January 14, 2006
La Paz Effect: Latin Tremors
The ripple effects of Evo Morales’ election as President of Bolivia are continuing to be felt throughout Latin America—most poignantly in the ongoing dissection of the economic reform model known as the ‘Washington consensus’ that was one of Morales’ favorite targets.
Bolivia was supposed to be a laboratory for the ‘consensus’ economic reform model of tight social spending and export-oriented growth. But it was those who perceived themselves as 'disenfranchised' from those policies--millions of small farmers, urban poor and the country’s large indigenous population--who put Morales into the presidential palace in La Paz, and toppled whatever remaining legitimacy for the ‘consensus’ remained within the continent. Shortly after Morales’ election, Argentine president Nestor Kirchner announced that he would pay off the country’s outstanding $9.8 billion debt to the International Monetary Fund, thus unhinging the country from IMF/World Bank constraints; a left candidate for the Peruvian presidency, Ollanta Humalla, surged into second place in the polls; and the Zapatistas, in Mexico over new years, launched “the other campaign” in parallel to that country’s presidential race to highlight issues of indigenous rights--an effort widely perceived as having received a considerable boost from the election results in Bolivia. By January 14, the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo featured a debate between John Williamson, the U.S. economist, affiliated with the Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, considered to be one of the primary architects of what’s become known as the Washington Consensus; and José Luis Machinea, Secretary General of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean at the United Nations, over what, if anything, remains of the “Consensus’.
The changes in Latin America—long in the works, but also intensified by Morales’ election—are not merely ones of rhetoric. Even John Williamson admitted that the World Bank made mistakes in not paying enough attention to the ‘social factors” involved in economic reform. The “Washington consensus,” a complex set of policies so tied to the United States that they bear the name of our nation’s capital, is unraveling just as quickly as a new term is being introduced to suggest a somewhat more welcome economic power in Latin Power: “Chindia,” the combined economic might of India and China. The turn of many Latin countries east—toward Asia as well as toward the European Union—has gone largely un-reported in the United States. But, El Tiempo suggests, such new trading partners offer not only growing and increasingly affluent markets, but none of the political baggage associated with the long history of U.S. intervention in the region:
“Since the end of the communist system in the USSR, the United States has been dreaming of a world dominated by one superpower: the U.S. That is not coming to pass.
The rapid transformation of China into an economic power, with India following in its footprints, signifies that the U.S. better prepare for a different future, one in which it will have to understand how to share power among others like never before. It’s a change that will not be easy.”
Posted 06:32 PM | Comments (0)
December 06, 2005
A new rendition
The Guardian runs a story about how the Bush Administration's much-touted European offensive appears to be faltering already a day into Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's visit.
Focusing on the legal defenses of the administration, the reporter repeatedly mentions how Rice continues to frame the debate in terms of rendition, or the transportation of alleged terrorists to clandestine sites where they are suspected of being tortured outside the bounds of any legal system.
One of the most gaping flaws in the use of rendition, according to some legal experts, is the claim that it was "necessary in instances where local governments did not have the capacity to prosecute a terror suspect, or in cases where al-Qaida members were operating in remote areas far from an operational justice system."
But the suspects were generally all obtained in dense urban, and therefore infrastructurally sound environments for legal prosecution. One, of course, can argue whether Karachi, and therefore Pakistan, is a suitable location for the due process of law to be enacted, but either way Rice's logic appears to be loosening in the wake of international criticism over such methods.
Interestingly, this and other sources in the European press appear to be unable to ascertain what Washington's (self-admittedly) unique definition of torture is.
Posted 01:38 AM | Comments (0)
November 18, 2005
Terminator IV: Massive Political Impact (as pitched by Matt Ogdie and Keli Dailey)
"If I would do another 'Terminator' movie, I would
have 'Terminator' travel back in time to tell Arnold not to have a
special election," Schwarzenegger told reporters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/11/MNGFMFMNV21.DTL
--
Let's make another Terminator movie, send the Terminator back in time and tell Ghandi and Neru that the Great Migration was going to cost ~30 million lives. The Terminator strongly advises them to take the necessary precautions!
Or
Let's make another Terminator movie, send the Terminator back in time and inform Lloyd George and the political aristocracies of Europe that the Treaty of Versailles would lead to the rise of Nazi Germany and so predominate the historical landscape of the 20th century that it is impossible to separate the Cold War from it's ill-effects.
Or
Let's make another Terminator movie, send the Terminator T-1000 back in time and tell that stupid jerk Reagan that he could engage the Soviets in a catastrophic financial contest without actually spending trillions of dollars on nuclear warheads that we are currently spending trillions of dollars dismantling and tracking as they inevitably bleed into the black market.
Or ...and this could already be in production…
Let's make another Terminator movie, send the Terminator back in time and send him to Iraq, where he would kick some serious Al-Qaeda ass, befriend a little Kurdish boy who brings out the human spirit in his Terminator source code, which emerges in time for him to sacrifice his cyborg life in order to kill Osama bin Laden in some FANTASTIC way that has lots of explosions..more explosions than anybody's ever seen on film!!!!
Why not just have the Terminator arrest Osama before 9/11? Or inform the authorities? It's a Jerry Bruckheimer film, for chrissake.
Posted 10:22 PM | Comments (0)
October 31, 2005
The world consensus on Bernanke
If the designation of Paul Wolfowitz as the head of the World bank, or John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, and more recently Samuel Alito as the candidate for Supreme Court justice are controversial in the European press, the consensus is much stronger for the choice of the Federal Reserve’s president, Ben Bernanke. Of course, the French newspapers insist on the friendship between Bernanke and Bush (le Figaro) But at least, comments Le Monde, the President “did not repeat the error made with the nomination of Harriet Miers at the Supreme Court.”
With Bernanke, the Bush administration “chose the most consensual candidate”, “the minimum risk strategy,” insists the Parisian newspaper.
“He is an experienced economist who has a lot of practice,” states L’Expansion “He imposed himself as one of the best specialists of the monetary policy,” insists Liberation. “If he is considered as a moderate Republican, Bernanke will have to reassure on his independance vis-a-vis the Bush administration,” says Le Figaro, which describes him as “a little bit too much academic.” It is not easy to succeed to Alan Greenspan, who is often considered “the greatest central banker of every time,” recalls Liberation
He has committed to act in the continuity of his predecessor, but there is some confusion in the analyses. If his research on the Great Depression and more recenty on the risks of deflation in the United States has designated him as a dove, all commentators state that Bernanke will be much more orthodox than his predecessor. He will most probably opt for the fight against inflation which, ironically, brings him closer to the positions of the...European Central Bank.
Francoise Delstanche
Journalist
Posted 10:42 PM | Comments (0)
October 23, 2005
Who will run the Internet?
The US conception of security seems to be mostly military and mostly national. Yet, one of the most debated issue about security today concerns the control of the Internet.
Foreign Affairs runs a detailed article titled "Who will control the Internet?". We're approaching the second phase of the UN's World Summit on the Information Society and the controversy over who control the Internet has never been so heated.
"The Internet is now coordinated by a private-sector nonprofit organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which was set up by the United States in 1998. [...] Many governments feel that, like the phone network, the Internet should be administered under a multilateral treaty. ICANN, in their view, is an instrument of American hegemony over cyberspace."
Also, many governments are bothered that such a vital resource exists outside their control. China, for example, has recently tightened its restrictions for news media on the Internet. Everyone understands that the Internet is a crucial resource not only for the functioning of economy, society and government but also for the spreading of democracy. It could be interesting starting to compare the attitudes of different countries on the Internet regulations, since they are always interrelated with personal freedom. To get more information about this, we could start looking at "Censorship" and "Internet access" on the Wikipedia.
Posted 01:36 PM | Comments (0)
October 18, 2005
Evolving security issues
“Most forms of political violence have declined significantly since the end of the Cold War,” states a recent report published by the Human Security Center under the title Human Security Report: War and Peace in the 21st Century.
The situation has improved significantly since 1990 and the end of the Cold War. The report finds a reduction of 80% in genocides, 40% in the number of conflicts, 30% in the number of refugees. The number of deaths in each conflict is declining significantly but the proportion of civilians in relation to combatants is much higher today than it was 20 years ago. (See graphics here).
Human security is a relatively new concept. “Unlike traditional concepts of security, which focus on defending borders from external military threats, human security is concerned with the security of individuals,” explains the Center. It is linked to the Canadian Consortium on Human Security which is funded by the Human Security Program of the Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC).
The French daily Le Monde asked Gareth Evans, chief executive of the International Crisis Group, to comment on the report.
The International Crisis Group is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization working to prevent and resolve deadly conflict. It is chaired by the former European Commissioner for External Relations Lord Patten of Barnes.
