I am not sure whether Paul Wolfowitz was kicked upstairs or sideways into the traditionally American held-post of the World Bank's presidency. The architect of America’s ill-conceived invasion of Iraq claimed that he won’t be a US stooge in the organization, nor was he seeking refuge in the Bank to escape controversy – what controversy, Paul, pray tell us?
The US government 9/11 Report showed that Paul Wolfowitz had urged the US to attack Iraq after the 9/11 incident when clearly no such evidence of Iraqi involvement existed. The Report continued with the observation that there was no credible evidence supporting Paul Wolfowitz’s argument that Iraq was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre.
Can you trust such a man?
I would prefer to see Paul there than to see a Third World monkey sitting in that position and messing things up.
ReplyDeleteI see your point but aren't you indirectly condoning the other end of the extreme too? What the World Bank (and certainly Africa and some South American and Asian countries) need is a sensible moderate without any extreme (left or right) ideological baggage.
ReplyDeleteAny names you can suggest who wouldn't change colors mid-way to enrich himself(and his cronies) or to mess things up?
ReplyDeleteThe president has to be an American by virtue of the USA's major involvement in the World Bank. Secondly, we aren't talking about lack of proper governance, but rather ideological leanings that may affect the World Bank's treatment of needy countries.
ReplyDeleteWolfowitz unfortunately is a member of the ultra right-wing American think-tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which has urged and strived for US world hegemony. He has been the awful architect of the US invasion of Iraq, to seize its oil assets and position America in that energy-rich region to dominate and control the area for the US strategic interests. This is hardly the correct person for an international agency like the World Bank.