March 21, 2005
WOLFOWITZ AND BOLTON: 'HAWKISH APPOINTMENTS'
KEY FINDINGS
** Naming Bolton gives UN
reform a "chance."
** Backers say Wolfowitz
would bring "impressive qualifications" to the World Bank presidency.
** Critics see Wolfowitz
nomination as a "reward for the hawk" and a "questionable
choice."
** The Wolfowitz and
Bolton selections are a "slap in the face" to the "international
community."
MAJOR THEMES
Bolton nomination is a signal of 'sentiment in Washington'-- Outlets claimed that "if the UN really
wants...reforms," America could not have chosen "a more appropriate
partner." The center-left Irish
Times proclaimed that Bolton's "performance there should be an utter
revelation" that will "change the face of the UN forever." Conversely, some Euro papers stated that Bush
"chose his most irritating, stinging, inconvenient and unbearable
adviser to talk with the world," and that the nomination was "bad
news" for those who desire American multilateralism. Writers also suggested that the choice of
Bolton was a "political undertaking" after he was not named Secretary
Rice's deputy.
Wolfowitz a 'controversial but astute' choice-- Writers who supported Wolfowitz said that he
"emerged because of his impressive qualifications." A German daily asserted, "he will take
seriously the mission of the World Bank" and that the institution
could "profit" from his leadership.
One Czech commentator viewed the nomination as a "good step"
while Denmark's center-left Politiken urged Europe to "let
sleeping dogs lie in Iraq and give Wolfowitz a chance." The conservative Australian found
Wolfowitz "a sound choice" based on his reputation as "a
humanitarian and an optimist" and his prior experience as "an
effective U.S. ambassador."
'Wolf in sheep's clothing'--
Britain's center-left Independent opined that "the world
will find it difficult to work" with Wolfowitz, and that his credentials
don't "outweigh his ideological baggage." Skeptics claimed that Wolfowitz is not known
for his previous diplomatic experience, but rather his "political
misjudgments" in Iraq and his "humiliation of allies" who
opposed the war. Some analysts feared
that "Wolfowitz could be tempted to convert the institution of the Bank to
finance Bush's crusade in this world."
Japanese and Euro financial papers said it was "high time to
review" the "absurd U.S. right" to nominate the Bank's
president.
'Bush thumbs nose at the international community'-- Critics saw the two nominations as a
"provocation" and "punch in the stomach" to opponents of
the Iraq war. These outlets observed
that the nominations "may complicate Washington's attempts to repair
strained relations with old friends and allies," and that they "badly
fit with the more multilateralist dialogue" that Bush recently exhibited.
Germany's business daily Handelsblatt declared that "Bush did
not give a damn about the reaction of the rest of the world." A Brazilian paper saw the nominations as
reflecting the "steadfastness" of Bush's "supremacist foreign
policy," while India's centrist Hindu argued that the tapping of
Wolfowitz and Bolton was "a new standard in Orwellian double-speak even
for an administration that often insists black is white."
Prepared by Media Reaction Branch (202) 203-7888,
rmrmail@state.gov
EDITOR: David Meyers
EDITOR'S NOTE: Media
Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment. Posts select commentary to provide a
representative picture of local editorial opinion. Some commentary is taken directly from the
Internet. This report summarizes and
interprets foreign editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views
of the U.S. Government. This analysis
was based on 61 reports from 27 countries over 9 - 21 March 2005. Editorial excerpts are listed from the most
recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "The World's
Poor Can Rejoice At This News"
The center-left Independent declared (3/21): "Some of Mr. Wolfowitz's critics have
commented on the appropriateness of George Bush sending one of the planners of
the Iraq war to take charge of the World Bank.
The attempt at sarcasm is pitiful.
An architect of Operation Enduring Freedom moves to an organization
committed to enduring development in order to underpin freedom: nothing could
be more appropriate."
"Wolfowitz Might Be Success At Bank. But Odds Are Against It"
The center-left Independent editorialized (3/18): "The difficulty with Paul Wolfowitz is
that much of the rest of the world will find it difficult to work with
him. He may, as is claimed on his
behalf, be a highly competent administrator and fundraiser. He may also be 'compassionate and decent', as
President Bush described him. But this
is nothing like enough to outweigh his ideological baggage. It is hard to escape the impression that he
is being parachuted in to reshape the bank as an arm of U.S. policy cloaked in
false multilateralism."
"Crying Wolfowitz: A
Controversial But Astute Choice"
The conservative Times commented (3/18): "Part of the presentational problem
about Mr. Wolfowitz's elevation has nothing to do with him. It is that it has followed the choice of John
Bolton, a prominent figure at the State Department during the first Bush term
and another articulate 'neocon', to be the U.S. permanent representative
('ambassador') at the United Nations. To
confuse and conflate the two appointments would be illogical. Mr. Bolton's promotion was a political
undertaking which might have been compensation for his failure to obtain the
berth as Condoleezza Rice's deputy at the State Department. Mr. Wolfowitz, by contrast, has emerged
because of his impressive qualifications for his new job. His White House links are an asset."
"A Poor Choice For The World Bank"
The independent Financial Times remarked (3/18): "Mr. Wolfowitz's comments on the likely
costs of the Iraq war and prospective popularity of the invading forces in Iraq
put his judgment in question. But, above
all, the world would view a bank directed by Mr. Wolfowitz as no more than an
instrument of U.S. power and U.S. priorities.
Every piece of advice the bank gave and condition it set would be made
illegitimate, in the eyes of recipients, by the perception that it served the
interests of the world's 'sole superpower'.
The impact on the bank's legitimacy would be hugely damaging."
"Wolfowitz At The Door"
The left-of-center Guardian held (3/17): "NGOs fear that Mr. Wolfowitz's
free-market outlook, combined with existing U.S. interest in downsizing the
bank, could run counter to development policy-making trends under the admired
outgoing president, James Wolfensohn.
Some worry that his strong emphasis on human rights may complicate
relations with China. What is crucial is
to continue the focus on poverty reduction that--in a hopeful sign--was begun
by Robert McNamara, the former U.S. secretary of defense, and also a hate
figure before he took over in 1968."
"Bolton From The Blue"
An editorial in the left-of-center Guardian read
(3/10): "According to one view,
seating Mr. Bolton at the security council's famous horseshoe-shaped table may
be a way of keeping him well away from Washington while ensuring that reform at
the UN goes America's way. In recent
months the administration has stopped undermining the secretary general, Kofi
Annan, and has not sought to exploit his difficulties with the Iraqi
oil-for-food scandal. But that is to put
a positive gloss on what looks like bad news for those who want America to
engage more closely with other countries."
