Wolfowitz's appointment is not a smart move<\/p>\n
Ari A. Perdana, Cambridge, Massachusetts<\/p>\n
The nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the World Bank president has
\nbeen the hottest issue on the international stage for the past
\nfew weeks. The story about Wolfowitz's nomination has outshone
\nthe discussions on the Millennium Development Goals or appeals to
\nrelieve third world debt.<\/p>\n
After President George W. Bush confirmed that the U.S
\ngovernment officially wants Wolfowitz to lead the Bank last week,
\nhe is only one step away from the post. As the biggest
\nshareholder of the Bank, the U.S. government virtually has a
\nprerogative to appoint their man to lead the organization. The
\nU.S. and Europe traditionally share the leadership of the Bank
\nand the IMF -- the U.S. gets the Bank's presidency while Europe
\ngets the Fund's executive director post.<\/p>\n
The problem, however, is that Wolfowitz's nomination has been
\nwidely rejected by the other stakeholders. He does not have any
\nexperience in the international development field, nor does he
\nhave a background in economics or banking. But the more serious
\nconcern is that he is perceived as Bush's man.<\/p>\n
Many fear that if he becomes the World Bank president, the
\nBank's policies will be directed by the U.S. government's
\ninterests. Developing countries worry that whatever lending or
\ndevelopment assistance they receive will be tied to non-
\ndevelopment issues such as international security.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the decision-making process in the Bank means
\nthat the U.S. government's position is very strong. European
\ncountries may try to negotiate for a rejection or approval
\noption. The probability is quite small, though.<\/p>\n
As a person, Wolfowitz is a great and well-respected man. He
\nis a professional bureaucrat, an excellent diplomat and a
\nreputable academic. He is known as an idealist -- he has a clear
\nvision about democratization and how to spread this vision.
\nWhether or not people agree with his vision and his way of
\nspreading it is another story. But even his political opponents
\nrespect him because of it.<\/p>\n
When he was U.S. ambassador to Indonesia for three years under
\nthe Reagan administration, both governments were very satisfied
\nwith him. During his term, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta was
\nconsidered as one of the most effective diplomatic missions in
\nthe country. The relationship between the two nations was also of
\nthe highest quality.<\/p>\n
As an academic, he has served as the dean of the Paul Nitze
\nSchool of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), a school of
\nJohns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C., which is also a
\nwell-respected institution.<\/p>\n
However, there are several reasons why his nomination for the
\nWorld Bank leadership may not be a good thing for the U.S.
\ngovernment, for the institution and for its other stakeholders.<\/p>\n
First, the World Bank is an international organization whose
\ncore business is development. As an expert in defense and
\ninternational security, the development community knows little
\nabout Wolfowitz's vision for international development. He may be
\na professional bureaucrat, but running an organization like the
\nBank is different with running the Pentagon.<\/p>\n
It is debatable whether being an economist or a banker should
\nbe a strict requirement for a World Bank president. Senior U.S.
\npolitician Alan Metzer argued that the Bank does not need its
\nleader to be a development expert. It already has a lot of such
\nexperts. What they need is someone that can be trusted to manage
\nthe huge sums of money handled by the Bank.<\/p>\n
But economist Jeffrey Sachs has a different view. He says that
\nWolfowitz has never shown an interest, let alone a commitment, to
\nthe Millennium Development Goals or global poverty eradication.
\nThat is the reason, according to Mr. Sachs, why Wolfowitz is not
\nqualified for the position.<\/p>\n
A second reason is that his nomination by the Bush administration
\nwill send a signal that the U.S. has an obvious agenda with the
\norganization. The perception that the World Bank is merely a vehicle
\nfor furthering U.S. interests will become stronger. Wolfowitz,
\nthe deputy defense secretary, was the intellectual architect of
\nthe Iraq war. The Iraq war represents heavy baggage for U.S.
\nrelations with the international community, and is also an issue
\nthat has created internal divisions. A move by the Bush
\nadministration to appoint their man to the biggest donor
\norganization could further tarnish its image.<\/p>\n
The Bush administration may not care too much about its image.
\nBut I believe the professionals who work in the Bank care about
\ntheir image. The Bank has been trying hard to maintain its image,
\nwhich has been deteriorating since the rise of the anti-
\nglobalization movement in the late '90s. Many World Bankers have
\npublished various self-criticisms. The Bank has also issued
\nrevisions to its development approaches in the past half-century.
\nBut if Wolfowitz becomes the Bank's president, it would be hard
\nto avoid the perception that the World Bank will become, in Paul
\nKrugman's words, \"an ugly American Bank\".<\/p>\n
For Indonesia, perhaps, Wolfowitz' appointment may not be too
\nbad after all. Indonesia gain some benefit from his close ties
\nwith the country. However, I don't see that his position in the
\nBank would produce significant added value for Indonesia. With or
\nwithout him, Indonesia is still an important stakeholder for the
\nBank. From the Indonesian perspective, we may be better off
\nhaving Wolfowitz in the inner circle of the Bush administration
\nas our relationship with the U.S government is more uncertain
\nthan that with the World Bank.<\/p>\n
Lastly, my Harvard professor, who is also a World Banker, once
\ntold of an experience when he had to defend his institution in
\nfront of an audience of some eight hundred people hostile to the
\nBank. He said that he could do so if deep in his heart he had
\nconfidence that he was doing his job professionally, not as a
\nservant of a big country's interests. Such confidence may not be
\nthere anymore should Wolfowitz become his boss.<\/p>\n
The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and
\nInternational Studies, Jakarta, and the Kennedy School of
\nGovernment, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA.
\nAri_Perdana@ksg06.harvard.edu<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/wolfowitzs-appointment-is-not-a-smart-move-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}