Wolfowitz and Bolton: American nightmare

President Bush took two decisions over the past two weeks that to me sum up his administration's new approach to international organisations and the UN in particular. The first was his appointment of John Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control and international security, as the US's permanent envoy to the UN, freeing John Negroponte to become the new director of national intelligence. The second was his nomination of First Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank after James Wolfensohn.

In addition to being confirmed hawks in an administration dominated by neoconservatives, Bolton and Wolfowitz share a number of characteristics. Both have nothing but contempt for international organisations. Those that are not firmly under Washington's thumb, in particular, they regard with suspicion as though these organisations are inherently bent on undermining American policy. Both are staunch, unreserved supporters of Israel. Bolton was a member of the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and some of Wolfowitz's family members, including his sister, live in Israel. Both are firm believers in uncontested American global supremacy, which they maintain is a prerequisite for universal peace and security. Finally, both contributed to the formulation of "The New American Century", that landmark report issued in 1997 that is the political and ideological handbook of the current administration.

Bush's nomination of Wolfowitz stunned the world, particularly in Europe where it stirred harsh criticism. On the other hand, it is surprising that the Bolton appointment was not greeted with a similar degree of anger, given that of the two he is the most outspoken and thus more clearly reflects Washington's current attitudes towards the UN. Perhaps the muted reaction to Bolton can be attributed to the fact that objection would be both futile and inappropriate; every government has the indisputable sovereign right to appoint whomever it wants as its envoy to the UN. In all events, this situation does not apply to the nomination to an elevated international office whose occupant is presumed to represent the consensus of all of its constituents, which, in the case of the World Bank, consists of 184 states. What makes the Wolfowitz nomination more sensitive is that the US, as the contributor of the largest share of the bank's capital, controls the greatest voting power (16 per cent). Although Europe as a whole controls twice that amount, it has long been the custom to divide the chairmanships of the world's two most powerful financial institutions whereby a European always heads the IMF and an American the World Bank.

Even from the American standpoint, Wolfowitz is far from the most suitable person to head a financial organisation of the size of the World Bank. Quite simply, he has no experience in the realm of economics and financial management. He established his academic credentials in an entirely different field, having obtained his PhD in political science from The University of Chicago and gone on to teach political science and international relations in the prestigious universities of Yale and Johns Hopkins. Wolfowitz, however, acquired his repute not so much as a research scholar as he did as a political ideologue for the neoconservatives. It was this, in conjunction with his political activism on behalf of Israel and his ardent support for toppling the regimes in Iraq and Iran, that secured nominations to key State Department and Defense positions since the beginning of the ascendancy of the American right under Reagan.

Read More
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/735/op64.htm