George W. Bush wants to make Paul Wolfowitz to the President of the World Bank. The European governments have already signaled their consent, but there are also clear criticism
"The World Bank Group’s Mission is to Fight Poverty and Improve The Living Standards of People in The Developing World." Nobody will seriously claim that the World Bank meets its own tunnel in the past decades at any time or only close. But since George W. Bush its familiar and Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz as the successor to the mid-2005 James D. Wolfensohn brought into the game, many observers fledged that the institution could lose sight of its original goals from the end and to reduce enforcement agencies of American world politics.
US Prasident Bush in the announcement of the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank Prasident. Image: Weibe’s house
In criticism, not only is the lonely, more or less conspiratory decision-making of the US government, but above all the person Wolfowitz, whose nomination in some World Bank employees has succeeded in a veritable shock and apparently surprised their own representation. In an Internet survey, Wolfowitz is far from 80% of the participants "global disaster", During not even 10% Bush’s decision for " A Masterstroke" keep.
As an excess of a higher-ranked nationalism, which advocates the Hegemonial eligibility of the United States, Wolfowitz, who played a central role in the planning and realization of the last Iraq war, is not a consensus candidate. Although the 61-year-old self as "Democratic realist" or "pragmatic idealist" sees, he has never left a doubt that the US is always up to the top priority in its supervision and the early use of military funds can be a probate means of achieving political goals at any time.
The political scientist Bernd W. Kubbig has the motives for this – from European view to understand Radicals – Thinking and behavior in his study Wolfowitz ‘world. Development and profile of a ‘democratic realist’ tries to analyze.
The memory of the American trauma of Pearl Harbor, which by the connection of the 11. September 2001 was duplicated, is the decisive final stimulation, the Wolfowitz ‘fear of a surprising attack and his compulsive idea, was prepared to be prepared for any eventuality. His considerations are organized internationally from the beginning. Already in the 1972 dissertation "Nuclear retransmission in the Middle East: The political and economic aspects of suggesting nuclear desalination" Warns Wolfowitz on 350 pages before a call of the mentioned region. 20 years later, these thoughts get a world political dimension and now appear as a planning directive "Defense Planning Guidance", the direct way to the "National Security Strategy" Fest from September 2002.
Another "Leitmotif" Kubbig, the Albert and Roberta, Wohlstetter, Henry Jackson, Jack Wolfowitz and, "clearly graded", Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill pays to Wolfowitz spiritual mentors, the intensive chairmanship for democratization of other countries and regions. This commitment was during the Fruhen 80s during his activity as "Assistant Secretar of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs" to observe and evidently prompted him to participate in the fall of the Marcos regime in the Philippines. In addition, the personal memories of the Judian Emigrant Son play an essential role here:
(…) What happened in Europe in World War II, my views over politics and auxiliary policy generally sought considerably. I think it’s a bad thing when people troubled other people and pursue people minorities. That does not mean that we can prevent any such foreleges (…To).
Paul Wolfowitz
That Wolfowitz also prefers democratic state forms because they can enforce even American interests in them, and that he does not shape cooperation with authoring governments, if it serves these American interests in single traps, but should not remain unhessed. Kubbig, in its study, therefore refers completely rightly to Wolfowitz ‘opposed and ominous role in the Iraq conflict.
Anyone who thinks so nationalist and superstructure arrogant, which orders funds and introduces methods that make the difference between the liberating democrats and the negative dictator, which should be freed the people freed,.
Bernd w. Kubbig
What does this mean now for the World Bank? Wolfowitz will use its first-class Bush Administration contacts to make aware of the tribal problems and organize help for distressed and structurally weak regions, or there is its only interest to make the World Bank for the platform for the American value export?
In Europe, opinions are shared. While individual politicians are skeptical, the Gros of the international community and above all important representatives such as Germany or France has already signaled approval.
In an open letter to Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, however, are equal to 13 non-governmental organizations against Wolfowitz ‘appointment. Greenpeace, Weed, the Forum Environment Development, the German Nature Conservation Ring, Nabu, Attac, Housing Year, Visual Game, Blue 21, Inkota Network, Global Policy Forum Europe, Bund and Asia House Protest against the undemocratic "choice"-Method and pladding for the nomination "a praising and experienced in development policy ies, so that the World Bank can finally be effectively used to get poverty and environmental destruction." Be out of the way "The prevailing discrepancy between the entitlement and reality in the political practice of the World Bank canceled, democratization and co-determination promoted as well as obological and social guidelines."
Telepolis asked Peter Election, the business drivers of Weed E.V. (World Economy, Ecology Development), which is also a member of the Coordination Group Attac Germany, why these goals with Paul Wolfowitz are not available.
Mr choice, what speaks against the appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to the President of the World Bank? Peter election: The World Bank is the most important facility for global development, and many countries of this earth are based on their. It is therefore of great importance, who stands there at the top, and at Wolfensohn we at least had the impression that the problems of the Third World play a role, even if the solutions have not convinced us. We consider the current nomination for a strategic decision that could lead to a course correction in the sole interest of the USA. They expect concrete … Peter election: …, that projects are blocked, which are very important under development policy aspects, but not fit into the American concept. However, this has already happened in the past. For example, we needed a bankruptcy law for states that are insolvent. Then it should be considered that Landers, which are hesized, must provide their creditworthiness through the implementation of structural standards programs. We fledged that the landing in the direction of a neoliberal social policy should be involved and, of course, in the fight against terrorism. How do you assess the fact that Wolfowitz has no specific expertise or political scientists who have no specific expertise? Peter election: I think that’s less crucial, because there were already prasides in the history of the World Bank, which did not come from an economic environment or have remedied other activities. Robert McNamara was previously Defense Minister, and in principle the Office could take a theater scientist. It is crucial that one has the right adviser and itself represents a political heavyweight. The latter is also valid for Wolfowitz, but his political attitudes are still clearly speaking against an appointment. What do you suggest the European governments now? Peter election: "no" accept! The US had no problem with refusing to reject Caio Koch-Weser as a boss of the International Triad Fund because they considered it unsuitable. All involved had to work together to work together that these elections go more transparent and democratic. But there is little for that that the Europeans will follow their recommendation – maybe the Swedes, but Germany, France and other central Landers certainly not. Peter election: Unfortunately, that’s right, and we very much regret that the Federal Government has set itself so sudden. This will definitely be removed on the other nations and, especially on the developmental standards, a immense prere. From our point of view, this was an unwise decision, because one had a lot more out in this situation. But for this purpose, the Federal Government had to show more return grate. (Thorsten StegemannTo)