The USA, UN, World Bank, and the Future (by Arash Rowshanzamir)

George Bush's advocacy for unilateralism has gone international. Recently, he nominated Paul Wolfowtiz - deputy defense secretary, and the man responsible for the organization of the war in Iraq - to be the head of the World Bank, no less than two weeks after appointing another neo-conservative, John Bolton, to be America's ambassador to the UN, proving that although he hinted at a more collaborative diplomatic approach in his second terms as president, Mr. Bush's distrust for multilateral organizations is still as strong as ever.

Mr. Bolton's possible appointment to the UN raises two very interesting questions - does Mr. Bush trust the UN whatsoever? And has he completely thrown in the towel with regards to multilateralism? Although the answer to the first question is by no means concrete, the rift that developed between the US and UN over the invasion of Iraq in addition to recent developments such as accusations pertaining to foul play involving Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, and the UN's Oil for Food program would suggest that although Mr. Bush publicly endorses multinational collaboration, his support for the UN is beginning to waiver.

With regards to international safeguarding, one has to keep in mind that although the US was unable to get UN support for the invasion of Iraq it will most definitely still need the help of the UN when it comes to the issue of Iran's nuclear program. Aside from maintaining a close eye on the remnants of the 'Axis of Evil,' Mr. Bolton's additional responsibilities at the UN include fostering American support for the new intergovernmental peace-building commission, whose concern it is to prevent troubled states, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, from becoming failed states; implementing reform among the UN's deficient Human Rights Commission; helping in the construction of an internationally acknowledged definition of terrorism that would deny indirect remission to those who claim innocent lives in the struggle for national recognition, as in Palestine and Chechnya; and solidifying within the UN the post-Westphalian notion of sovereignty that would give the right for countries such as the US to launch pre-emptive strikes on nations that are deemed as imminent threats without addressing the Security Council. Although Mr. Bush has taken these measures in order to extend America's arm into formal international mechanisms he is by no means attempting to destroy the UN, but rather, he is merely attempting to reform it.

Nor is it unanimous as to whether or not Paul Wolfowitz's appointment to the World Bank was an attempt by the Bush administration to step up the war on poverty or merely the work of those in Washington who are striving to make the world's largest development organization an instrument for America's War on Terror. It is true that Mr. Wolfowitz is by all standards a neo-conservative, and that his role in organizing the Iraq war left an irrevocable stain on his reputation, however, the fact that Mr. Bush would appoint one of his most trusted advisors to lead the World Bank shows that at least Washington is taking it seriously.

Mr. Wolfowitz is not a banker nor is he an economist, but he is someone with experience in the field of development and management as seen in his ambassadorship to President Suharto in Indonesia and his tenure as number two at the Pentagon. Furthermore, Mr. Wolfowitz's staunch support for the Iraq war has served to strain his relationship with Europe and American Democrats alike and it is highly probable that his nomination to be the head of the World Bank was to some extent, an effort by several in Europe to appease Mr. Bush so that he will eventually soften his mandate throughout the remainder of his second term.

A subject of interest coinciding with Mr. Wolfowitz's recent appointment is the parallels that can be drawn between him and another former American head of the World Bank, Robert McNamara. Both Mr. McNamara and Mr. Wolfowiz are visionaries who have served the Defense Department in times of War (Mr. McNamara in Vietnam) and furthermore, both men believe firmly in the alleviation of global poverty through the universal implementation of technocratic and idealistic principles. Mr. McNamara was able to rebut his past in order to bring to the Bank a new-found sense of rejuvenation. Whether Mr. Wolfowitz will be able to follow suit is still up for question.

What can the rest of the world expect from the World Bank and the UN now that these two neo-cons have entered the international scene? Well for starters, Mr. Wolfowitz, who is a staunch advocate of market liberalism, will probably insist that developing countries privatize and deregulate their economies in exchange for help. It is also highly probable that Mr. Wolfowitz will use his support of debt forgiveness for Iraq in order to exhort a wider policy of debt relief among the developing world. America's relationship with Japan will also take center stage as it should be expected that Japan will want to further politically and economically integrate with the US in order to counter security threats from China and North Korea. Japan's president, Mr. Koizumi, should not get his hopes up, however, as America will not hesitate to use its new influence in the World Bank to wage economic warfare on Japan in response to its immense trade surplus.

With regards to John Bolton and the UN, expect a less tolerant approach in the way the international community deals with Tehran and Damascus. During his first term as president, Mr. Bush adopted a policy of democratization through active military intervention but given these recent developments, it is likely that military confrontation will be put aside while international coercion will take center stage. It goes without saying that Mr. Bush, if anything, is attempting to use these two organizations to formally implement a universal notion of democracy, regardless of the fact that the the developing world has no intention of participating in his democratization process. Although Mr. Bush and his hawkish supporters can at times seem stubborn, American unilateralism has achieved recent success in the form of elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and has concurrently succeeded in using these accomplishments to spread the idea of reform throughout the Middle East.

Maybe a neo-conservative is just what both the UN and the World Bank need after all.

Sources

"Bush's elbow, not his ear." Guardian Unlimited. 2 Apr. 2005. 1 May 2005. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1450731,00.html>.

Gow, David. "Wolfowitz charms himself into World Bank job." Guardian Unlimited. 31 Mar. 2005. 1 May 2005. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1448762,00.html>.

"Wolfowitz the pawn in global games." Guardian Unlimited. 1 Apr. 2005. 1 May 2005. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1450572,00.html>.

[ issue contents ] [ fmm home ] [ send feedback ] [ tell a friend ]