Wolfowitz to World Bank

Why?

Wolfowitz was one of the biggest proponents of forgiving all Iraqi debts, on the basis that these were "odious debts" incurred not by the people, but by the leaders who used the funds for weapons and palaces, not development.

Originally posted by eros:
He can pretty much forget about any of that forgiving-of-third-world-debt nonsense now.

"Under Wolfowitz, the Bush administration may now try to narrow the focus of the World Bank, returning the international lending institution to its roots of primarily financing large
infrastructure projects and limiting the practice of handing out zero-interest loans, analysts such as Alan Meltzer, who led a
2000 congressional inquiry into the World Bank, said."

Build damns=good, HIPC Relief Initiative=Bad.

ps: HIPC=Heavily Indebted Poor Countries

So did Alberto Gonzales get the Human Rights Watch post or what?

I think that Wolfowitz will lean toward his NeoCon beliefs and will probably try to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of failed states or oppressive regimes deemed to be threatening to the US or its interests.

I think it's better to try to do that through the allocation of development funds than through the military.

Originally posted by j_lee:
I don't know enough about the World Bank to make a reasonable/well thought out post. I guess it really depends on whether or not you believe Wolfowitz will be someone who has the world's best interests at heart, rather than simply another crony tool in a place that allows Bush to leverage power in the direction he wants to.

At least it's not the WTO.

Of course Wolfowitz is a proponent of forgiving Iraqi debt! We invaded the country and now essentially own it (despite the puppet government), that debt is in a sense *our* debt.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Why?

Wolfowitz was one of the biggest proponents of forgiving all Iraqi debts, on the basis that these were "odious debts" incurred not by the people, but by the leaders who used the funds for weapons and palaces, not development.

Originally posted by eros:
He can pretty much forget about any of that forgiving-of-third-world-debt nonsense now.

Did anyone watch the Simpsons on Sunday?? Condoleeza would've learned a thing or two..

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I think it's better to try to do that through the allocation of development funds than through the military.

first wise thing I've ever seen you say!

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I think it's better to try to do that through the allocation of development funds than through the military.

Let's see how he accomplishes this first before we start singing his praises for the concept. I see his development dollars pouring in after military action at this point.

At the top, the WB functions a lot like the Pentagon. It's all about getting someone to buy something big they don't need for the profit of certain well-connected US companies. The only difference is that the Pentagon gets Congress to buy things and the WB gets developing nations to buy things. How about a brand new hospital from Bechtel, that 99% of your population can't get access to, and after you get into debt for it you won't have any money for medications

Agreed.

Wolfowitz is not one of my favorite people, but most of this thread was simply complaints about the nomination without anyone actually explaining why this was a bad choice (beyond his being part of the Bush Administration, which, in some circles, is ample condemnation).

I think that the NeoCons have relied largely on military action because they have, thus far, been relegated to Defense Department posts and had no other avenue for pursuing their agenda. Putting Wolfowitz in the Bank may change that (or it may not). We'll both have to wait and see.

Originally posted by vansmack:
Let's see how he accomplishes this first before we start singing his praises for the concept. I see his development dollars pouring in after military action at this point.

Originally posted by vansmack:

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I think it's better to try to do that through the allocation of development funds than through the military.

Let's see how he accomplishes this first before we start singing his praises for the concept. I see his development dollars pouring in after military action at this point.

Sure, lets pour development dollars into the reconstruction of Iraq…yet who benefits of those huge contracts??? Halliburton for one…

Originally posted by Fico:
Sure, lets pour development dollars into the reconstruction of Iraq…yet who benefits of those huge contracts??? Halliburton for one…

someone has to build more things for people to blow up!!!!

i wrote an op-ed for our president here last month about selecting a new world bank chief, here are some thoughts from an environmental/development think-tank that works closely with the WB: (excerpted from a larger piece)

—————

With the resignation of current World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn, the United States has a rare opportunity to set a new course for the developing world by appointing an inventive and effective leader who can manage the sprawling organization while leading an inspirational effort to help the poor lift themselves up and compete in global markets.

As the leader of the preeminent institution in development assistance, the World Bankâ??s president wields extraordinary power over both financial resources and conventional wisdom in the field. For example, Wolfensohn broke the taboo against discussing the effect of corruption on development, a topic deemed â??too politicalâ? for World Bank attention only a decade ago.

….

A combination of international development and management experience is essential for the next World Bank president. This is not a field for amateurs. Leaders with flashy private-sector credentials and a limited understanding of international development issues have flopped in the past, and we must learn from these missteps. The business of development is difficult and complex, and lives literally depend on its effective implementation.

The key to alleviating poverty and leveling the playing field for developing nations may be found, as the World Bankâ??s own analysis demonstrates, in environmental sustainability. Poor people are more likely to be exposed to contaminated air and water, to lose their livelihoods when ecosystems collapse, and to be affected by â??naturalâ? disasters caused by environmental mismanagement.

While the World Bankâ??s own environmental record is by no means spotless, it has been an important source in many countries of the information, analysis, and finance necessary to address environmental challenges. In some countries, the Bank has also prodded reluctant governments to seek input on environmental decisions from civil society groups and the broader public.

It is clear that climate change will be a major threat to poor communities in the years to come. The tsunami etched a grim map of coastal areas that would also likely be affected by sea-level rise and stronger storms associated with the widely accepted forecasts of global warming.

….

A credible candidate for the next president of the World Bank must also demonstrate a record of transparency in his or her professional career. If both the Bank and client governments are to be held accountable for the effectiveness of their efforts, transparency and information disclosure need to be essential components of their work. While the Bank has made significant progress towards these goals under Wolfensohn, processes ranging from deliberations of the Bankâ??s board of directors to negotiation of private sector concession agreements remain shrouded in secrecy.

Transparency and information disclosure is particularly important now that the Bank, is experimenting with reliance on national systems â?? as an alternative to the Bankâ??s own safeguards â?? to protect vulnerable human communities and fragile ecosystems from harm caused by Bank-financed projects. Unless such trials are open to public scrutiny, we risk a return to the days of environmental destruction and social disruption caused in the name of efficient development.

….

The Bush administration has a golden opportunity to prove that its overtures regarding multilateralism and economic development for the poor are truly substantial strides by appointing an experienced manager from the development field who has demonstrated commitments to openness and environmental sustainability as the next World Bank president.

Originally posted by Fico:
Sure, lets pour development dollars into the reconstruction of Iraq…yet who benefits of those huge contracts??? Halliburton for one…

My understanding is that Halliburton has contracts with the US government, while the World Bank Iraq reconstruction funds exclude all oil and security projects.

If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?

Scott Stapp

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Scott Stapp

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?

I wonder what Scott is up to these days …

Probably on an internet chatboard, wasting valuable work time, talking about the World Bank.

Or maybe at the mall, trying to pick up teenagers.

Originally posted by HoyaSaxa03:

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Scott Stapp

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?

I wonder what Scott is up to these days …

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
If Bush had chosen Bono, who would have been chosen the new lead singer of U2?

<img src="http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Ashcroft_singing.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:

Or maybe at the mall, trying to pick up teenagers.

at Hot Topic maybe?

Originally posted by eros:

Originally posted by O'Mankie:
I thought Bono was getting that job?

He can pretty much forget about any of that forgiving-of-third-world-debt nonsense now.

Why doesn't the twat just pay it all himself with all the tax he's not paying in Ireland?