NeoCon Heading the World Bank?

All signs are pointing to the NeoCons in Washington continuing to place their people in positions where their agenda can be pushed onto the rest of the world. The lates is an announcement made Wednesday, March 16, by the White House to nominate John Wolfowitz to lead the World Bank.

Not very surprising is the response from the international community, both financial and humanitarian groups, to the nomination of the Iraq War architect.

From the CBC News article World reacts to Wolfowitz nomination with skepticism and alarm :

Wolfowitz, nominated Wednesday by U.S. President George W. Bush, is widely seen as a key instigator in the American push to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. International organizations worried about the nominee's hawkish politics and questioned whether he is the right man for the job.

"As well as lacking any relevant experience, he is a deeply divisive figure who is unlikely to move the bank toward a more pro-poor agenda," said Patrick Watt, policy officer at British charity Action Aid.

Dave Timms, spokesman for London-based World Development Network, called it a "terrifying appointment" that highlighted a lack of democracy in major lending institutions.

Wolfowitz's notoriety as a hardliner made it difficult to cheer his nomination to head the World Bank, said Nigerian newspaper columnist Pini Jason. He said it could a "bad omen" for the Third World.

"It is very likely that George Bush will want to link World Bank policies to his own vision of democratizing the world: Democracy according to the White House," said Jason, who writes for the Vanguard newspaper.

From the Financial Times article Shareholders' dismay at lack of consultation:

The lack of consultation before the announcement meant that European governments - who collectively hold about 30 per cent of the votes on the bank's executive board to the US's 17 per cent - were slow to react. "There are going to be a lot of very unhappy people, but they may be as upset about the process as about the person," said one European official. "They were supposed to consult us and there was no consultation."

Privately, European officials in Washington and bank staff have expressed concern that the US would put forward such a controversial candidate for the post. One concern is that his appointment would make it more difficult for the World Bank to operate effectively in the Middle East.

Many development campaigners were in no doubt. "We consider the choice of Wolfowitz utterly inappropriate to lead such a key institution," said Jeff Powell, co-ordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, a watchdog non-governmental organisation. "This appointment will only serve to confirm suspicions that the World Bank is a tool of US foreign policy."

One common concern was whether the White House was trying to turn the World Bank into an agency of the "war on terror", assuming a mission of democratisation and adopting political criteria for lending.

From a Reuters article Activists decry Wolfowitz choice, analysts divided:

Wolfowitz, No. 2 at the Pentagon, is a divisive figure in Europe and the Middle East for helping shape the Iraq war. Some said the U.S. choice, coming on the heels of the appointment of hawk John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, highlighted White House contempt for international diplomacy.

"If the Bush administration wanted to poke a finger into the eye of every nation on Earth, it couldn't have made a better choice," said John Cavanagh, director of the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank.

"Wolfowitz does not have an interest or knowledge about poverty and development problems. With him at the helm, the bank will be seen more and more as a tool of U.S. foreign policy, not a multilateral institution," wrote Alex Wilks, a Brussels-based activist whose Web site (www.worldbankpresident.org) tracked speculation over the presidency.

Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs also criticized Wolfowitz's lack of development mileage.

"We need someone with professional experience in helping people to escape from poverty. Mr. Wolfowitz does not have that track record. We need other nominees," he told CNN.

The decision is a very telling sign of how the current administration views itself and its actions above reproach. Regardless of the response from the international community, regardless of whether the individual may be the right person for the job, the administration is moved by a higher mission. Unfortunately for all of us, it is not looking good for those opposed to their view of "democracy".