"America Firster: Bolton Can Spur UN Reform, If He Chooses To
Be Constructive"
An editorial in the independent Financial Times asserted
(3/9): "Bolton is hardly likely to
reinvent himself as a born-again multilateralist. But if US policy were to be changed in that
direction by the decision-makers in Washington, it would carry more weight with
the UN's many critics on the Republican right if it came out of the mouth of
Mr. Bolton.... The dispatch of one of
Washington's staunchest unilateralists to the UN may yet turn out an inspired
decision. But the onus will be on Mr.
Bolton and his masters in Washington to prove this so."
FRANCE: “Why Wolfowitz?”
The unsigned editorial in left-of-center Le Monde read
(3/20): “George W. Bush’s signs of
opening up to the world in general and Europe in particular since his
re-election have quickly reached their limit...and the President is reverting
to the unilateralism that characterized his first term in office. Mr. Wolfowitz
has stated that he will not be Washington’s man at the World Bank...but it will
be difficult for him to convince anyone of this within the international
community as his personality suggests anything but the U.S.’s openness or
humility.... On the contrary, this
nomination looks like a new manifestation of America’s arrogance...indifference
or even cynicism towards poor countries....
What if Europe, spurred on by numerous NGOs, decided to veto this
nomination? It would have to take on the responsibility of yet another
diplomatic crisis with the U.S. In short, Mr. Bush’s decision makes the warming
of transatlantic relations increasingly difficult.”
“The Real False American Springtime”
Pascal Riche wrote in left-of-center Liberation (3/21):
“...These two nominations were met in Europe with saddened
astonishment.... It fears that Bolton
will undertake a crusade against the UN...and that Wolfowitz, who has devoted
his career to spreading western-style democracy in the world...will be tempted
to use the resources of the World Bank to punish some and reward others.
Europeans have an easy way to stop this: by vetoing his nomination.”
GERMANY: "Wolfowitz
Nomination"
Right-of-center Main-Post said (3/21): "The World Bank is the biggest donor for
development projects. There are quite a
few experts who are now afraid that the dependence of poor countries on western
companies or governments could and should grow again under Wolfowitz. It is certain that the World Bank with its
influence and its power to differentiate between well-liked and disliked powers
presents a sensitive interface between rich and poor nations. This does not tolerate any
ideologization. It must be doubted
whether Wolfowitz as author of the Bush doctrine of preventive self defense can
guarantee this."
"Bush's Clear Gesture"
Kurt Kister opined in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of
Munich (3/18): "When President Bush
recently visited Mainz, he stressed how important consultations are for
him. What this means can now be seen in
the case of Paul Wolfowitz. Bush decided
to make the controversial Pentagon man the president of the World Bank. Only then did he call Schröder, Chirac, and
other leaders to inform them of his decision.... Of course, Wolfowitz is experienced in
leading large-scale bureaucracies, but is better known for his political
misjudgments, his humiliation of allies thinking differently and because he
pursued his ideas whatever happens. Wolfowitz's nomination for the post of World
Bank president, a classical institution of multilateralism, is a clear
gesture by the president. It resembles
someone who gives others the finger. As
ambassador to the UN, [Bush] nominated John Bolton, who thinks little of the
UN; and now Wolfowitz for the World Bank.
Did anyone believe that we would experience a different, chastened Bush
during his second term?"
"Hawk In A Dovecote"
Malte Lehming filed the following editorial for centrist Der
Tagesspiegel of Berlin (3/18):
"The neo-conservatives are in the limelight again.... The two arguments used to legitimize the Iraq
war--WMD and Iraq's alleged link to terrorism--have never been the main reasons
for the conservatives' [policy]. They
were interested in spreading democracy in the Middle East.... And all of a sudden, it worked. Free elections in Afghanistan, Palestine, and
Iraq; in Lebanon people take to the streets to demonstrate for
independence.... The Iraq war is now
getting its justification from the neo-conservative ideology. In light of history, it could even be the
most plausible one. And President Bush
is openly heading this movement. He sent
Bolton to the UN, and Wolfowitz to the World Bank. With these promotions he expresses his personal
esteem, but does it also mean he disdains institutions?... But we will not do justice to Wolfowitz if we
reduce his personality to a warmonger. He will take seriously the mission of the
World Bank to eliminate poverty. But he
also knows that poverty quite often has political reasons.... The World Bank can profit from Wolfowitz. He proved that he is guided by his faith. The work of the staff of 10,000 will
certainly not become easier. Who knows? Maybe some day in the future, the world will
be surprised."
"George W. Bush's Forked Tongue"
Bernd Pickert opined in leftist Die Tageszeitung of Berlin
(3/18): "Those who thought of
coincidence when President Bush nominated John Bolton as UN ambassador must
realize at the latest now that the Bush administration is speaking with a
forked tongue in transatlantic relations; first the charm offensive, then the
nomination of two people who like no one else represent the part of U.S.
foreign policy that had really stirred up the transatlantic conflict. Bush is treating the Europeans like he treats
the opposition at home. He speaks of a
new beginning, accommodation, and cooperation but is then embarrassing them
with polarizing moves and abuses all those as obstructionists who dared to
reject such moves. But if the nice words
of transatlantic partnership should have an effect, the Europeans must make
clear as quickly as possible that the new relationship cannot be described by
unilaterally keeping still. Wolfowitz's
rejection would be the first step to straighten relations.... The problem is that the World Bank and its
orientation is much too important for the poor majority of peoples to be
exposed to bad games. This is another
reason why Wolfowitz's nomination is an affront. Kofi Annan's commissioner for the millennium
goals, Jeffrey Sachs, called Bush's choice 'inappropriate.' But this is rather a diplomatic
description."
"Reward For The Hawk"
Wolfgang Koydl observed in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung
of Munich (3/17): "One of the
characteristics President Bush estimates the most among his staff members is an
unshakable loyalty.... His most loyal
supporters can rely on the president to remember them and to reward them for
their reliable services. Obviously, Paul
Wolfowitz is also among the lucky ones....
But as much as the president thinks highly of Wolfowitz, as
controversial is he among the European partners. They consider him a driving force behind the
Iraq war, the ugly face of unilateralism, and the hawk that does not show any
consideration for the views of the allies.
But Bush seems to have learned his lesson from the past. Before he informed the press on Wednesday, he
discussed Wolfowitz's candidacy with several European colleagues on the phone. It seems that Bush this time does not want to
create faits accomplis. But it is
uncertain whether he was able to dispel European doubts. In Europe, people like to remember the other
American who changed from the Pentagon to the World Bank and who took his odd
views on the U.S. role in the world with him:
Robert McNamara."
"Wolf In Sheep's Clothing"
Andreas Rincke argued in business daily Handelsblatt of
Duesseldorf (3/17): "Do you still
remember President Bush's announcement that he wants to consult more with his
European interlocutors in his second term?
