As expected Washington managed to arm-twist its way into making sure that it's preferred candidate (Jim Yong Kim) was appointed as the World Bank President. What I found intresting was the seemingly choreographed & biased responses to the news of the selection by Western media and policymakers.
The press statement by the Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot is a clear example. In it, he says that 'despite being a US citizen, he (Kim) would not take orders from Washington as anyone that might be appointed from another country'. He goes on further saying that the US uses the WB as a foreign policy tool to advance it's political and economic agenda of mainly neo-liberal economic policies of abandoning state-led industrial and development strategies, and tighter fiscal and monetary policies. But he contradicts himself in a Voice of America (English) article in which he says that since Kim doesn't have much financial experience, hence he will have to rely on WB staff on these issues. So how doesn't that prevent Washington from influencing him, since it controls the WB.
Essentially the real decisions at the WB are about allocating resources among the various competing developmental needs.
Other right-wing guys like William Easterly were completely out of touch by commenting that 'why should we rush with the appointment'. Wow. Is it because Kim was under intense scrutiny. Such a call wouldn't have been made if a candidate from a developing country was under scrutiny. What I noticed from media houses such as AFP via Yahoo & Huffington Post is that they talked about how a success Kim would be, but crucially ignored the issue under contestation that if he was the best candidate for the job.
Peter Chowder of Bretton Woods Project which monitors WB work summed it up by declaring the appointment was a stitchup between the US & Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment