Talk about controversy: President Bush nominated Deputy Defense Secreatary Paul Wolfowitz, a top neocon thinker and leader, to head the World Bank and if you can’t yet call it a firestorm, you can safely say sparks have been flying here and abroad.
But how much of it is due to info at hand about Wolfowitz, and how much of it represents justifiable fear, and how much of it represents accumulated gut political reactions??
In reality, even though Wolfowitz played a key role in the Iraq war and in drawing up the administration’s game plan that holds that combating terrorists in their neighborhood would make the other neighbors want to throw other terrorists and autocrats, there’s no proof yet that he’s a bad choice or even a great choice: it’s too early. Yet, his nomination has already generated emotions on all sides and is even sparking an outcry in some quarters.
Is he totally inexperienced? According to the New York Times (no Wolofwitz fan) as “American ambassador to Indonesia from 1986 to 1989, Mr. Wolfowitz developed a passion for development and aid issues.” And the Times notes that he has the President’s trust — but in an editorial today the paper wonders why he was picked at all:
Even those who supported the goals of the invasion must remember Mr. Wolfowitz’s scathing contempt for estimates that the occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and his serene conviction that American soldiers would be greeted with flowers. Like the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, the choice of Mr. Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the United Nations that accompanied it.
This seems to be this administration’s style. Some call it “bold,” but above all controversial. Extending olive branches doesn’t come naturally to this administration and some Europeans and others are upset about this nomination. It seems the British don’t mind but others see it as GWB placating his right flank:
The German development minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said that “the enthusiasm in ‘old Europe’ is not exactly overwhelming.”
ActionAid, a British- and South African-based aid organization, called the nomination “an unwelcome step.” Referring to the selection system, Patrick Watt, a policy officer with the group, said in a statement that the announcement “speaks volumes for the need to reform a process which is neither transparent nor based on merit. . . . As well as lacking any relevant experience, he is a deeply divisive figure who is unlikely to move the Bank towards a more pro-poor agenda.”
The Financial Times bluntly headlines: “Wolfowitz nomination a shock for Europe,” saying it’s the second shock, after the nomination of the verbally combative Bolton was named for the UN. (Would they have preferred Michael Bloton?) But the Washington Post, in an editorial, urges everyone to take a nice, deep breath:
But this hostility is mostly unjustified. Mr. Wolfowitz is the best qualified of all the recently rumored candidates for the World Bank job. He has been a valued member of the Bush administration; by selecting him rather than a peripheral figure, Mr. Bush is showing that he understands the World Bank’s importance. The bank’s leading shareholders — principally the Japanese and Europeans — should welcome Mr. Wolfowitz’s nomination, not use their positions on the World Bank’s board to obstruct it.
Unlike several of his predecessors, Mr. Wolfowitz would come to the World Bank presidency with real knowledge of development. He served as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia in the late 1980s, when that country was one of the World Bank’s biggest clients and a poverty-reduction success story. Mr. Wolfowitz is also a persuasive communicator, an essential quality in the leader of an institution that is frequently attacked by ideologues on both the left and the right. And Mr. Wolfowitz has experience as a public-sector manager. The World Bank is an unwieldy, 10,000-strong bureaucracy. Mr. Wolfowitz’s stint as No. 2 at the Pentagon should have prepared him for that.
The Christian Science Monitor as usual has a highly thoughtful piece, which makes several points including this:
Others note that Wolfowitz going to the World Bank after the Iraq War would follow the example of former Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara, who headed the global institution after the Vietnam War. And even those who do not consider themselves Wolfowitz fans note that he is a past dean of the Johns Hopkins school of international studies and has a long-time interest in democratization.
Our view? The cases can be made against and for Wolfowitz and given his background it’s worth giving him a chance. His ability to communicate and the fact he was intimately involved in U.S. tsunami relief efforts and toured the poor nations hit by the death tidalwave are huge pluses. Also: ties to GWB mean instant access to the highest levels of the U.S. government.
UPDATE: Al Jazeera’s headline says:”Choosing Wolfowitz definitely benefits Israel.” Because of his stand on Israel (and they don’t say it but because he is a J-e-w). The story notes that Israel officials are as pleased as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s top poverty advisor is not:”It’s time for other candidates to come forward that have experience in development,’ Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and Annan adviser, said.”
BUT THERE ARE OTHER VOICES WITH VARYING VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION:
—Glenn Reynolds has a ton of links and his most interesting one is where he shows (using boldface) how a Times news story on this is riddled with personal biases delivered via politically slanted phrases. A MUST READ. (If I had submitted a story like that for some of my editors at the papers for which I worked and contributed they would have edited that stuff out, unless it had an ANALYSIS label or was on the Op-Ed page).
—The Mahablog:””Stupidity as a strategy” might explain nominating Paul Wolfowitz to be president of the World Bank.”