In the meantime, Washington seems to have forgotten this intention. With two decisions the Bush administration has
now caused doubts about the seriousness of its promises: first, John Bolton's nomination...and now
Paul Wolfowitz's nomination for the job as World Bank president. To put it in cautious terms: President Bush
did not give a damn about the reaction of the rest of the world. Many will consider Wolfowitz's nomination a
provocation, and there is the great danger that he will be more detrimental
than useful for the reputation of this institution.... Since the Americans have the right to propose
a new president, Wolfowitz could be prevented from getting this job only by
causing a new transatlantic dispute. And
this is something the Europeans do not want.
But his nomination should at least be a reason to question once and for
all the absurd U.S. right to nominate a candidate for this post."
"The Neo-Con Banker"
Business-oriented Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg
had this to say (3/17): "This
decision is like a punch in the stomach of all the critics of the Iraq
war.... A few days after John Bolton's
nomination...President Bush seems to provoke the world again to the
maximum. But in reality, Wolfowitz's
nomination only shows how much Bush sees himself confirmed in his previous
course and how serious he is about his declared project to spread democracy and
freedom across the world. Wolfowitz is
one of the most ardent advocates of this program, and in the future he is
likely to try to use the economic levers for this program. As far as his qualifications are concerned,
he brings along the necessary experience.
The Europeans should take advantage of these chances.... Wolfowitz knows economically and politically
disadvantaged regions quite well.... It
is certainly right to say that he is a convinced, pigheaded idealist. In Iraq, this has probably resulted in fatal
arrogance. But if such a do-gooder
changes from the military control levers in the Pentagon to the conference
tables of development cooperation, this can, in the end, be a gain for all
sides involved."
"Bolton's Mission"
Dietmar Ostermann commented in left-of-center Frankfurter
Rundschau (3/9): "The
experience with the Bush administration in general and John Bolton in
particular tells us that persons stand for programs. Insofar, the nomination of the undiplomatic
hardliner as, above all, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is a signal. And it is not a good one. As undersecretary of state for arms control,
Bolton torpedoed the negotiations on strengthening the bio-weapons convention
and those with North Korea. He rejects
the European negotiation approach on Iran's nuclear program. Bolton was the architect of the U.S. campaign
against the International Criminal Court.
For him the UN is a debating club, which can, at best, be used for
American interests, but which should otherwise be ignored. When Bolton did not become the number two in
the State Department under Condoleezza Rice, European diplomats interpreted it
as a hopeful signal for Washington's moderate course. And now?
The nomination of the hawk can be seen as an affront, especially against
the UN. If Washington's rapprochement
with Europe were pursued on the back of the UN, it would be costly. At the end of the day, this decision reflects
the sentiment in Washington. Since there is movement in the Middle East, we
can notice a renaissance of hard-liners at Bush's court."
ITALY: "Many Perplexities
And A Test For Europe"
Alessandro Merli concluded in leading business-oriented Il
Sole-24 Ore (3/17): “Various
European countries reacted lukewarmly...while NGO’s were chilly. If Wolfowitz, who is seen as the mastermind
of the Iraqi war, is nominated, it will not be easy to ‘sell’ the World Bank as
an institution that takes cares of the poor in the world. The choice is comparable to that of John
Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the UN. As
in that case, it is considered by some as a provocation and as more evidence
that Bush despises multilateral institutions.
The choice raises two questions.
The first is what Europe will do, given that Wolfowitz’s name had
already been informally submitted to them, receiving negative feedback. The Europeans could oppose it, with the
support of emerging countries, by reciprocating the veto that the U.S. gave
European candidate Caio Koch-Weser for the [International] Monetary Fund. But it will be interesting to see if European
countries will be able to move together, as they have tried to do at the
IMF. The second question concerns the
criteria for choosing nominees to head financial institutions (until now the
World Bank has gone to the U.S. and the Monetary Fund to Europe), which should
be more transparent, taking into account capabilities, and not only
citizenship, and the fact that the world has changed since the system was
created 60 years ago.”
"America, The UN And Tough Diplomacy"
Gianni Riotta wrote in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della
Sera (3/9): Bolton, 56 years of age,
former attorney, is the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations: President
George W. Bush chose his most irritating, stinging, inconvenient and unbearable
adviser to talk with the world...John Bolton’s nomination is an error and the
Senate would do well not to confirm him. Chances are that once in New
York, Bolton could turn from a hawk into a diplomat. But the resentment that
has been accumulated towards him because of his rough manners will cause us to
waste precious time and the world and the United States cannot run the risk of
focusing their attention on a false plot rather than on real wars.”
RUSSIA: "Financier
Hawk"
Artur Blinov stated in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(3/18): "The World Bank may lose
face as a leading international organization involved in financing
development. It risks becoming a
financial prop for 'democratization' in poor countries, with the architect of
that policy, Paul Wolfowitz, nominated for president of the bank."
AUSTRIA: "Bush Shapes
The Future World Order"
Independent Salzburger Nachrichten declared (3/21): "Both Bolton's and Wolfowitz'
nominations are a slap in the face for the international community. They show
that George W. Bush does not care one bit what his friends and allies think -
and even less what his critics might say....
The fact that the President opted for Wolfowitz seems to indicate that
George W. Bush is not just seeking to leave his mark on American society but
also on the rest of the world -- just as he is trying, by nominating one or
more members of the US Supreme Court, to determine the development of social
politics in America over the next generation. In international politics as well
as at home he has succeeded in shaping the concept of the future. With the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has created facts that go far beyond the
developments in both those countries."
"What Next: Rumsfeld
As UN Boss?"
Hans Kronspiess argued in centrist Die Presse (3/18): "With Wolfowitz, a pronounced political
figure takes over the chief position in the globally most important development
aid organization. The 61-year old
Wolfowitz is going to try to change the World Bank politically as well.... Wolfowitz is someone who acts. It seems certain that his actions as future
World Bank president will provoke resistance.
His nomination in itself has been greeted with little enthusiasm in
Europe. However, it is remarkable that
the U.S. president is prepared to renounce one of his most important political
associates. Is this a sign that Bush
suddenly takes international organizations seriously? Will he put into practice his announcement to
give priority to diplomacy over military strength? Or is this an attempt at populating
international organizations with neo-conservatives that will put into practice
his ideology? Bush is full of surprises
and that holds true for his second term as well."
"Difficult Times For The World Bank"
Editor Richard Wiens commented in independent Salzburger
Nachrichten (3/18): "It really
seems strange that it should be Wolfowitz, the spiritual father of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, who is considered the right man at the top of the World Bank
and thus for the alleviation of poverty in the world.... It is at any rate not a confidence-building
signal in the direction of those countries whose inhabitants' existence depends
on the policy pursued by the World Bank.
