Reply
Mon 21 May, 2007 08:14 am
Oxfam Calls for End to US Control Over Appointment of World Bank President
By Graeme Wearden
The Guardian UK
Friday 18 May 2007
Oxfam has called for an end to America's control over the appointment of the president of the World Bank, following Paul Wolfowitz's long-awaited resignation from the World Bank.
Mr Wolfowitz's departure, which also sparked further criticism from staffers and speculation that Tony Blair could replace him, is a rare opportunity to make changes at the Bank, the development agency argued. It wants his successor appointed on merit, rather than hand-picked by George Bush.
"Wolfowitz's resignation shows that even the office of the president has to play by the rules," said Barbara Stocking, director of Oxfam.
"The US and other rich countries must now show that they are serious about good governance by reforming the recruitment process to allow the next head of the Bank to be appointed on merit and commitment to alleviate poverty, rather than being the choice of the American president."
Oxfam had called for Mr Wolfowitz to resign after the affair became a distraction from efforts to fight poverty.
"This affair has been hugely damaging to the credibility of the Bank, it's vital that the organization quickly pulls its focus back onto poverty reduction," Ms Stocking added.
The US government, though, shows little desire to change the status quo.
Treasury secretary Henry Paulson said last night that the US would move quickly to identify its choice, and also indicated that the nominee would be an American.
"I see no reason why that should change and I see every reason why it's important that the World Bank continue to be run by an American," Mr Paulson told NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
The World Bank Staff Association, which has insisted for weeks that the embattled president must go, attacked the deal bashed out with the bank's executive board. Rather than leave on June 30, it wants Mr Wolfowitz to leave immediately.
"While Mr Wolfowitz has finally done the necessary thing by resigning, he has damaged the institution, and continues to damage it every day he remains as its president," said Alison Cave, head of the association, in a statement.
Ms Cave added that the board had "attempted to save his face, and in so doing have destroyed that of the institution they are entrusted to protect."
Professor Joseph Stiglitz, a former Word Bank chief economist, believes the Wolfowitz drama has shown that the mechanism is flawed and must be fixed.
Speaking to BBC Radio 5, he suggested that Tony Blair was being considered as a possible nominee, although he would personally favour someone with a background in economics and development.
Hilary Benn, British development minister, commented that he was "relieved that this damaging time for the Bank is finally over".
"I acknowledge the achievements of the Bank over the past two years. It has helped to deliver debt relief to the poorest countries, agreed a new African action plan and is investing more in education, health and clean water.
"The Bank's task now is to renew its efforts to lift people out of poverty," Mr Benn added.
Re: Oxfam: End US Appointment Control of World Bank Presiden
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:"The US and other rich countries must now show that they are serious about good governance by reforming the recruitment process to allow the next head of the Bank to be appointed on merit and commitment to alleviate poverty, rather than being the choice of the American president."
What an excellent idea!
I agree.
Let the head of the bank be decided on merit, by the head of the country that provides the most money to the bank.
So you don't think merit & commitment to alleviate poverty matter in this job then?
BBB
The World Bank seems to never have made the connection between disctatorship and violence and giving money to corrupt governments.
I'd like to see policy reform that does not give all money to governments rather than to organizations with good reputations. Giving money to government only causes corruption and dictatorships and the violence that occurs in it's pursuit. Why do such criminals want government power? Because that's were the money is in poor countries under the current World Bank policies.
Its better to fund organizations that will actually help the poor to raise their standards of living and to improve the infrastructure, including clean water and local agriculture. They can help to establish the institutions that will create stability and commerce on the local level.
BBB
Who's going to decide what constitutes "merit", under the circumstances?
If other countries are dissatisfied with the economic performance of the World Bank, they're free to withdraw from it and set up their own organization. If the EU wants to run a bank in charge of making development loans, why, let them do so. I'm sure nobody in the US would object...