Blow the Bank Down

Here are a few choice readings aimed at clarifying the significance of Paul Wolfowitz's appointment as President of the World Bank.

First, from back in April 2003, a remark that highlights the audacity of the neocons' wolfish assault on multilateralism in their recent choice of WB Honcho -- one wolf eating another:

The World Bank, under the direction of James Wolfensohn, is posing a problem for neocon Wolfowitz. The World Bank, though dominated by the U.S. which has 16.2% of voting shares, has an institutional loyalty to multilateralism. As U.S. unilateralism advocated by U.S. neocons gives the back of the hand to the very foundation of the U.N., which is the institutional manifestation of multilateralism, there is predictable conflict between the two Wolfs. The World Bank Wolf is a neo-liberal, while the Defense Department Wolf is a neocon.

(Henry C. K. Liu, quoted in Stan Goff's Full Spectrum Disorder)

Second, a penetrating analysis by the Global Justice Ecology Project on the renewed synergy of military and economic domination within US foreign policy:

In 2002 Wolfowitz was one of the primary authors of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. In it he advocated pre-emptive war with Iraq. It further calls for U.S. economic and military domination in every corner of the world and promotes the idea of pre-emptive attacks on any nation that in some way threatens American interests. These ideas are not new, however, and were preceded by two others, a September 2000 document put out by the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century (which Wolfowitz chairs) and a Defense Department report Wolfowitz co-wrote in 1992.

The 1992 and 2000 reports are very similar. Both promote a global missile defense system; budget increases for the U.S. Defense Department; small, deep penetrating nuclear weapons; and the specific targeting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. In the 1992 report, Wolfowitz argues that the U.S. should be active in "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." And the Times Online (of the UK) writes that in this report, Wolfowitz, "envisaged the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry pre-emptively, 'even in conflicts that do not directly engage U.S. interests.'" In its 2000 document, the Project for a New American Century promoted the idea that U.S. global dominance could be advanced by "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

With this history, the nomination of Wolfowitz to lead the World Bank is a clear sign that the Bush Administration is determined to use whatever avenues it can to pursue its goals of "full spectrum dominance" over the rest of the world. Under current World Bank President Wolfensohn, the Bank has been somewhat resistant to advance the agenda of the Bush administration by financing projects in Iraq. With Wolfowitz at the helm, however, Vallette projects that "the World Bank may be able to complete what the Iraq Invasion started two years ago: U.S. corporate control over the world's second-largest oil reserves."

[...] While Wolfowitz has been promoting violence to force populations into subordination, as the new head of the World Bank, he will be mastering the art of economic coercion as well.

And finally, a razor-sharp piece by George Monbiot challenging the faulty assumptions of those who decry Wolfowitz's nomination to an institution that's been morally bankrupt since its inception:

Wolfowitz's appointment is a good thing for three reasons. It highlights the profoundly unfair and undemocratic nature of decision-making at the bank. His presidency will stand as a constant reminder that this institution, which calls on the nations it bullies to exercise "good governance and democratisation" is run like a medieval monarchy.

It also demolishes the hopeless reformism of men such as Stiglitz and George Soros who, blithely ignoring the fact that the US can veto any attempt to challenge its veto, keep waving their wands in the expectation that a body designed to project US power can be magically transformed into a body that works for the poor. Had Stiglitz's attempt to tinker with the presidency succeeded, it would simply have lent credibility to an illegitimate institution, enhancing its powers. With Wolfowitz in charge, its credibility plummets.

Best of all is the chance that the neocons might just be stupid enough to use the new wolf to blow the bank down. Clare Short laments that "it's as though they are trying to wreck our international systems". What a tragedy that would be. I'd sob all the way to the party.