Wolfowitz's nomination once again makes clear how outdated the
nomination rituals in two of the most important institutions in the global
economic system are. A European in the
International Monetary Fund, an American in the World Bank--this was the simple
formula according to which the world was divided in the post-world war
period. However, this has changed and it
is high time that those countries which are most affected by the World Bank's
policy are given a loud voice there....
If Wolfowitz should really become World Bank president, he will start
out with a high mortgage. There is a
small chance that this will be motivation for him to try and be a president for
whom the fight against poverty is a matter near to his heart. For such a fight though, he will need
allies--and to find those has so far not been one of Wolfowitz's strong
points. That man can really only surprise
in a positive way."
BELGIUM: "Paul
Wolfowitz"
Foreign editor Jean Vanempten stated in independent financial De
Tijd (3/19): "If
Wolfowitz...does become president a super hawk will be at the helm of the World
Bank - whose official task is to promote economic growth and to eradicate
poverty in the world. Wolfowitz’s
profile does not really tally with that job.
He is the great architect of the war in Iraq.... The danger in this story lies in Wolfowitz’s
convictions and ideology, and his ties with the American administration. Many pressure groups fear that Wolfowitz will
put those issues on the agenda that benefit the American strategy. Just like McNamara at the time did not always
make a distinction between America’s defense policy and his function at the
World Bank, Wolfowitz may be in the grip of his neo-conservative friends in the
government and the corporate world...”
CROATIA: "Hawk At
World Bank's Head"
Kresimir Fijacko wrote in Zagreb-based, government-owned Vjesnik
(3/18): “However, the ‘hawk’ from the
Pentagon could prove to be the wrong person, at a time when the World Bank is
once again in the middle of a debate over its strategy of assistance to the
poor, and tactics of persuading the rich to give a little more to those who
have much less. Regardless of Bush’s
compliments to Wolfowitz as a man who has ‘experience in managing a huge
bureaucracy,’ many believe that something else is more important than
that. Namely, that Wolfowitz was the
‘father’ of the war in Iraq, and that he has totally failed in designing the
post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Neither
is a very good reference for the World Bank.”
CZECH REPUBLIC:
"Nomination Of Paul Wolfowitz To Head World Bank A Good Step"
Frantisek Sulc opined in center-right Lidove noviny
(3/18): "Wolfowitz at the head of
the World Bank is not a bad choice. He
can help President Bush 'press' American policy through the World Bank. It would not be surprising if the World Bank
gets more involved in the renewal of Iraq and the Middle East in next few
years. The growing American budget
deficit is becoming a big problem and Bush needs to deal with it somehow. Any contribution will be helpful."
DENMARK: "Bush's
Hawkish Appointments Turns Administration More Moderate"
Center-right Berlingske Tidende carried the following
analysis by its Foreign Editor, Tom Jensen (3/21): "The appointment of Bolton and Wolfowitz
means that the Bush Administration has, in reality, moved considerably to the
right. Before Bolton was named in
connection with the U.N., he was a influential player at the Department of
State. He was responsible for a number
of controversial issues in the foreign policy arena including U.S. rejection of
the ICC and Kyoto. Similarly, Wolfowitz
was an extremely powerful Deputy Secretary of Defense who had been largely
responsible for the war in Iraq. The
appointments have therefore made Condoleezza Rice more powerful than ever. Indeed, Rice's star appears to be shining so
brightly, that only last week, she was forced to deny rumors that she was
intending to run for the White House in 2008."
"Give Wolfowitz A Chance"
Center-left Politiken editorialized (3/18): "The appointment of Bolton and the
likely appointment of Wolfowitz appear controversial...but, in the final
analysis, it is up to the Americans who they select.... Furthermore, why should Wolfowitz be
considered as a poor candidate? He is
controversial because of his role in the Iraq war, but that should not
necessarily detract from his suitability to lead the World Bank. Wolfowitz is one of the Bush administration's
most thoughtful and visionary members.
He was an excellent ambassador to Indonesia and is known to have good
relations with a number of pro-democracy activists in the region.... Furthermore, he has a solid background within
academia. In light of this, it might be
wise for Europeans to let sleeping dogs lie in Iraq and give Wolfowitz a
chance."
"Clear Signals From Bush"
Michael Seidelin observed in center-left Politiken
(3/18): "President Bush has not
gone soft (on foreign policy issues).
His recent appointment of John Bolton at the UN and the fact that he has
put Wolfowitz forward as the new leader of the World Bank, send clear signals
to the international community.... It
looks like the U.S. vision of how best to combat terror and promote democracy
is the one that will continue to set the international agenda."
"Bush Thumbs Nose At The International Community"
Niels Bjerre Poulsen commented in center-left Politiken
(3/18): "Few people doubt
Wolfowitz's intellect, but a number of errors of judgment over Iraq and
his evident disregard for the opinions of the international community have not
exactly made him the perfect candidate for the job at The World Bank."
"Bush Doctrine Remains The Same"
Left-wing Information stated (3/9): "Shortly before he was appointed Deputy
Secretary of State in 2001, Bolton said on NPR that there was only one member
of the UNSC that should have right of veto – the U.S. There is no reason to believe that Bush,
Cheney or Rice disagree with this absurd point of view. The Bush Administration thinks influence
should be decided in terms of military power.
The U.S. will be able to do what it likes during the 21st century if it
continues to be the world's most powerful military nation. Last Monday, Rice called Bolton an advocate
of effective multilateralism.
What this means in real terms is unclear, but it seems to be imply that
the U.N. will have to become better at following U.S. foreign policy."
FINLAND: "Wolfowitz
Is A Questionable Choice"
Leading, centrist Helsingin Sanomat
editorialized (3/19): “President Bush’s
second term in office has not begun in as a cooperative spirit as initial
statements indicated. Important choices
for nominations give the opposite signal.
When preparing for the Iraq war, Wolfowitz made gross mistakes which he
has not admitted or taken the responsibility for. They have slowed down Iraqi reconstruction
and cost heavy casualties which could have been voided with better planning and
wiser policies…. In all of his public activities Wolfowitz has been more of a
salesman of his ideological prejudices than a pragmatist respectful of
realities. Wolfowitz’s close
relationship with President Bush is also a very questionable advantage. He may see the World Bank merely as a
political tool for the White House. Even
if that is not the case, the impression has been created and it will be
difficult to dispel.”
HUNGARY: “Wolfowitz’s Task”
Foreign affairs editor Ivan Zsolt Nagy opined sardonically in liberal-leaning Magyar Hirlap
(3/19): “Consequently, within a short
time, the emphasis of the U.S. Middle East policy may be shifted from military
to economic, and thus Wolfowitz’s transfer may be seen in a very different
light. Not to mention the fact that as World Bank President, he may be able to
pay attention to his favorite toy Iraq which, thanks to the war and the (also)
the unpreparedness of the occupiers, has by now reached the same level as Haiti
and Senegal. To win from here is a nice challenge.”
