Wolfowitz and the World Bank
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published April 13, 2007, 10:19 am in Military / Foreign policy, Economic Issues.
When Paul Wolfowitz became President of the World Bank in 2005, I thought the world had lost its mind. If you don't remember Wolfowitz, he was the Deputy Secretary of Defense under Bush, and he was one of the primary developers of what became known as the Bush Doctrine. You know, he's the guy, along with Donald Rumsfeld, who helped cook up the whole scheme of pre-emptive war, including the invasion of Iraq. I would even go as far as saying that if it weren't for Wolfowitz, we would not be in Iraq today. Not that some other Deputy and Secretary of Defense wouldn't have done the same thing, but Wolfowitz was ready to invade Iraq long before 9/11. Why? Because Saddam Hussein was dangerous. Don't get all conspiracy on me and think that we went there for oil; that's really just a great byproduct or a secondary reason. What these people really thought was that America was in danger, and Saddam had to be the first to go. It had nothing to do with 9/11, of course, except for the fact that the event triggered the Bush doctrine and the eventual invasion.
Exactly what was the Bush Doctrine? It was first revealed in a Bush speech in 2002. The basic premises are that the policies of deterrence (stop wars before they happen) and containment (try to keep the peace that exists now instead of shaking things up) that had been the hallmarks of previous administrations since WWII no longer worked in a terrorist world. Therefore, America should take a more aggresive foreign policy that includes pre-emptive war, unilateralism, and the move to create democratic states where dictatorships or other forms exist. This doctrine really is the hallmark of Bush's presidency, but it was actually first delineated in a document written by Wolfowitz in 1992. When that document--the Defense Planning Guidance--was leaked to the public, the elder Bush removed the language about pre-emption and unilateralism, but it was definitely Wolfowitz who was the architect of this policy.
I can't object to the policy too much, because I think there are times when decisive action is needed, and multilateralism may not be possible. If something is pressing and needs attention now, there may not be time to gather a coalition. And even pre-emption may be the best course of action at times. If we know someone has weapons and is plotting to use them against it, it is in our best interests to stop the action before it can even happen. It's like the plot of Minority Report, that movie written by Philip K. Dick. The law enforcement agents act as pre-emptive enforcement, stopping murders before they happen. That makes sense. But, just like in that film, there are times and ways that the doctrine can be misused.
The problem is that Wolfowitz and the entire Bush administration combined their ideas about Iraq with this new doctrine. If you know you want to go after Iraq, then it's easy to find reasons to do it. The new Bush doctrine makes it possible and may even lead to some misleading intelligence.
But enough about that. The point is that Wolfowitz was one of the primary architects of this doctrine, and he was partly responsible for the invasion of Iraq. Two years after that invasion, when the world was just waking up to the fact that the entire situation was overstated, when people were realizing that Iraq wasn't quite as easy as they thought, and maybe it wasn't such a good idea in the first place, Wolfowitz becomes the President of the World Bank, nominated by President Bush and then ratified by the Board of Governors.
In order to really understand this, we have to know what the World Bank is. It was created right after WWII in order to provide economic aid to developing nations and help fight poverty. It isn't a U.S. institution, per se, and is actually considered a part of the U.N., but it is owned by the member countries (185 of them). The U.S. has the biggest vote, though, at more than 16%, so it can effectively get its way by blocking anything it doesn't like.
What I find so ironic about Wolfowitz as the President of the World Bank is that he's now in charge of helping developing nations economically and fighting poverty. This is the guy whose entire career has been in defense. The same guy who developed the idea that the U.S. should work alone to defeat hostile governments. When his plans don't work so well, we put him in charge of helping those countries he basically wants to invade.
Now that's a simplification, of course, but I think the point is there. What is this guy, whose policy is pretty much shamed for leading to an Iraqi civil war, doing as the head of an international (not unilateral!) organization that is designed to do the opposite, not to invade hostile regimes, but to help the people of the regimes?
Not everyone objects to his appointment, of course. A commentary in The Wall Street Journal said this:
"Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power. He saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein."
Now there's some logic there, no doubt. If the point of the World Bank is to eliminate hostile regimes, than Wolfowitz is the right man for the job. And that is partly the job of the Bank, anyway. In order to stimulate economic development and get aid from the bank, the World Bank often stipulates that other things happen--free market economy, less money to military, etc. So part of the point is that if a country wants to develop and get international aid, they must get rid of their rogue regimes or at least treat their people well.
So maybe it's not such a stretch, after all. But now we need to consider the entire idea of "economic stimulation" and whether it is the role of external agencies or regimes to attempt to change governments in other countries. I, for one, would say "yes, it is."
Why do I bring up all of this about Wolfowitz, anyway? Because he's in the news for something silly like moving his girlfriend to the State Department. Yep, she used to work for the World Bank and she became involved with Wolfowitz, but there are rules against intra-organizational relationships, so he got her a cushy job at the State Department where she now makes $10,000 more than the Secretary of State. Now isn't that a great job! Anyway, that kind of cronyism cannot be tolerated, or at least has to be written up in the newspaper. There is a chance that Wolfowitz will have to step down, but I doubt it. Probably, the entire thing will pass, and that's it.
That's the way these guys work, after all.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 5 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment