March 2005

Njoki Njoroge Njehu
50 YEARS IS ENOUGH
Washington D.C.
USA

WOLFOWITZ TO WORLD BANK?! - CRITICS AMAZED
Maybe Worst Possible Choice; Global Opposition to Selection
"The Ball is in the Europeans' Court"

Two hours ago, President Bush announced his nomination of Paul Wolfowitz,
currently Assistant Secretary of Defense, to be the next President of the
World Bank. The U.S., by tradition, nominates the World Bank President.
Although the Bank's Board of Governors must approve it, no nomination has
ever been rejected.

"Paul Wolfowitz is the most controversial choice Bush could have made," said
Njoki Njoroge Njehu, Director of the 50 Years Is Enough Network. "As the
most prominent advocate of imposing the U.S.'s will on the world - the
architect of the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq - this
appointment signals to developing countries that the U.S. is just as serious
about imposing its will on borrowers from the World Bank as on the countries
of the Middle East. Coming on the heels of the nomination of John Bolton as
Ambassador to the U.N., it reveals the contempt this Administration has for
the international community."

"The 50 Years Is Enough Network opposes this nomination," Njehu continued,
"and urges people around the world, and especially in Europe, to contact
their government officials to insist that the nomination be defeated. Once
again, just as with Iraq, President Bush may be proving his campaign promise
to be 'a uniter, not a divider': the world will unite against this choice.
The ball really is in the Europeans' court now."

Reliable reports from Europe suggest that the World Bank Executive Directors
from that region and some government officials are very opposed to
Wolfowitz's nomination. When rumors of the choice first arose two weeks ago,
most World Bank watchers concluded that they must be mischievous jokes, and
some European officials may have concluded likewise.

The European countries together form a substantial enough bloc to reject the
U.S. action. Doing so, however, would spotlight the absurdly anti-democratic
way in which the heads of the international financial institutions are
chosen. While the institutions insist that borrowers institute "good
governance," the President of the World Bank is chosen in a secret process
by the U.S. and the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) is chosen in a messier, largely secret process by the countries of
Western Europe. The U.S. was careful not to interfere with the choice of
Rodrigo Rato of Spain as head of the IMF last year, and likely expects the
same deference from the Europeans now.

"The Bright Side"

If Wolfowitz does become President of the World Bank, it could have some
positive effects. Soren Ambrose, Senior Policy Analyst with the 50 Years Is
Enough Network noted, "If confirm, we would no longer have to work so hard
to convince people that the World Bank is an instrument of U.S. foreign and
economic policy. Wolfowitz has no experience in development, just a fierce
ideological dedication to hard-core neo-liberal economics and U.S.
domination. With Wolfowitz in place, the Bank's masterful spinners of noble
rhetoric will be unable to persuade anyone that the institution is really
working for the benefit of the poor. We'll finally be able to use the word
'imperialism' about Bank policy without raising eyebrows."

"In other words," said Ambrose, "between exposing the true dangers of the
lack of democracy at the World Bank and putting the most visible symbol of
U.S. imperialism in the most prominent position in international
development, President Bush will accomplish more in de-legitimizing the
World Bank than any other single action ever could."