“Chance For The UN”
In liberal-leaning Magyar Hirlap, Ivan Zsolt Nagy pointed
out (3/10): "[Bolton] is
truly one of those Republican foreign affairs politicians with whom some sort
of a change could be enforced in the UN; moreover, in such a way that it could
be sold even to hardliner American conservatives. In the eyes of the latter,
Bolton who has repeatedly emphasized the United States’ role as the only
superpower, repeatedly criticized the UN, and who is able to infuriate
everybody is a figure credible enough: if something is connected to his name
they will accept it even if they loathe it.
And it is true in the reverse as well: if the UN really wants some type
of reforms (and they say they do) this American administration could hardly
have appointed a more appropriate partner than Bolton. As a UN diplomat told
CNN, it is like when the Palestinians have to bargain with Sharon: at least
they know that if they agree on something the other party will also honor it.”
IRELAND: "An Irishman's
Diary"
The center-left Irish Times (3/11) article by Kevin Myers
claimed: “Tears of joy should be running down all our
cheeks at the appointment of John Bolton as US ambassador to that vast
wheezing, corrupt monster the United Nations.... He is not so much a bull in a china shop but
a bodkin-wielding debunker in a balloon parlor.... At one level the failure of the UN is
structural: an organization which can put Libya in charge of its human rights
committee is clearly a spark plug or two short of a full engine. But at
another, it is a question of personal corruption, as in the fiasco of food and
medicines for Iraqi oil.... Enter...John
Bolton, and watch the UN shake to its wretched foundations as he hammers his 95
theses onto the door of the Palace of Corruption in New York.... If the UN had had its way, Saddam and his
lovely boys would still be ruling in Iraq, UN officials would be making
millions from the oil scandal, and thousands of Iraqis would be dying because
of malnutrition and a lack of medicine This doesn't mean that the US was right
in everything it did. It should not have insisted it had evidence of weapons of
mass destruction, and it should have gone in more properly prepared...but we
know what judgment the Iraqis made about the decision to hold a general
election in the middle of an insurgency...The events in Hilla showed us
something else too - that all over Iraq thousands of patriotic young men are
volunteering to serve their country, and if need be, die in the course of doing
their duty and building up a working democracy.... There would be no prospect of freedom in
Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, if matters had been left to
the UN: yet in all these territories, liberty now strains at the leash.... To be sure, the cost of Iraqi freedom has
been horrific, but so too was the cost of tyranny.... Watch John Bolton now. His performances there
should be an utter revelation. Hear the pop, pop, pop as the balloons of
organizational conceit, of insufferable vanity, of institutionalized corruption
are exploded. Better still, observe him take on the remaining protectors of
tyranny in the forum of the UN's main assembly, and watch them pale and cringe.
Most of all, watch him change the face of the UN forever.”
"US Appoints Critic As UN Ambassador"
Conor O'Clery noted in the center-left Irish Times
(3/8): "President George Bush
yesterday named John Bolton, one of a small but influential group of
neo-conservatives at the heart of the administration, to be US ambassador to
the United Nations...Mr Bolton (56), a sharp critic of the UN and of hard-line
regimes, will replace John Danforth....
Mr Bolton acknowledged yesterday he had written critically about the UN
before now.... Mr. Bolton is popular
with supporters of Mr. Bush's drive for democracy, but has been targeted by
both conservative and liberal critics in the past.... Yesterday's announcement caused considerable
stir among diplomats at the UN yesterday. Apparently seeking to reply to
concerns at UN headquarters, Dr. Rice stressed that ‘the United States is
committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an
important component of our diplomacy’.... European diplomats noted that Mr. Bolton
led US opposition to EU plans to lift a 15-year arms embargo and sell weapons
to Beijing. Last month in Tokyo, he strongly criticized China for not stopping
Chinese companies from selling missile technology to Iran. North Korea was so
angered by his denunciations that Pyongyang refused to negotiate with him and
he was removed from the US delegation...”
NETHERLANDS: "No
Cannons But Butter"
Influential liberal De Volkskrant asserted (3/21): “Wolfowitz might not be known as a
developmental or bank expert, but he does have an eye for the link between
poverty and security. Last week
Wolfowitz said it was not just noble to help conquer poverty but it was also a
matter of ‘enlightened self interest.’
And on his tour through the Tsunami-hit regions, Wolfowitz said that
American aid to the victims helps reduce the attraction of extremist movements
and to ‘make the world a better place for all.’
For, the rich are less receptive to the lure of terrorists. In this light, Wolfowitz’ transfer to the
World Bank perfectly fits the course of his career. During the first three years after September
11, his anti-terrorist policy was very focused on the short term and on the use
of America’s military power. At the
World Bank Wolfowitz would be able to develop a long-term strategy in which
economic development and fighting poverty are essential as a solution to the
terrorism problem…. If the World Bank can resist the urge to see Wolfowitz as a
strange guy, it could benefit from his intellect, his unconventional way of
thinking and his aversion to the status quo. Moreover, critics should be happy
that he is leaving the Pentagon and that after his appointment at the World
Bank he would only have one more weapon available to support his ideas, and
that is money: 20 billion dollars per
year. No cannons but butter.”
NORWAY: “Sent Out From The
Hawk’s Nest”
Independent Dagbladet commented (3/20): “The political architect behind the Iraq war,
Paul D. Wolfowitz, will most likely be the new president of the World Bank… The
characteristic of these neo-conservatives is… a faith in their own excellence
so strong that they rarely feel like spending time on long-winded diplomacy…
The promotion of the Deputy Defense Secretary, taking an economic grip on the
whole world, is one of the last pieces in the puzzle that President Bush is now
laying down for his new four-year term in the White House. The other pieces are
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director Porter Goss, Intelligence
Director John Negroponte, UN-ambassador John Bolton and Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales. The common denominator is a tight bond to President Bush and
a common understanding, sort of a mission, to go out and make both the United
States and the rest of the world his disciples. First the White House, then the
rest of the world, seems to be the President’s motto… Like President Bush,
Wolfowitz has the courage to run over anybody in order to ram his will through.
A lot points in the direction of Wolfowitz’s appointment, but the
responsibility now rests on Norway and the rest of the world to demand more
sensitivity from the man than what he has proved willing to provide so far.”
"The Signals Of Power"
Newspaper-of-record Aftenposten commented (3/19): "Wolfowitz has been a symbol and a
supporter of the new U.S. doctrine stating that U.S. interests are best cared
for through the will to exercise power. The watchword states that if the United
States shows leadership, the rest of the world will follow. The World Bank
deserved and needed the United States to nominate a person with indisputable
skills and reputation. There is now a fear that Wolfowitz, almost by instinct,
will see the Bank as a sort of extension of the U.S. government, fighting for
the same U.S. vision of how the future world should look. The appointment of
Wolfowitz happens shortly after John Bolton, another leading neo-conservative,
has been appointed to be the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. The United States sees
itself best served by being represented in the world organization by a person
who has been skeptical toward finding unifying, multilateral solutions inside
the framework of international organizations and agreements. Shortly after his
reconciliation tour of Europe, President Bush is sending signals, through his
appointments of Wolfowitz and Bolton, that power is still what matters.”