An ex Australian Foreign Minister, Evans sees three major threats for today’s world:
- The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
- Terrorism;
- “The loss of influence of the notion of international order due to the American administration discourse according to which the world does not need the U.N.”
It is obviously linked to the fact that the Human Security Center Report summarizes its finding by saying that, among other elements, “the best explanation for this decline is the huge upsurge of conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding activities that were spearheaded by the United Nations in the aftermath of the Cold War.”
Interestingly enough the title of Le Monde’s interview only says “Two dangers: Nuclear proliferation, and terrorism.”
Posted 12:43 PM | Comments (0)
October 16, 2005
Bangladesh Tastes Bolivia's Revolt
Will the breakneck speed of trade liberalization, as
prescribed by the IMF and WB, push Bangladesh toward a
street revolution a la Bolivia? That’s the warning of
AJM Shafiul Alam Bhuiyan, a professor in the
Department of Mass Communication and Journalism at
University of Dhaka, in an editorial in
">The Daily Star,the country's largest English language daily newspaper.
“In recent years Bangladesh has become an ideal place for
international money lenders such as the IMF and WB,” he writes.
The adoption of neo-liberal policies, Bhuiyan cautions, has
already resulted in big blows to the nation’s economy.
The closing down of one of the largest and long
standing jute mills in the country, for example, cost
thousands of people their jobs, effectively destroying
the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of their
dependents.
The history of the IMF and WB policies in Latin
America are a bracing wake up call for Bangladesh and
other developing countries, the author says, tracing
the history of peasant uprisings in Bolivia. “If the
government [of Bangladesh] continues to adhere to IMF
and WB recommended policies, is the vision of a mass
of hungry and poor people seizing the capital like
Bolivians for food, education, shelter, and healthcare
in the near future out of the question?”
Others have echoed his cries. Rapid trade
liberalization, undertaken to appease the World Bank,
is costing Bangladesh dearly, slowing down its
economy, a former commerce minister, Tofail Ahmed,
recently told a trade expo.
DAVID MONTERO is a freelance journalist
currently based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. His writing has
appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, The Nation,
and Mother Jones, and other publications.
Posted 01:03 PM | Comments (0)
September 24, 2005
Two parallel world bodies?
A view from Paresh of the National Herald (New Delhi).
Posted 06:07 AM | Comments (0)
September 17, 2005
The World of Egoism
While President Bush continues to receive a flurry of responses after the delivery of his Gulf revitalization plan on Thursday night, the closing of the United Nations summit has Sueddeutsche Zeitung wondering about America's desire to reform a different kind of institution.
"The aversion to a multilateral policy, committee work, and alliance building so typical to the Bush Administration is reflected here," writes the Bavarian paper. Sueddeautsche specifically notes that John Bolton's tenure as ambassador to the body has already been marked by resistance to arms control and nonproliferation, and that such a course does not look to be ended anytime soon.
Instead, the US continues its steady drumbeat to the tune of terrorism, when "[t]he United Nations is union of 191 states, which pursue 191 political interests," not all of them thusly related.
The piece ends with a fairly downcast future of the world body and international government organizations in general by noting that it will take several years to revive agreements on a new security council, the definition of terrorism, a functioning human rights committee, and the principles of disarmament.
"Kofi Annan started as an eagle and now his feathers have been plucked."
Posted 01:46 AM | Comments (0)
May 27, 2005
Can a French “no” to the EU be a “yes” to the US?
To approve or not to aprove? What a question.
To be European, perchance to be anti-American?
It depends…
French are asked to vote on the EU Constitution this coming Sunday, and polls indicate a likely victory of the “no.” It comes after, among others, a Spanish “yes” that WorldAndUS has already commented.
Many reasons are given: opposition to Chirac and his Prime Minister, fear of Turkey’s possible membership, push of the nationalist extreme right (and of the old nationalist left), lack of social policy in the Carta Magna, anti-globalization sentiments, personal calculation by Laurent Fabius, the main advocate of the “no” inside the Socialist Party which has officially opted for the “yes,” etc.
The central argument for those who oppose the Constitution in the left is that it is too market-driven, that it neglects social issues.
Less obvious, the relation to the United States remains at stake.
“Has anti-Americanism become the Europeanism of the fools?” asks Philippe Corcuff, a professor of political science, in a column published by Le Monde on May 20th. To this question his answer is unmistakably “yes.”
