Richard Adams Guardian News Service
If the U.S. really wants, in Condoleezza Rice's phrase, "a conversation, not a monologue", with the rest of the world, it is time to start talking. But simply not invading any more countries isn't enough; something more positive is needed. As luck has it, the U.S. has an issue sitting in its lap that would instantly make it friends around the world.
In May James Wolfensohn steps down as president of the World Bank, the wealthy world's premier multinational development agency. The U.S., as the bank's largest shareholder and deepest pockets, gets to appoint the new president.
Here's the big idea. Instead of filling the job from a list of insiders, cronies and yes-persons drawn up in the West Wing, the Bush administration could do something entirely radical: make the appointment on merit. Failing that, it could at least introduce some transparency into proceedings, and entertain the extraordinary idea that a non-U.S. citizen could be qualified for the job.
Why this is important is that the World Bank has been transformed in recent years into a hyperactive international aid provider, filling a role that is far too big or important for even the largest non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent.
The bank's rapid reconstruction work in Bosnia following the Dayton peace accord showed its ability to harness international relief efforts, as did its late but eventually effective enrollment in the battle against HIV/Aids, and its concentration on the wretched state of sub-Saharan Africa. For all its faults - and it certainly has many - the bank is the best tool to influence development for the world's poor.
Yet it is a bank in name only. It relies on just US$20 billion of financing a year. Chastened by its unsuccessful record in the 80s, the bank now holds regular dialogues with NGOs and grassroots organizations. Last week alone it fast-tracked $25 million to Rwanda for urgent electricity supplies, to rehabilitate the country's power grid and shift it away from using ecologically damaging charcoal for fuel.
That is why the right choice of president is vital - but also why the method of making that choice is crucial. In recent years the bank has spent much time lecturing its aid recipients on the need for good governance. An avalanche of research has found that development is powerless to effect change in places where society has been distorted by corruption.
The drumbeat behind international aid has constantly rapped out calls for openness and accountability. Yet at its heart, the appointment to the top job in the world's leading development agency is as open and accountable as the bad old days of the Soeharto regime in Indonesia.
The current situation is the result of an unhealthy carve-up, between the Europeans (mainly, the French, Germans and British), who get to choose the head of the International Monetary Fund, and the U.S., which gets to name the bank president in a quid pro quo. Some argue that this actually works in the bank's favor. Because the U.S. is the bank's largest shareholder, with 20 percent of its funds, and biggest potential contributor, it needs to be kept happy.
The World Bank, they argue, is not supposed to be a democratic institution. Instead, the bank is designed to cajole a small group of rich countries into funding projects for a large group of poor countries. By protesting against the U.S.'s droit du seigneur, developing nations may provoke a backlash by the neocons and backwoodsmen of Congress. The World Bank could find itself in the same bind as the UN: derided on Capitol Hill and starved of extra U.S. funds.
That pragmatic view ignores the fact that while the U.S. does have a 20 percent stake, the rest of the world has 80 percent. It also means that economic powerhouses such as Japan and China are locked out of the process, and left without a say in who gets the bank's top job.
The signs are not good, given some of the candidates being bandied around in Washington. The website worldbankpresident.org lists a series of rumored names, including a conservative Republican senator, an old classmate of President Bush at prep school, and one of the consultants of the U.S.'s postwar Iraq economy. Such an appointment would be seen as moving the bank back to the periphery of Washington policy-making.
That would be a shame, because the bank has been the target of muttering by some of those unhappy that it didn't react more enthusiastically to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The bone-chewing scribes of the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages have already declared the bank's current role to be useless, before sneering that "the bank plays a useful geopolitical role for the U.S.".
Yet the bank's presidency offers the Bush administration a painless and cost-free way of setting out some multilateral credentials, and gaining kudos in the developing world. All it would cost is pounds Sterling 8,200 - the price of a half-page ad in the Economist magazine next week. By treating the job like any other, the U.S. will be doing its bit for international transparency.
More importantly, if the U.S. is not willing to take this step, the bank's other shareholders should make their power felt. For the Bush administration to trumpet freedom and democracy abroad, while relying on shabby stitch-ups in Washington, does no one any favors, and certainly not the world's poor. The most important job at the world's most important development institution should not be left to the mercy of a U.S. president's whim.