It's been a time-honoured "tradition" that the head of the International Monetary Fund (which tries to manage balance of trade and currency issues) is always someone from the European Union; and the chief of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development a.k.a. the "World Bank" (which is effectively the bank of last resort for impoverished nations) is always someone from the United States. However, since decisions in both require a megamajority and the States has a stake that's just above what a "losing" minority would be, it effectively is in charge of both -- not the United Nations like it's supposed to be. So it's the US President who nominates who will head both as opposed to the Security Council.
So even if every other country in the world used its shares to declare no-confidence in whoever was in charge, it would be the White House that has the final say. Hence, Dubya can afford to stall on the Paul Wolfowitz issue no matter how repugnant the latter's actions were. For those in the dark, the summary is this: Wolfowitz managed to get his girlfriend (who also worked at the World Bank) into a senior position at the State Department at a pay grade higher than the Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. The Board of Directors (which includes Canada's Jim Flaherty) is about to vote non-confidence in Wolfowitz. But he refuses to resign and Dubya won't contemplate even an offer of resignation.
Nepotism is as old as Magna Carta -- even older, in fact. But when public money is at stake people demand accountability. When it's a fundamentally flawed institution such as the IMF or the IBRD it's even more repugnant. So to say Wolfowitz must go is needless -- it's more than obvious even to a dolt. What possible rules of ethics did Paul not breach?
Until recently, I wouldn't have given much thought to the idea of getting rid of the agencies. But events like this are the last straw. It's more than obvious both need a shakedown and need to be reformed from the ground up, with more generous repayment terms to countries receiving loans. The subscription terms of donor countries need to be reformed as well with a greater say to the rest of the developed world without America's veto. If that's not possible, just abolish both all together and come up with something new, something that doesn't even involve the States.
It certainly would make more sense to have someone from the Third World run both institutions at the same time, to clean them up than a white man in a suit from the States and yet another white man in a suit from Europe. Say, why not Mohammed Yunus, the inventor of microcredit and last year's Nobel Peace winner? No way the Americans will stand for that though either -- after all, the State Department hates brown people.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
No comments:
Post a Comment