Corcuff prefers « an American dream, a certain American dream. Not American imperialism, not the American elites’ arrogance, not the aseptic culture sold worldwide! The American dream such as it appears in the films that have fed our imaginaries.” Not the reality, just the dream.
He wants to weaken one of some pro-European arguments: the need, the will to stand as a “different” voice in today’s world.
The nature of this difference is subject to significant nuances. In today’s editorial Jean-Marie Colombani, Le Monde’s director, laments that after a “no” from France “Europe would certainly cease to be a ‘provocation’ to George Bush’s America.” An allusion to an exchange the US President had with Tony Blair in the summer of 2001 in which he took his British guest desire to see Europe succeed as a “provocation.”
The demographer and anthropologist Emmanuel Todd takes a broader approach in an interview published on March 27 in which he explains his intention to vote “yes”:
“[…] because I am aware of the geopolitical context, and of the need for a good European entente in a period in which the United States are adrift. France only has 60 million inhabitants and will loose some of its power in this 450 million Europeans set. But 60 million people are insufficient in front of the United States, India, and China. And I consider that there is a way to remain faithful to one’s nation while accepting not to believe that it is the center of the world.”
What do you think?
Posted 01:36 AM | Comments (0)
April 29, 2005
Dutch Foreign Minister Blunt on Bolton Nomination
Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot “does not quite understand” why newborn multilateralist George Bush picked John Bolton as his man at the UN. Minister Bot recently described Bolton as being ‘anti-UN’ and thought his nomination was at least ‘peculiar’ if not worse, reports the Dutch Elsevier Magazine on April 11th.
Certainly this is not the harshest criticism Bolton has had to face in the past few weeks, especially since he has been grilled by the United States Senate during his confirmation hearing. But what makes the statements of Minister Bot remarkable is that the Dutch government has for a long time been a staunch supporter of the Bush Administration on many important issues, such as the war in Iraq. The Dutch however always believed that in the end Bush would choose, or be forced to choose, multilateral solutions to international problems. That was what they were promised by Bush himself. But now, at the beginning of Bush’s second term in office, that promise seems about to be broken. Not only has Bolton always been very sceptical towards the UN, he has also been a fierce opponent of the International Criminal Court of which The Netherlands are the proud hosts. Minister Bot must fear that with Bolton at the UN, the ICC might once again come under heavy pressure.
Bot’s uncharacteristic bluntness regarding Bolton may not have much influence on Bolton’s nomination process, but the small rift in Dutch-US relations comes at a very awkward time. On the 7th and the 8th of May, President Bush will visit The Netherlands in order to attend a commemoration service at a cemetery for American casualties of the Second World War. The Dutch public is not very fond of Bush as it is, and with the added official criticism of his choice for the UN, Bush may find The Netherlands a very inhospitable country indeed.
Posted 10:05 AM | Comments (0)
April 22, 2005
The UN resolution on Darfur
When, on 31 March 2005, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1593 (2005)
After all, had the US taken its principled stance on the ICC, it could have vetoed the UN resolution sponsored by France. But the US decided to abstain, thus allowing the referral to the ICC of a situation that the Bush administration had no hesitation at labelling “genocide”.
In Africa, as elsewhere around the world, the US government has taken steps to ensure that the ICC does not exercise its jurisdiction over its citizens.
Strategies to include this objective go from : the enactment of legislation restricting cooperation with the ICC and with States that are parties to the ICC to the adoption of Security Council resolutions preventing the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties that are involved in UN authorised operation.
Given this background, the vote of the resolution on Darfur in the UN Security Council is seen by many as a compromise. Others have celebrated the resolution as a diplomatic success for Europe
Washington was able to win language saying that nations not party to the court would be exempt from prosecution over Sudan. But to secure a US abstention, supporters of the ICC option had to offer a broad exemption from prosecution for nationals of states that are not party to the Statute.
The Sudanese government has furiously rejected the resolution claiming that it “contradicts justice and objectivity and violates national sovereignty”, according to International Justice Tribune. President Omar al-Beshir of Sudan claimed that the UN has “ignored all norms of international legitimacy by exempting Americans…just because America is powerful…”, as reported in The Australian. This is hardly surprising.
Needless to say, there is widespread displeasure with language that the US insisted should be inserted in the resolution. Indeed, the question may be raised: are some peacekeepers better than others? The complaints of the government of Sudan – which calls upon the rule of law when it suits its interests - can only attract limited sympathy.
For what it is worth, though, this attitude suggests that ignorance of international law is not the problem in Sudan.
