Diplomacy By Fiat
Yesterday I suggested that Paul Wolfowitz's approach to running the World Bank was remarkably similar to that of most Bush appointees to federal slots: grab and run. David E. Sanger has an interesting analysis piece which takes a different slant on the story. Mr. Sanger suggests that the dust-up over the disclosure that Mr. Wolfowitz set up a sizable pay raise for his "companion" is actually a response by the rest of the world to the Bush administration policies over-all.
...it is clear that the chorus of calls in recent days for Mr. Wolfowitz’s ouster is only partly about his involvement in setting up a comfortable job, with a big pay raise, for a bank officer who is Mr. Wolfowitz’s companion.
At its core, the fight about whether Mr. Wolfowitz should stay on at the bank is a debate about Mr. Bush and his tumultuous relationship with the rest of the world, particularly the bank, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which have viewed themselves — at various moments since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — as being at war with the Bush White House and its agenda. [Emphasis added]
Mr. Sanger seems to be implying that the rest of the world was just looking for an excuse to slap the Bush administration around, and Paul Wolfowitz just provided a convenient excuse. Certainly the rest of the world has every reason to be disenchanted with the current American foreign policy, and Mr. Wolfowitz has certainly provided a wonderful example of what that policy entails:
In foreign capitals, and among the bank’s staff members, it has been noted that Mr. Wolfowitz’s passion for fighting corruption, which he has said saps economic life from the world’s poorest nations, seemed to evaporate when it came to reviewing lending to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three countries that the United States considers strategically vital. ...
Over time, Mr. Wolfowitz created an impression that at critical moments he was putting American foreign policy interests first, most notably when he suspended a program in Uzbekistan after the country denied landing rights to American military aircraft, and directed huge amounts of aid to the countries he once recruited to sign on to Washington’s counterterrorism agenda. [Emphasis added]
While I think Sanger is correct in his assessment, I think his emphasis is a little skewed. The current scandal is more than just a handy excuse for the rest of the world to slap down George Bush; it epitomises the arrogance of White House foreign policy. Wolfowitz's sleazy wheeling and dealing on behalf of his lover is just another example of his wheeling and dealing on behalf of those nations who have fallen into line with the Bush way.
I doubt that the White House will ask Wolfowitz to resign. That means that the World Bank's Board of Governors is going to have to do the job. I hope they have the courage to do so.
...it is clear that the chorus of calls in recent days for Mr. Wolfowitz’s ouster is only partly about his involvement in setting up a comfortable job, with a big pay raise, for a bank officer who is Mr. Wolfowitz’s companion.
At its core, the fight about whether Mr. Wolfowitz should stay on at the bank is a debate about Mr. Bush and his tumultuous relationship with the rest of the world, particularly the bank, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which have viewed themselves — at various moments since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — as being at war with the Bush White House and its agenda. [Emphasis added]
Mr. Sanger seems to be implying that the rest of the world was just looking for an excuse to slap the Bush administration around, and Paul Wolfowitz just provided a convenient excuse. Certainly the rest of the world has every reason to be disenchanted with the current American foreign policy, and Mr. Wolfowitz has certainly provided a wonderful example of what that policy entails:
In foreign capitals, and among the bank’s staff members, it has been noted that Mr. Wolfowitz’s passion for fighting corruption, which he has said saps economic life from the world’s poorest nations, seemed to evaporate when it came to reviewing lending to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, three countries that the United States considers strategically vital. ...
Over time, Mr. Wolfowitz created an impression that at critical moments he was putting American foreign policy interests first, most notably when he suspended a program in Uzbekistan after the country denied landing rights to American military aircraft, and directed huge amounts of aid to the countries he once recruited to sign on to Washington’s counterterrorism agenda. [Emphasis added]
While I think Sanger is correct in his assessment, I think his emphasis is a little skewed. The current scandal is more than just a handy excuse for the rest of the world to slap down George Bush; it epitomises the arrogance of White House foreign policy. Wolfowitz's sleazy wheeling and dealing on behalf of his lover is just another example of his wheeling and dealing on behalf of those nations who have fallen into line with the Bush way.
I doubt that the White House will ask Wolfowitz to resign. That means that the World Bank's Board of Governors is going to have to do the job. I hope they have the courage to do so.
Labels: Cronyism, Foreign Policy
posted by Diane at 4:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home