—Daniel Drezner has an extensive analysis plus many links. A MUST READ. A small taste:
No neocon worth their salt would want Bolton at the UN of Wolfowitz at the Bank — because neocons don’t believe these institutions are particularly relevant. What matters is who is ruling the roost inside the beltway. And in DC, the balance of power has shifted to State — and the people that are there have signaled a willingness to listen to the Europeans. Compared to what they faced during the Powell/Rumsfeld wars, this is a much more hospitable environment for European diplomats.
—Kesher Talk:”It’s hard not to imagine Bush thinking, “You guys like Neo-con Zionist Jew International Banker Conspiracies so much? Fine! I’ll give you a Neo-con Zionist Jew International Banker! Have fun!” (And smirking, of course!)”
—Slant Point:
I support Wolfowitz because Bush has us so far in debt that he could rightly claim the US is now a poor nation and then tap the World Bank’s coffers for relief.
But seriously, as the conspiracy theories crop up regarding Paul Wolfowitz heading the World Bank, a more plausible explanation is coming forth – heart and real change. A WaPo article claims tours of devestated tsunami areas helped push Wolfowitz to make the career change. Far from being simply a war hawk, Wolfowitz most likely views this as chance to continue to spread Democracy to developing nations.
—Kevin Drumm:”I don’t know enough about Wolfowitz and Bolton on a substantive basis to have much to say about their appointments. On a PR level, though, the message Bush is sending is plain. A number of pundits inexplicably thought that Bush might settle down in his second term and try to run a more conciliatory, less strident administration, and it’s pretty obvious that he’s trying to make it crystal clear that he has no intention of doing this. Second term Bush will be no different from first term Bush, and don’t you forget it.“
—Orrin Judd:”Do you suppose the Timesmen ever read the U.N. reports on why the Arab world is lagging behind everyone else in terms of development? Who has ever done more than Mr. Wolfowitz and his superiors to bring to the region the three things it lacks most: freedom, knowledge and womanpower.”
—McQ:”But make no mistake about it, the appointment is indeed an intentional spreading of the Bush philosophy, whether you really consider it to be conservative or not.”
—The Belgravia Dispatch:”I think Wolfowitz will make a fine choice for the posting. I think his time in Indonesia and elsewhere, married to his obvious intelligence, will put him in good stead as he grapples with economic development issues there. Wolfowitz, in many ways, has always been the most interesting and complex neo-con that served in Bush’s administration. Widely reviled by many, yes, I wouldn’t be surprised if he will now be missed in some unlikely quarters too.”
—Arthur Chrenkoff:”Won’t the left and the Islamofascists around the world have fun with this one: a Jeeeewwww in charge of the World Bank. And not just any Jeeeewwww, but a neo-con. There will be plenty of material to work with, like this: “Senior Israeli officials reacted with satisfaction… to news…” etc. And with Wolfowitz replacing Wolfensohn, who will be the first one to make a crack that only wolves need to apply?”
—Steve Soto:
In fact, Europeans are feeling now that Bush’s recent trip there and his and Condi’s fence-mending were all an act given the subsequent nominations of John Bolton as UN ambassador and now Wolfie to head the World Bank. Suffice it to say that the Europeans are feeling like they were misled once again by Bush rhetoric, and any goodwill that Bush gained from his recent trip has now been squandered.
And ironically, his overseas supporters say that one of his strengths are his administrative abilities, yet the Washington insiders say that the one part of the job that Wolfie hated at the Pentagon were the day-to-day administrative duties, as evidenced by everything that went wrong underneath him.
Think of the Bush nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as an astute police action, with the cop wearing a three-piece suit.
International institutions became forums for political warfare during the Cold War, and that sapped them. But “institution-driven� leadership has further weakened international organizations. Corruption has savaged the UN.
Wolfowitz knows these institutions must change. Yes there is a war aim: economic development is absolutely key to achieving a sustaining victory in The Millennium War (as most of you know, I dislike the term War on Terror).
—Roger Simon has a lont analzysis. A tiny part:”You need not be Sigmund Freud or his daughter to realize Euro academics of this stripe see Wolfowitz et al through a prism so distorted and contorted by envy they end up looking up their own nostrils. What will they say if five years from now the whole Middle East is democratic?”
—Charles Johnson also points to the politically loaded phrases in the Times reporting:”Can you tell how the New York Times feels about Paul Wolfowitz?”
—Bull Moose:
While Wolfowitz bears responsibility for the mishandling of the aftermath of the war, he has a world outlook that is fundamentally distinct from Bolton. In truth, Wolfowitz is a humanitarian internationalist in the tradition of Truman, JFK and Scoop. When the DeLays and Lotts excoriated the Clinton Administration on Kosovo, Wolfowitz stood firmly for a humanitarian intervention to prevent genocide. He has demonstrated genuine sympathy for the downtrodden whether they are tsunami victims or the Iraqi marsh Arabs. A few years ago, the Moose witnessed Wolfowitz as the target of hecklers at a pro-Israel rally when he voiced sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.
—The Glittering Eye has a great roundup and concludes:”I can save you a great deal of time. I’m sorry to report that the reactions to the Wolfowitz appointment are essentially a referendum on the Iraq war. Where you sit is where you stand.”
Linked to OTB Traffic Jam.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.