The appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank is among the most ominous signs yet of the ambitions of Washington's elite, writes Mohamed Hakki* Every self-respecting economic publication in Europe expressed dismay, even disgust, at the naming of Paul Wolfowitz as President George W Bush's choice to head the World Bank. In every single respect, Wolfowitz is not only a poor choice, he's the wrong choice. It comes on the heels of appointing John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations; a man who has openly showed contempt for the world organisation. President Bush, the man who is trying to build a legacy as an enemy of terrorism, behaves like a terrorist inside the two largest international organisations. The move only elicited wonderment and disdain from the majority of member nations. Yet the appointment of Bolton will not take much away from the United Nations. Bolton will simply be one more ambassador, and if he continues to attack the organisation in the same fashion as he did before, he will only add to his caricatured image, and make a fool of himself. But the choice of Wolfowitz for the World Bank is a completely different matter. Is it truly a boot in the face of international diplomacy and a kick in the pants of Arab and Muslim countries. Some of the criticisms that the Europeans have raised, legitimately, address questions of competence. Wolfowitz is neither an economist nor a banker. Some of his admirers in the US replied "so what?" The bank has had other presidents with a similar lack of experience, including the outgoing James Wolfensohn, Tom Clawsen, Barber Connable and Lewis Preston (the "intellectual" presidents selected by Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush, as The Financial Times described them). Other criticisms the Europeans raised have to do with Bush's style. How can Bush, who very recently visited Europe and tried hard to convince audiences of his willingness to strike a more conciliatory diplomatic tone in his second term, put one of his most controversial lieutenants into the world's top economic development job? It proves, as Britain's The Economist says politely, that Bush doesn't give a fig for multilateralism. Some others yet tried to explain the appointment and attributed it to the fact that both Bolton and Wolfowitz were passed over in their own choices for promotion inside the Bush administration. It is no secret that Bolton wanted -- and probably expected -- to be appointed to the deputy position in the State Department, but Condoleezza Rice chose former US trade representative Robert Zoellick for that job. As for Wolfowitz, it is well known that he has had his eye on the job of secretary of defense since the first Bush administration. In his book Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann recounts that before the nomination of Donald Rumsfeld to the position, two of those who had worked most actively in the presidential campaign, Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage, were potential candidates. Both had previously served in high-ranking positions in the Pentagon. But neither was senior enough to land such a prominent post, and each had their liabilities. Wolfowitz, admired, even by adversaries, for intelligence and diligence, was also criticised, even by supporters, for his lack of skill or interest in administrative matters. So what would Bush do with Wolfowitz? Where would they kick him up to? The precedent of Robert McNamara comes to mind, but is unfair. In McNamara's case, the World Bank "did not become the tool of the US Chamber of Commerce or the instrument of US foreign policy", according to Colbert King who served on the World Bank board as US executive director from December 1979 to April 1981. Under McNamara, he says, the World Bank became a vigorous proponent of poverty reduction in the developing world. He pushed bank projects for building schools and roads, developing agriculture and fighting disease. He did it, according to King, because of his guilt over Vietnam. This was confirmed to me in correspondence from a close friend, Ikram Youssef Sayed, former chairman of the National Institute of Management Development in Egypt, and one of the 12 people who had lunch with McNamara in 1968 when McNamara visited Cairo. McNamara had then divulged that he preferred the presidency of the bank to alternative offers for very personal reasons; a desire to do penance for the casualties of war. Not so Wolfowitz. He spent two years defending his lies and exaggerations to Congress. He defended his minimising of the costs of the war. He wildly exaggerated what he considered to be the prospective popularity to the invading forces. He said the Iraqis would welcome the occupying forces with roses. He never felt remorse over the lives lost, American or otherwise. No desire to do penance. No compassion for the fallen or their families. Wolfowitz is trying very hard these days to convince the bank staff that he will be a good listener. If his intentions are true and not merely rhetoric, he may be able to learn a thing or two from them. But if he continues as he has done until now, "we'll finally be able to use the word 'imperialism' about the bank policy without raising eyebrows," to quote Soren Ambrosa, an activist with the "50 Years are Enough" network. Many are saying the Europeans should contest the lack of consultation with members of the World Bank board about this appointment. I am stunned that none among the Arab leaders raised so much as a mild objection. They should not receive this news as if it is not touching them. The customary masochistic attitude of "what can we do?" is not enough. Under Wolfowitz, not only will the bank further become an instrument of the world's sole superpower, but even more likely, a wrecking ball for the neo-conservative cabal in control of US foreign policy. The least that Arab leaders can do is give voice to Arab concerns. * The writer is a political analyst resident in Washington.