It is an irony of history that the US administration’s campaign against the ICC has helped raising public awareness of the Court and, in fact, bolstered the Court’s legitimacy.
Whatever the success or failure of the diplomatic efforts in New York, the ICC, armed with a ‘compromised’ mandate from the Security Council, will have a hard time at convincing the government of Sudan to cooperate.
By using threats, intimidation, and tremendous economic pressure to defend its policy on the ICC, the US administration has alienated many friends.
Posted 05:10 AM | Comments (0)
April 14, 2005
In Iraq, famine kills too
The French daily L'Humanite published an article on the 12th of April about Jean Ziegler's report on the right to food. Ziegler is the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. He wrote his report for the 61st session of the Commission on Human Rights, which takes place during this month in New York.
"In a world overflowing with riches, it is a outrageous scandal that more than 826 million people suffer hunger and malnutrition and that every year over 36 million die of starvation and related causes . We must take urgent action now."writes Jean Ziegler, and
"It is an outrage that more than 6 million small children are killed by hunger related diseases every year, in a world that is wealthier than ever before and that already produces enough food to feed the world’s population."
In his report, Ziegler underline the worrying situation in Iraq.
"The situation of the right to food in Iraq is also of serious concern, writes Ziegler. According to a study by John Hopkins University, 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Most died as a result of the violence, but many others died as a result of the increasingly difficult living conditions, reflected in increasing child mortality levels. More than a quarter of Iraqi children are suffering from chronic undernourishment, and acute malnutrition amongst Iraqi children under the age of 5 has almost doubled from 4 per cent to 7.7 per cent."The USA said that this assessment is wrong and asked for the resignation of Jean Ziegler, writes Ramine Abadie in L'Humanite. The USA accused the Special Rapporteur to "take his opinions for facts".
"it is the third time that they [the USA] ask for my departure", said Ziegler. "They asked for it after my reports on the situation in Palestinian occupied territories and on the GMO."
The Rapporteur also wanted to prepare a report on the food situation in Cuba during the US embargo... "But the US authorities categorically refused to receive me" said Ziegler.
Posted 03:08 PM | Comments (0)
April 13, 2005
Chile faces U.S. opposition in the OAS Election
The tie in the OAS election last Monday and the United States´ clear decision to back the Mexican candidate, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Ernest Derbez, and not his contender, Chile´s Interior Minister José Miguel Insulza has raised many questions in Chile about the country´ s relationship with the Bush Administration.
It is well-known that since September 11, the U.S. has called for greater intervention of multinational organizations such as the U.N or the OAS in troubled countries such as Haiti and Venezuela. It is such policy that led the Bush Administration to support the removal of former President Jean Bertrand Aristide in 2004 and to indirectly back up the attempt to depose leader Hugo Chavez in 2002.
And that’s where problems start for Chile. According to Peruvian analyst Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Chile’s friendly relationship with Chavez´ government has everything to do with the U.S. opposition to Chile’s leadership in the OAS.
“The reason (of the U.S. opposition) stands in the friendship that Chile has been forced to develop with Chavez government in this campaign to build a solid south American front in a context in which Bolivia was always ruled out, Perú was a tough cookie to crack and Paraguay - because of the Foreign Secretary’s aspiration to obtain the second most important position in an organization that assigns positions according to geography- was never taken into consideration. To Washington, this reality led Santiago to put Chavez in a position of “factotum” to the Chilean candidacy. Venezuela was sometimes more visible than Brazil in Insulza´s effort to obtain the support of the Caribbean countries”, Vargas LLosa wrote in the Chilean newspaper La Tercera, last Sunday.
The columnist added that in any circumstances the “Chavez factor” would have put U.S. support at risk, but that the situation is all the more delicate now that Caracas has ordered the acquisition of combat planes, helicopters, patrol ships and rifles from Brazil, Russia and Spain. Also, Venezuela increasing subsidies to Cuba has made the situation even more complicated.
The Venezuela factor, however, does not necessarily mean that Chile has already lost the election, says Vargas Llosa.
“Chile is the only Latin American country that has reduced its poverty level in the last decade and that offers to the continent an alternative “model” to the Andean chaos or to the revival of the populist left-wing. This logic indicates that there may be countries that will think twice before turning their back to Santiago”, says the analyst.
