Though the issue of 'celebrating' or 'condemning'
the Wolfowitz appointment is merely a trivial tactical choice at this stage,
more strategic questions do arise. Jerry's
anti-imperialist energy can now be fruitfully directed at the World Bank, if he
deigns: http://www.worldbankboycott.org I hope he's in full agreement that efforts now to
defund and indeed shut the BWIs - and promote boycotts of everything they do -
are of a much greater priority. This is a new site of unity between global
justice and anti-war movements that we must re-energise ourselves to take full
advantage of, surely?
Ciao,
Patrick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 7:35
PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] [OPE-L] Wolfowitz as
the president of the World Bank
Jerry,
Your
description of the independent reaction of Patrick and me to the petition
calling for a protest of Wolfowitz's selection because it 'risks the Bank
becoming seen as a tool of the current controversial US foreign policy, with
aid flows becoming more dependent on strict adherence to US Administration
priorities' as similar to the idiocy of
the 'after Hitler, us' comment is way off base. Consider the following from
today's Krugman column in the NYT:
The Ugly American Bank
You can say this about Paul Wolfowitz's qualifications to lead the
World Bank: He has been closely associated with America's largest
foreign aid and economic development project since the Marshall Plan.
I'm talking, of course, about reconstruction in Iraq. Unfortunately,
what happened there is likely to make countries distrust any economic
advice Mr. Wolfowitz might give. ...
Moisés Naím, editor of
Foreign Policy, says that the Wolfowitz
nomination turns the World Bank
into the American Bank. Make that
ugly American bank: rightly or not,
developing countries will see Mr.
Wolfowitz's selection as a sign that
we're still trying to impose
policies they believe have
failed.
Maybe
Patrick and I responded the way we did because we're in South Africa and
Venezuela and see the importance of that sign and of (as Patrick said) linking
'our critique of neoliberalism to that of imperialism' and having ' the
anti-war and global-justice movements unite in increasingly militant
protests'. I think Patrick's closing note to the petition circulator was worth
quoting:
(And please, my old friend, don't
tell us all what our 'duty' is if it
involves giving the WB bogus
legitimacy. Your statement b) is especially
nauseating, given the WB's
ongoing role in financing imperialism, as if you
can't see
that.)
So,
Jerry, is that what you are proposing--- we need to fight for a 'good' head of
the
WB?
in
solidarity,
michael
At
09:36 18/03/2005, Jerry Levy wrote:
Alejandro:
See http://www.worldbankpresident.org
for some other related stories
on this topic.
Over on PEN-L, Patrick Bond
wrote:
> [...] what
about those of us -- I'm surely not the only one -- who consider
this
> appointment a delightful turn of events?
> There are
plenty of us:
> * who would delegitimize the World Bank and will have
a much easier time of it now;
Patrick even went on to claim that Wolfowitz was an "excellent choice
for WB
president."
Easier
time of it now? This strikes me as fanciful thinking reminiscent of
the
"Nach Hitler, Uns!" ("After Hitler, Us") 1932 KPD
policy. The idea is that the
selection of Wolfowitz allows
for greater "transparency" and therefore helps to
build resistance
to the WB and Neo-Liberalism. This was similar to the KPD
policy
which thought that after people were exposed to fascism and see its
iron
fist in practice then this will lead to increased resistance to fascism and
the KPD will be elected into power. It didn't work in Germany. Why
should we
think it will work now? (NB: Of course there are
differences and thus this
analogy is not entirely accurate: e.g.
bourgeois democracy nowhere directly
enters into the picture in the WB
or the selection of its president.)
But Mike L agreed with Patrick:
> Exactly, Patrick! Now, what about the ILO being headed up by
someone
> from Coca-Cola or Walmart? Not quite the same, of
course [...]
If the WB now
actively and publicly supports "regime change" in Cuba and
Venezuela will
that also be an excellent development since more people
will see the
"transparency" of WB policies? I doubt that the Cuban
and
Venezuelan masses or their leadership would view it in such a
positive
light.
What do you
and others on the list think? Is it a good thing for the
working-
class that the Neo-Con Wolfowitz was selected to lead the
WB?
In solidarity,
Jerry
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
Caracas, Venezuela
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724
|