which can be from a variety of reasons.

The past decade the World Bank has not been very effective -- a lot of their projects and money have been wasted on political fixes and have in many cases enriched the elites of the country, while not providing long-term development to aid the rest of the citizens of countries which needed development. Heck, the WB hasn't even had outside auditors look at their books for about a decade....

Perhaps shaking the organization up a bit might be a good thing...

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

What exactly is a "neo-con"?

I haven't found a reliable definition, and it's high time I made the effort to understand what people are talking about. Some places I've seen it used, it seems to be just a euphemism for "jewish," while other places seem to use it to mean "reactionary," and others use it to mean "progressive." I'm probably just confused, which wouldn't be the first time!

Isn't a Neo Con a Neo Liberal with a right wing (read conservative) agenda? Meaning, someone who espouses a theoretical approach that advocates economic solutions to political problems, while at the same time eschewing sociological, psychological and anthropological explanations to those same problems.

In other words, someone who is extremely narrow minded.

[scrapinpeg]

Well, that's a new one. Haven't seen that definition before. Adding it to the list!

I'm starting to think that "neo-con" is just a generic derogatory phrase for people with an agenda one disagrees with. But is there a real definition out there?

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Larrison

Whoa -- active discussion.

My opinion specifically? The world bank is not an aid organization -- money spent by the WB is expected to be *invested* in economic development projects, that produce tangible economic development results. Else you'd be getting money from USAID or other organizations. The emphasis on WB investments has to producing long term results to move people out of poverty, and the majority of funds and projects should be with countries that don't have good access to world capital markets, which can be from a variety of reasons.

The past decade the World Bank has not been very effective -- a lot of their projects and money have been wasted on political fixes and have in many cases enriched the elites of the country, while not providing long-term development to aid the rest of the citizens of countries which needed development. Heck, the WB hasn't even had outside auditors look at their books for about a decade....

Perhaps shaking the organization up a bit might be a good thing...

The world bank is not there to help developing countries develop as much as it is there to bail out investment bankers who made really bad loans to developing countries. Look at the case of Argentina...while I readily recognize that the problems there were caused by the rampant corruption in the argentine political elite...the frequent infusions from the world bank came not to help the argentines, but basically to make argentina's debt due not to wall street, but to the world bank.

The world bank saves investor's money, not the local population...

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by Have At You

You blame poverty on outside governments and corporations "meddling"? Are you insane? What you call "meddling" is called "development" and "capital infusion" and "charity."

You cannot deny that there has been true meddling in world politics before. Although I'm sure that there are thousands of examples, let me cite you a few that I know especially well:

Henry Kissinger's support for pinochet's overthrow of Allende in chile AFTER the chileans, people with the longest democratic tradition in south america, elected Allende their president. Pinochet was a long time supporter of Milton Friedman, the guy who invented neo liberalism. (the 70's)

John Negroponte's alliance with the top 14 Salvadorean Families to wipe out "left wing insurgencies" (read a bunch of starving peasants) who wanted to redistribute the land. (the 80's)

The American Standard fruit company's support for a series of "presidents" in Honduras and Nicaragua that supported building all sorts of infrastructure that would aid the banana trade. (the 50's??? not sure...)

there are tons of examples...

[Svidrigailov]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Well, that's a new one. Haven't seen that definition before. Adding it to the list!

I'm starting to think that "neo-con" is just a generic derogatory phrase for people with an agenda one disagrees with. But is there a real definition out there?

Of course....it is one of the hallmark features of the american right to think that anyone who does not support them is against them.

I know people who proudly call themselves neo-cons.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

What exactly is a "neo-con"?

I haven't found a reliable definition, and it's high time I made the effort to understand what people are talking about. Some places I've seen it used, it seems to be just a euphemism for "jewish," while other places seem to use it to mean "reactionary," and others use it to mean "progressive." I'm probably just confused, which wouldn't be the first time!

From Wikipedia (so take it for what it's worth:

Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization.

Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and a greater acceptance of the welfare state.

Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by the self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right. Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues.

As a rule, the term refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Heritage Foundation or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review. The neoconservatives, often dubbed the neocons by supporters and critics alike, are credited with or blamed for influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present). Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative.

There is a great deal more there, as well.

--Philistine

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by Svidrigailov

The world bank is not there to help developing countries develop as much as it is there to bail out investment bankers who made really bad loans to developing countries. Look at the case of Argentina...while I readily recognize that the problems there were caused by the rampant corruption in the argentine political elite...the frequent infusions from the world bank came not to help the argentines, but basically to make argentina's debt due not to wall street, but to the world bank.

The world bank saves investor's money, not the local population...

Don't you mean the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and not the world bank?