The new World Bank President Approved
"The World Bank unanimously confirmed Paul Wolfowitz as its president Thursday, despite quiet misgivings by some members over the deputy defense secretary�??s role as the Bush administration�??s architect of the Iraq war. "(MSNBC)
Thumbs up, down? And why?
Thumbs up, down? And why?
posted by Dody G. at 8:43 PM
4 Comments:
Thumbs Up.
I read this as the Bush Administration wanting to push Wolfowitz out of the Defense Department (presumbably because of Iraqi consequences), while saving face. IF Bush would have just fired Wolfowitz, this would be an acknowledgement that Bush was mislead, however, by giving him a removed but highly publicized roll, in a relatively benign post, Bush can get what he wants without admitting wrong doing.
9:39 PM
Thumbs down...
simply don`t think this dude can help the world out...
10:24 PM
thumbds down ...
even if his ability to do harm is probably limited by the worldbank's economic experts and the europeans' and developing countries' critical eye over what wolfowitz does, it certainly does not create trust and acceptance among the development community to nominate a man with this track record.
further resources:
wolfowitz's poor economic policy track record (by the NGO forum for Indonesian development):
http://www.infid.be/wb_wolf_track.htm
the whole process, media coverage, reactions, candidates profiles etc. at: http://www.worldbankpresident.org
1:01 PM
"Ideologues like Wolfowitz could only see a need for the state to get out of the way. But what Indonesia's depositors really needed was a stronger state role to set rules and boundaries for bankers' behavior."
A stronger state role was useless because Indonesia is one of the most corrupt country in the world. It didn't matter.
"Wolfowitz's efforts to get visas for the journalists were not to defend press freedom, but rather to make sure that Suharto and Reagan would not be embarrassed by talk about human rights violations, and by having the world see the Indonesian dictator behaving as dictators often do."
Life under Suharto regime was quite pleasant actually pre-1997 Economic Crisis. The economy was running OK , price was low and you get a lip service to democracy. Dissent is allowed but only if you are already have a strong base to support you otherwise you'll be thrown in jail.
His government was corrupt as hell but the sense on the ground was always "it's not perfect, but we are quite content".
If not for the economic crisis in 1997, the move toward real democracy will never get caught on.
And this definately created a quandry for the Reagan and Bush I administration at the time. How do you handle a "not too bad" dictatorship in a secular country that is strongly anti-communists and Islamic fundamentalists in a working corrupt economy?
Indonesia has never been Iraq or Zimbabwe.
6:03 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home