Schröder backs Wolfowitz for World Bank

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Schröder backs Wolfowitz for World Bank
By Andrew Balls in Washington and Bertrand Benoit in Berlin
Published: March 21 2005 18:41 | Last updated: March 21 2005 18:41

Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, on Monday said he would support the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as new head of the World Bank, in effect ruling out any concerted European opposition to his appointment.

European officials have complained in private about President George W. Bush's nomination last week of the US deputy defence secretary and about the lack of proper consultation on the matter.

Academics, development experts and campaign groups have protested about Mr Wolfowitz's nomination and lack of opposition from Europe.

Mr Wolfowitz is expected to be confirmed at a World Bank board meeting on March 31.

By convention, the US and Europe divide the top jobs at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, whose boards they dominate.

There has been little opposition to Mr Wolfowitz from the developing countries on the bank's board, in contrast to last year's controversial appointment of Rodrigo Rato at the IMF.

?It's good custom that the US has the right to propose a nominee,? Mr Schröder said in a television interview.

He said he had talked to Mr Bush shortly after the nomination was made public and assured him Germany would not seek to undermine it. He said critics would be ?perhaps positively surprised? by Mr Wolfowitz's future performance.

While other German officials have expressed concern, Mr Schröder's conciliatory approach underlines Berlin's wish not to antagonise the US after a tentative rapprochement earlier this year, following their bitter dispute over the Iraq war.

Germany is also courting US support for its bid to secure a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Similarly, while French officials have been irritated by the nomination, diplomats say that Paris is unlikely to want to antagonise Washington at a time when it was pushing its own nationals for jobs at international institutions, including the head of the World Trade Organisation.

The UK last week was the first European country openly to back Mr Wolfowitz, though Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer, has called for the US to discuss the appointment with developing countries.

The European Commission on Monday confirmed that Mr Wolfowitz had agreed to meet Louis Michel, development commissioner. World Bank staff raised concerns about the selection process, Mr Wolfowitz's role in the Iraq war and his credentials for the job, with James Wolfensohn, the bank's outgoing president, last week. Mr Wolfowitz told Dow Jones news agency: ?I am not there to re-fight the war; I am there to get on with a different job. They will find me open-minded and capable of understanding difficult and complex arguments.?

Additional reporting by Daniel Dombey in Brussels

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1f0b6fe0-9a38-11d9-a094-00000e2511c8.html
----------------

Canada Welcomes Wolfowitz's World Bank Nomination


OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada welcomes the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the head of the World Bank, a spokesman for the Department of Finance said on Monday.

"Canada welcomes the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz for the post of president of the World Bank. Mr. Wolfowitz is a very serious and credible candidate. Until such time as nominations are put forward we are unable to comment further," he said.

($1-$1.21 Canadian)

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/sto...785997&dt=20050321134500&w=RTR&coview=

-------------

Even the people who oppose us on many issues back Wolfowitz. It seems he's a legitimate choice .
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Seriously, other than the fact that you oppose Wolfowitz's hawkish stand on foreign policy, why should he not be the president of the World Bank? According to almost all countries, he's well qualified and is a legitimate choice.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Seriously, other than the fact that you oppose Wolfowitz's hawkish stand on foreign policy, why should he not be the president of the World Bank? According to almost all countries, he's well qualified and is a legitimate choice.

Decision making process, or lack thereof.

End of story.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: raildogg
Seriously, other than the fact that you oppose Wolfowitz's hawkish stand on foreign policy, why should he not be the president of the World Bank? According to almost all countries, he's well qualified and is a legitimate choice.

Decision making process, or lack thereof.

End of story.

You didnt prove anything with that statement.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Beats having him and his neocon "ideas" at the DOD.
I think he actually has some training that qualifies him for the World Bank post.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
There has been little opposition to Mr Wolfowitz from the developing countries on the bank's board, in contrast to last year's controversial appointment of Rodrigo Rato at the IMF.

What was controversial issue over the appointment at the IMF?
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
There has been little opposition to Mr Wolfowitz from the developing countries on the bank's board, in contrast to last year's controversial appointment of Rodrigo Rato at the IMF.

What was controversial issue over the appointment at the IMF?

So far as I can figure out, France and Germany didn't like how he criticized their countries for breaking EU deficit limits. They had their own candidate, a Frenchie who is a big-wig in the ECB.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Seriously, other than the fact that you oppose Wolfowitz's hawkish stand on foreign policy, why should he not be the president of the World Bank? According to almost all countries, he's well qualified and is a legitimate choice.

A large part of the Neo-con ideology is supporting cutting social programs. The World Bank has a history of forcing countries to cut social programs right when their economies are in the midst of ruin. These kinds of ill-timed transitions have led to misery for many thousands of people in the world.

This is especially concerning when one considers that it is not the most effective way to prevent capital flight in a currency crisis.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
This is not news. I'm far more interested in seeing John Bolton in action at the Useless Nations.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: Kibbo
A large part of the Neo-con ideology is supporting cutting social programs. The World Bank has a history of forcing countries to cut social programs right when their economies are in the midst of ruin. These kinds of ill-timed transitions have led to misery for many thousands of people in the world.

This is especially concerning when one considers that it is not the most effective way to prevent capital flight in a currency crisis.