"A Provocation Against The UN"
Social-democratic Dagsavisen observed (3/10): "The nomination of John Bolton as the
new U.S. Ambassador to the UN can hardly be seen as anything but a provocation.
After President George W. Bush for some weeks has praised and emphasized the
importance of diplomacy, he now sends to the UN a man who throughout his career
has made his notorious abhorrence of the UN his trademark… We already know what
to expect from his tough style and ability to convince. He could run up against
a wall. The UN consists of independent countries that will not, just like that,
accept Super Power Ambassadors who get diplomacy mixed up with kicking people
in the behind. The United States also needs the UN more than ever before… The
UN needs reforms…. The Security Council is out-dated and desperately needs an
enlargement that opens up for countries of the third world. But if the
criticism is going to result in reforms, clever negotiations are necessary.
Whether John Bolton is the man the UN and the world need is, for now, highly
unlikely.”
SPAIN: "Bush Releases
A 'Hawk'"
Left-of-center El País observed (3/18): "Bush's election of two neocon 'hawks',
Paul Wolfowitz...and John Bolton...badly fit with the more multilateralist
dialogue that this president seems to be exhibiting in this second
mandate. Wolfowitz's case, the Pentagon
designer of the war on terrorism and the badly planned and illegal invasion of
Iraq, is especially offensive. That the
head of the World Bank has been always an American...is something that many
countries are starting to disagree with, but in any case not everybody is good
for the position. The former secretary
of state, Colin Powell, would have been more acceptable.... Bolton's arrival (as the U.S. ambassador to
the UN) when the United Nations has to confront ambitious internal reform is
not precisely a sign that Bush wants to undertake it with a constructive
spirit. One of the president's
objectives is to reform existing international institutions. Although the assistance given can't be
politically conditioned...Wolfowitz could be tempted to convert the institution
of the Bank to finance Bush's crusade in this world."
"Bush's Candidate"
Centrist La Vanguardia contended (3/18): "The minimum that can be said of
Wolfowitz's appointment as the U.S. candidate to the presidency of the World
Bank...is that it has caused an evident surprise. In some way, this institution is associated
with developing programs and the kindest face of transnational capitalism,
while Wolfowitz is preceded by his deserved reputation of 'hawk' and
'neocon'.... Certainly, the
antiglobalization movements and the demonstrators that the IMF summits now
systematically attract...have a 'villain' to denigrate in Wolfowitz...who will
always be accompanied by his description as an ideologist of his country's
intervention in Iraq."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "Another
Bush Choice That Speaks Volumes"
The national conservative Australian took this view
(3/18): “If there were any lingering
doubts that George W. Bush's second-term agenda would be about consolidating
his world view, which combines tough-mindedness with idealism, yesterday's
choice of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank should finally dispel
them.... Mr. Wolfowitz's nomination will
be...controversial, but he is a sound choice.
He is a deeply thoughtful intellectual who has previously been both an assistant
secretary of state and an undersecretary of defense.... Though the liberal side of his character goes
unrecognized by a Left elite blinded by hatred over his role in Iraq, he is a
humanitarian and an optimist. As U.S.
ambassador to Indonesia he was popular and effective, and a passionate and
successful advocate of dialogue between the U.S. and Islam. If democracy is flowering in the Middle East,
it is largely due to Mr. Wolfowitz's moral vision. Both as ambassador to Indonesia and as
assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific, he dealt with
development and poverty issues similar to those that will occupy him as World
Bank supremo.... Mr. Wolfensohn kept the
World Bank relevant. But with an entire
continent, Africa, still in the grip of poverty and disease, Mr. Wolfowitz's
challenge is to make it effective.”
CHINA: “Newly-Appointed
U.S. Ambassador to UN Doesn't Like To Cooperate"
Yang Xiao commented in the official Communist
Party international news publication Global Times (3/9): “White mustache, gloomy, with cold eyes and a
face hardly bearing a smile. This is
John Robert Bolton, the Deputy Secretary of State wearing his normal look, but
with a different identity after President Bush nominated him to be the new U.S.
Ambassador to the UN. The nomination has
aroused a great disturbance in Washington political circles and UN headquarters
in New York.... It is unreasonable for
Bush to nominate Bolton--a man that has been so deeply critical of the UN in
the past. A senior U.S. senator states
that Bush has sent the wrong signal to the world in nominating Bolton. The Associated Press reports that Bolton’s
nomination would start a fierce fight within the U.S. Congress.”
CHINA (HONG KONG SAR):
"UN May Benefit From American's Blunt Talking"
The independent English-language South China Morning Post
said in an editorial (3/10): "On
the face of it, the decision to nominate John Bolton as the U.S. representative
to the United Nations is disastrous.
After all, Mr. Bolton's reputation as a bull in the diplomatic china
shop -- and a critic of the UN bureaucracy
-- is well established. One of his
famous pronouncements about the international body suggests that 10 stories of
its New York secretariat building could disappear and not be missed. Another compares the UN to an overgrown coral
reef.... So long as Mr. Bolton can be an
effective advocate for the necessary bold action -- while not alienating the
other diplomats -- his presence might yet have some positive results. It will be a question of whether he shoots
from the hip or takes more careful aim....
However, the UN ambassadorship is a position in which Mr. Bolton will be
required to implement the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush and
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He
will also be confirmed by legislators and to some extent accountable to
them. As strong as Mr. Bolton's own
opinions are known to be, he will likely be in no position to express them so
freely once he is representing the American viewpoint to the international
community. We can expect the
confirmation hearings to feature a more muted Mr. Bolton -- and vows to pursue
persuasion and co-operation."
JAPAN: "Don't Use
World Bank as U.S. Policy Instrument"
Liberal Asahi editorialized (3/21): "President Bush's nomination of DOS
Under Secretary Bolton as its U.N. Ambassador and of DOD Deputy Secretary
Wolfowitz as a candidate for the next World Bank President indicates the Bush
administration's interest in managing the two global institutions in an
"American" way.... A review of
the decade-long 'practice' of automatically choosing an American as World Bank
President is long overdue. There has
also been criticism that the U.S. and the World Bank are coordinating to impose
a market economy system on developing nations.
If Wolfowitz, as top banker of the lending institution, tries to
prioritize the spreading of U.S.-style democratic values over assisting
economic development, long-standing global confidence in the World Bank will
plunge sharply. We urge Washington to
refrain from using the World Bank as its 'foreign policy tool.'"