Posted 07:14 AM | Comments (0)
April 05, 2005
A Much Needed Diplomatic Success for Europe
"America always preaches the rule of law, but in the end it always places itself above the law", as a British ambassador expresses himself in Clyde Prestowitz’s Rogue Nation. This widespread feeling of American double standards now might be changing.
Thursday March 31st the United Nations Security Council voted to send any war crimes suspects from the Darfur region of Sudan to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, after the US obtained amendments to exempt Americans from the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The long-waged battle between the US and EU over the ICC thus led to a minor victory for the Europeans. Might this event signal a change of US foreign policy in a more multilateral direction?
American objections to the court are based on the view that it is unaccountable and could become a forum for politically motivated prosecutions against Americans abroad. The Clinton administration signed the 1998 Rome treaty setting up the court in December 2000 but the Bush administration revoked the signature in May 2002. It was President Bush’s recent nominee as ambassador to the UN, John R. Bolton, who originally signed the letter abrogating the American signature and afterwards saying that this experience had afforded him “the happiest moment in my government service”, according to the New York Times. Ironically then, Thursday night Bolton had to accept this first ever referral of a case to the ICC.
For quite some time the ICC has been a highly profiled common policy issue for the EU-countries, which was reflected in the fact that negotiations Thursday took place at the highest level between the American, French, and British foreign ministers. In Europe the ICC has become one of the main symbols of multilateralism, and the American struggle against this rule of law institution has lead to great European frustration. The New York Times describes Thursday’s US move as representing a “significant diplomatic change of course for the Bush administration, which vehemently opposes the court and has been insisting for two months that it would block any Security Council move legitimizing it”. So why this sudden change?
The American UN diplomats in New York attempted to play down the significance of this vote, stating “we got the full protections for Americans that we sought”. The European media, however, seemed thrilled but also somewhat hesitant depicting this as an actual change in US policy, since “the Americans could hardly act differently. The US government has been a leading force in holding those responsible for war crimes in Darfur accountable, and the US has described the atrocities in Darfur as ‘genocide’ – whereas the EU has used less strong language”, says Danish Berlingske Tidende.
Nevertheless, this event will be considered a small victory to most multilateral minded policy-makers and diplomats throughout the world, and most likely will have a small but positive impact on sentiments toward the Bush government. Of course, this depends on whether the US decision proves an actual change in policy toward listening more closely to other countries and restricting its own behavior, or if it is just a one-time decision taken out of other concerns. According to the reactions of the American UN diplomats, unfortunately, it seems to be the latter.
Posted 11:06 PM | Comments (0)
March 21, 2005
Welcome Mr Wolfowitz, says Europe
European leaders have decided not to oppose the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz, the Neoconservative who had a leading role in preparing the war on Iraq, as the new chief of the World Bank. The lack of an opposition among European governments (that control 30% of the World Bank votes as shareholders and could undermine a US candidate if they wanted) seems one of the results of the new "honeymoon" between the second Bush administration and its Atlantic partners. Without further comment La Repubblica the liberal Italian newspaper which is often critical of the US policies, forecasts a smooth welcome to Mr Wolfowitz.
La Repubblica, March 22, 2005: "Green Light for Wolfowitz"
BRUXELLES - The nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the new president of the World Bank will be discussed by the ministers of Finances in their meeting tonight in Brussels. There seem to be no obstacles to the designation of the Pentagon's Number Two, the ideologue of the war on Iraq, as the chief of the institution which has the mission to support the development of the poorest countries. Yesterday the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder swept away any doubt on the European support to the US candidate. «We will be surprised by his work», Schroeder said. The president of the European Commission Josè Manuel Durao Barroso sounded a similar note: he invited European member States not to hold prejudices against Mr Wolfowitz.
Posted 06:52 PM | Comments (0)
March 17, 2005
Will Wolfowitz follow McNamara’s example?
Paul Wolfowitz nomination by President Bush to head the World Bank, after the designation of conservative John Bolton as US Ambassador to the United Nation is not a good sign for multilateralism according to the French Le Monde.
The Elysee Palace (where the president works and lives) said it would study the nomination “in the light of the Bank’s critical mission in favor of development.” Some observers fear Wolfowitz might be tempted to use his new position more as a tool in his quest for democracy in the Middle East.
Le Monde's correspondent in New York highlights opposition to the nomination coming from the United States but ends its story with a positive note: “some executives at the World Bank hope he [Wolfowitz] will follow Robert McNamara’s example.” After organizing the war in Vietnam McNamara became one of the staunchest promoters of development.
Posted 12:15 PM | Comments (0)