LOL, you got cause and effect mixed up. The reason countries end up with ruined economies is because of their own failed socialist policies. This so-called "neocon ideology" is nothing more than sound economics.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,805
6,361
126
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Kibbo
A large part of the Neo-con ideology is supporting cutting social programs. The World Bank has a history of forcing countries to cut social programs right when their economies are in the midst of ruin. These kinds of ill-timed transitions have led to misery for many thousands of people in the world.

This is especially concerning when one considers that it is not the most effective way to prevent capital flight in a currency crisis.

LOL, you got cause and effect mixed up. The reason countries end up with ruined economies is because of their own failed socialist policies. This so-called "neocon ideology" is nothing more than sound economics.

In a Black is White world Neo-Con policies might be "sound". Borrow your way to Riches!
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: raildogg
According to almost all countries.

So Canada and Germany are all almost all countries now? :roll:

Those that actually have a say in this matter. Almost all European opposition has died down and they are supporting him.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: raildogg
According to almost all countries.

So Canada and Germany are all almost all countries now? :roll:

Those that actually have a say in this matter. Almost all European opposition has died down and they are supporting him.

I'm not sure why I bother with you. Don't weasel out of your statement. Try and be more precise with what you say so you don't have to weasel out and lie about it like you usually do. Next time just say, several important countries are okay with Schroeder as a candidate.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
In a Black is White world Neo-Con policies might be "sound". Borrow your way to Riches!

Do yourself a favor and read the classics.

1, 2, 3
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: raildogg
According to almost all countries.

So Canada and Germany are all almost all countries now? :roll:

Those that actually have a say in this matter. Almost all European opposition has died down and they are supporting him.

I'm not sure why I bother with you. Don't weasel out of your statement. Try and be more precise with what you say so you don't have to weasel out and lie about it like you usually do. Next time just say, several important countries are okay with Schroeder as a candidate.

Which country has a problem with his nomination? Seems to me that an overwhelming majority support him except a few on this forum and France, although they won't even voice their minor disagreement because they are going to push French nationals into other international commitees. Ok, maybe saying *all* is not accurate, but so far, his nomination has gone smoothly.

And yes, please, don't bother with me.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: dmens

LOL, you got cause and effect mixed up. The reason countries end up with ruined economies is because of their own failed socialist policies. This so-called "neocon ideology" is nothing more than sound economics.

Yes, deficits may be a part of the currency issues of these counties, but if there is a larg-scale investor fight, it is largely speclulative filght.

The eventual cutbacks that would likely be neccessary shouldn't be the emergency measures, they should be implemented when cooler heads are available.

And Friedmann wasn't right about everything. There's a substatial body of work that disagrees with him.

You shouldn't elevate economists of any stripe too high. It just disappoints you when the wind changes direction.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
There has been little opposition to Mr Wolfowitz from the developing countries on the bank's board, in contrast to last year's controversial appointment of Rodrigo Rato at the IMF.

What was controversial issue over the appointment at the IMF?

So far as I can figure out, France and Germany didn't like how he criticized their countries for breaking EU deficit limits. They had their own candidate, a Frenchie who is a big-wig in the ECB.

Hmm... it says that the developing countries were opposed to it.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Railrunner, when you say something, own it. You can't weasel out of things you said. It's one thing to weasel out of things under a different nick, but dont' weasel out of statements made in the same thread.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Pardon my ignorance, but why does Bush appoint the head of the World Bank? Or am I completely misunderstanding something?
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Railrunner, when you say something, own it. You can't weasel out of things you said. It's one thing to weasel out of things under a different nick, but dont' weasel out of statements made in the same thread.

I just said that saying "ALL" wasn't really accurate, didn't I? I thought you weren't gonna bother with me?

Answer my question, where is the opposition to Wolfowitz coming from? Which country? Is there a country that opposes him?

:disgust:
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Railrunner, when you say something, own it. You can't weasel out of things you said. It's one thing to weasel out of things under a different nick, but dont' weasel out of statements made in the same thread.

I just said that saying "ALL" wasn't really accurate, didn't I?

Next time don't offer petty excuses and own your mistake. I'll stop bothering with you in this thread. Ciao.
 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,275
965
136
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Yes, deficits may be a part of the currency issues of these counties, but if there is a larg-scale investor fight, it is largely speclulative filght.

The eventual cutbacks that would likely be neccessary shouldn't be the emergency measures, they should be implemented when cooler heads are available.

And Friedmann wasn't right about everything. There's a substatial body of work that disagrees with him.

You shouldn't elevate economists of any stripe too high. It just disappoints you when the wind changes direction.

Friedman has been consistently correct for the past four decades.

As for the cutback of social programs, they aren't emergency measures. The dismantling of socialist policies is part of any realistic long-term economic recovery.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Maybe,

But the middle of a currency crisis is not the time to be taking long-term actions. It's a time to take emergency actions which stop the investor panic, while minimizing the negative effects on the people caught in the middle.

That's the problem with Neo-con economics, or at least those that try to put them into practice. They just use any opportunity to implement thier policies, without care of the short-term consquences. Even if that means large-scale unemployment in a third world country.

Pardon my ignorance, but why does Bush appoint the head of the World Bank? Or am I completely misunderstanding something?

He doesn't directly appoint him, but the position traditionally goes to an American. The Europeans traditionally get the chairmanship of the IMF. As such, the opinion of the president carries a lot of influence.