"Bush Departing From Neo-Con line"
Liberal Mainichi writer Megumu Nishikawa observed
(3/21): "President Bush now appears
to believe that greater cooperation from the international community is
essential for political stability in Iraq.
From this thinking emerges a view that the continued presence of 'neo-con'
officials in the Bush administration would be detrimental to the
'internationalization' of reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Bush's nomination of Wolfowitz as a candidate
for World Bank President suggests that the neo-con intellectual has been asked
to move from the forefront to the backburner."
"World Bank Is Not A U.S. Bank"
Business-oriented Nihon Keizai opined (3/18): "There is speculation that U.S.
political influence would grow within the World Bank if Paul Wolfowitz, often
seen as a hard-line 'neo-con' security strategist in the Bush administration,
is selected as the next president of the international lending
institution. With this year marking the
aid organization's 60th anniversary, it is high time to review whether the bank
should continue to be a 'U.S.' bank....
There is strong opposition to a possible Wolfowitz presidency because of
concerns that the World Bank, under his leadership, would devise and implement
aid strategies in a manner favoring the Bush administration's Middle East policy. It is a cold reality that major powers tend
to have a bigger say in the aid institution's decision-making process. We believe, however, that allowing a single
power to exercise undue influence would be problematic. Japan, as the second largest financial
contributor, must check the U.S. move."
SINGAPORE: "Give
Wolfowitz A Chance"
The pro-government Straits Times editorialized (3/21): "Is Paul Wolfowitz the war-gamer fit to
be the next president of the World Bank? ...For the sake of fairness, Mr.
Wolfowitz's critics would do well instead to consider the experience in total
that he will bring to the bank. Although he is not an economist, he should
nevertheless have an understanding of the dynamics of the developing world,
gained from his time as America's ambassador to Indonesia. Indeed, the bank
already has enough development experts; what it needs at the top is someone to
point them in the direction the bank should go. Here, Mr. Wolfowitz's
experience in helping manage the US Defense Department bureaucracy could prove
valuable in what should be the task of prudently matching resources - always
limited - with achievable goals. What should those goals be? ...The early
officials of the bank were prescient in their faith in the private sector as
the best guard against poverty. Given Mr. Wolfowitz's ideological persuasion,
it is likely he will focus more of the bank's work in this direction. That
said, the World Bank for now would still need to continue its traditional
lending duties. But today, there is a much lower tolerance for waste. Indeed,
the real test of a Wolfowitz presidency at the bank may well be how he manages
to promote greater institutional safeguards against corruption among some of
the bank's borrowers. He should be given a chance to show doubters how well he
can perform as a multilateralist."
THAILAND: "U.S. Names
Man To World Bank"
The top-circulation, moderately conservative, English-language Bangkok
Post editorialized (3/18): “The
public memory of Mr. Wolfowitz as one of the main architects of the Iraq war is
an obstruction he will have to negotiate if he is confirmed as president of the
World Bank. What worries many observers
is that his nomination follows the unpopular choice of John Bolton...as the
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. Bolton is reputed to be a fierce critic of the world body, and a man
with esoteric ideas about diplomacy.
Does this prove that a second term in power in the U.S. brings less
consideration of critics?”
SOUTH ASIA
INDIA: "A Gratuitous
Snub"
An editorial in the centrist Hindu read (3/16): "U.S. President Bush begins his second
term by promising to follow a multilateral approach to international affairs.
Then he nominates a strident unilateralist, John Bolton, for the post of U.S. Ambassador
to the United Nations. This is a new standard in Orwellian double-speak even
for an administration that often insists black is white. As Under Secretary of
State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs during Bush's first
term, Bolton spearheaded efforts to wreck weapons control initiatives such as
the anti-ballistic missile treaty. If Mr. Bolton does become envoy to the U.N.,
he will have a platform from which he can endlessly proclaim his disdain for
international institutions. After all, this is the person who once declared
"there is no such thing as the United Nations." What is even more
disturbing is that this particular nomination appears emblematic of a further
shift towards unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy. While Colin Powell
as Secretary of State made at least a pretense of following an inclusive
approach, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, is likely to give fuller rein to the
administration's hawkish impulses ... Most member states agree that the United
Nations system needs reform...."
PAKISTAN: "Bolton's
Nomination To The UN Not Good Omen"
An editorial in the Lahore-based liberal English-language Daily
Times read (3/11): "Bolton’s
earlier appointment to the State Department was opposed by former U.S.
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, with whom Mr. Bolton was never on the best of
terms. Even the current secretary,
Condoleezza Rice, herself considered a tough inner-circle neo-con, is said to
have blocked Mr. Bolton’s nomination as her deputy secretary. Dr. Rice instead picked Robert Zoellick, the
U.S. trade representative, who was good at consultative diplomacy. She also signaled that one of her former key
aides at the National Security Council would take over the arms control
portfolio at the State Department previously held by Mr. Bolton. Could Mr. Bolton’s appointment then merely be
an attempt by the administration to find a prominent position for a key ally?... Forty-three Democrats voted against Mr.
Bolton’s nomination as under-secretary for arms control four years ago. They are again gearing up to give battle,
though it is likely to be a losing battle.
U.S.-UN relations have remained strained at the best of times and even
during the days of President Clinton’s multilateral diplomacy. It is difficult to see how those relations
can improve with someone like Mr. Bolton in the saddle with a propensity to
shoot from the hip.
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "Bush Steams
Ahead"
The nationalist Ottawa Citizen opined (3/21): "George W. Bush's naming of two close
loyalists to high-profile international jobs shows the U.S. president intends
to keep pushing the world in the same direction, with all the good and bad that
suggests.... Fans of the UN and the World Bank are a-flutter, and
understandably so. Both nominees are bound to ruffle internationalists'
feathers. Good.... The Bush administration's critics may not be keen on having
either Mr. Bolton or Mr. Wolfowitz in a position of international prominence,
but people who recognize the good Mr. Bush has done should be cautiously
optimistic about them both."
"Why Wolfowitz Works"
The leading, centrist Globe and Mail opined (3/17): "Paul Wolfowitz comes to the World Bank
with lots of baggage. In many quarters within
the United States and around the world he is vilified as the hawkish
neoconservative behind the invasion of Iraq.
Coming on the heels of the appointment of hard-line America Firster John
Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, his nomination as bank
president by U.S. President George W. Bush may complicate Washington's attempts
to repair strained relations with old friends and allies.... That is the knee-jerk reaction. Mr. Wolfowitz may have baggage, but it
includes many of the skills needed to run the bank, a United Nations agency
that provides low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing
countries.... Most important, through
six U.S. administrations, he has been a champion of policies that promote
democracy and freedom. How the United
States brought freedom to Iraq is controversial, to say the least. But whichever way it comes, freedom is
essential to the healthy development of any country. All the richest and most stable countries in
the world are democracies, and that is no coincidence. If Mr. Wolfowitz can use his influence as
World Bank leader to press democratic reform on the world's poorest countries,
then his critics will have to eat their words."
