A bank for the world
Source:Editor's Blog
A bank for the world
The Americans always appoint the head of the World Bank, but surely it is time that tradition was questioned. The new appointee from President Bush Robert Zoellick is represented as scandal proof and an experienced diplomat as well as a trade negotiator but even being selected for these qualities – having them commented upon even - means that the office is tainted not just by Wolfowitz’s rule bending for his girlfriend, which is neither here nor there but by the fact that he was never trusted by the bank’s staff and was a notorious hawk. The fact that Bush is seen to be pushing tough guys into internationally responsible and sensitive jobs, then having to get rid of them (Rumsfeld at Defense, Bolton at the UN, now Wolfowitz) ought to set the USA on a path of self reflection and co-operation with world bodies and governments, to which it might occasionally defer. The World Bank is there to help the poorest nations, yet votes on the executive board of the Bank and the IMF (which is led by a European) are based on the size of a country's economy, not its population. That means that the USA with 17 percent of the votes controls key decisions, which have to have an 85 percent majority. At the other end of the scale the whole of sub-saharan Africa commands just five percent of votes.
|