"George W. Bush, Nobel Peace Prize?"
Réal Pelletier wrote in centrist French-language La Presse (3-14): "Not only was Mr. Bolton a champion of
the war in Iraq, he has called for the strong method before, against North
Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba. He is the man necessary to regain control
of the United Nations according to United States national interests."
“Pair Of Reformers"
The centrist Winnipeg Free Press commented (3/11): "President George Bush's nominee for
United States ambassador to the United Nation has been described as a
'neo-conservative pitbull' whose contempt for the operations of the UN is
legendary. John Bolton has not even been confirmed in his post yet, and already
senior bureaucrats are wringing their hands in deep anxiety. Allan Rock,
Canada's ambassador to the UN, is not usually thought of as a neo-conservative
- his Liberal credentials are impeccable - and he is seldom described as a pit
bull. He has admiration for the idea of the UN. But if Mr. Rock is not a pit
bull neither is he a lap dog. The United Nations may become a better place for
having the two of them there together.... Mr. Bolton...believes that the UN
needs renewal and positive change. His record indicates that he would try to
accomplish this by more vigorous means than Mr. Rock might favor, but the fact
is that the two ambassadors and their governments share a broadly similar goal.
Some previous American ambassadors have been outspoken critics of the United
Nations and the organization still survives. President Bush is no admirer of
the UN, but neither is he the most hostile of American politicians towards it.
Both he and Prime Minister Paul Martin want quick and effective UN reform --
Mr. Martin has said that the reform panel's ideas reflect Canada's thoughts.
Mr. Bolton and Mr. Rock may seem like unlikely comrades in arms - and they
would be. But they both take orders from their governments and both of their
governments want UN reform. A mingling of their two different styles may be
necessary to achieve it."
ARGENTINA: "Bush Names
A 'Hawk' To Preside Over The World Bank"
Ana Baron wrote in leading Clarin (3/17): "U.S. President George W. Bush named
Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-conservative hawk within his administration who
promoted and planned the war on Iraq, as the new president of the World
Bank. By doing so, President Bush
unleashed great controversy, particularly in Europe.... Given that Wolfowitz lacks experience in
development issues and has a reputation for favoring pre-emptive military
actions instead of the diplomatic resolution of the international conflicts,
many wonder in Washington why Bush decided to nominate the current number two
at the U.S. Pentagon to preside over a multinational lending agency like the
World Bank. Among the sources
consulted...it is said that Wolfowitz's nomination means that Bush simply wants
to close the World Bank. Others suggest
that his purpose is taming it. As
a matter of fact, the World Bank policies related to the fight on poverty,
environmental issues and international trade, in which the reduction of farm
subsidies is promoted, appear as almost 'communist' compared to the policies of
the Bush administration."
"The US At The UN"
An editorial in leading Clarin read (3/14): "John Bolton's nomination as US
ambassador to the US has confirmed that President Bush will insist on
maintaining a unilateral foreign policy... President Bush and US State
Secretary Condoleezza Rice have sought to open a new stage of détente and
rapprochement in their recent trip to Europe but signs are still contradictory.
Now that the UN still has the challenge posed by its structural reform ahead,
the fact that the US has named a hard-liner and unilateral representative (as
US ambassador the UN) does not announce good times for agreements that are vital
to the institution and international politics."
BRAZIL: "Before
Becoming A ‘Hawk,’ Wolfowitz Spoke Like Lula"
Political columnist Clovis Rossi commented (3/20) in liberal Folha
de S. Paulo: “Before becoming one of
the biggest hawks of the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz thought the same way
[Brazilian] President Lula does and says today…. Lula repeats in the
international fora he has attended that the war he wants to wage is against
hunger and poverty, which will make the world safer. The question now is if the
Wolfowitz nominated for the World Bank is the ‘communicator’ concerned with
poverty, or the hawk that preferred to use arms in Iraq?...As the World Bank’s
chairman, will Wolfowitz select which nations are entitled to receive resources
based on their greater or lesser adherence to U.S. foreign policy? Or will he use the bank as a lever of the
so-called policy to expand democracy?... If he does so, it is very likely that
the bank will lose its meaning because most of the nations using its resources
are not democratic.... For Brazil,
another problem related with the Wolfowitz nomination for the World bank is the
ongoing discreet discussion about who is entitled to obtain the bank’s
resources: the really poor nations, or also average income nations such as
Brazil? Wolfowitz has not entered the
discussion, but if he inclines towards exclusive preference to those very poor,
Brazil will lose a valuable and relatively cheap source of foreign investment.”
"The World, Oh Well The World"
Center-right O Estado de s. Paulo editorialized
(3/18): “President Bush appointed the
dean of neoconservatives, Paul Wolfowitz, to head the World Bank, the
multilateral organization aimed at fighting poverty and fostering development. No one in Washington worked more for the
invasion of Iraq--with or without the support of the UN--than
Wolfowitz.... For the second time in two
weeks, Bush has insisted on reaffirming the steadfastness of his supremacist
foreign policy.... It is not possible to
support the selection of the most unilateralist of the American ‘public
intellectuals’ for a position that requires an occupant legitimized by two
criteria: first by a preference for
dialogue...second by a familiarity combating poverty and fostering economic
progress.... In view of his ideas about
security, development and democracy, we fear that Wolfowitz will treat nations
according to their adherence to the Bush administration’s peculiar views of the
‘war on terror,’ considering the U.S. global interests and the nature of the
nations’ regime.... Wolfowitz is part of
a government that believes that the World Bank should loan less so that needy
nations resort more to the financial market.
In terms of competence, his curriculum is questionable: it is not known how much he understands about
developing economies. The mistakes he
committed in his previous position were notorious.”
"A Neocon In The World Bank"
Liberal Folha de S. Paulo emphasized (3/18): “Like Bolton, Wolfowitz is one of the U.S.'
most preeminent neocons. Considered the
architect of the invasion in Iraq, he was the number two in the Pentagon. The appointment of Wolfowitz, however,
involves more intense repercussions....
European public opinion sectors are supporting an attempt to veto
Wolfowitz. It is hard to understand
Bush’s decision.... In addition to being
unpopular in Europe, Wolfowitz is repudiated by important NGOs operating in
poor nations.... Analysts fear that
Wolfowitz’s enthusiasm towards ultraliberal solutions, in addition to
Washington’s insistence on downsizing the World Bank, may lead to a dismantling
of the bank.”
##
Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
This site is produced and maintained by the U.S.
Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of
the views contained therein. |
IIP Home | Issue Focus Home |