Wolfowitz Redux?

The New Republic: Likely World Bank Head Zoellick Has Similarities To Disgraced Predecessor

(The New Republic)  "Zoellick wasn't an organizations man," says a veteran of his tenure at CSIS. "He was good at saying, 'This is the way things should be,' and he's a smart guy. What he didn't get were interoffice dynamics, the way that people who are entrenched can dig their heels in." Yet that is exactly the skill Zoellick will need as he tries to steer the World Bank; and, by all accounts, that is precisely where Wolfowitz faltered.

But it isn't just Zoellick's personality that could create problems. There are questions about his politics, too. As USTR, he was unquestionably a brilliant negotiator and managed to keep international economic issues alive in an administration that had mostly lost interest after September 11. But not everyone is convinced that his time there bodes well for the World Bank. "I think his [appointment] is a dagger drawn at the developing countries," Jagdish Bhagwati, an economist at Columbia, told me. Bhagwati is hardly a man of the far left; he has written books defending free trade against anti-globalization activists. But he points out that Zoellick's tenure as USTR involved a much heavier focus on bilateral deals with developing countries than on broad multilateral trade agreements.

The idea, Bhagwati says, was to allow the United States to negotiate with poorer countries one-on-one in order to force them to accept demands unrelated to trade. "He was using bilateral deals with Chile and Singapore to try to ram through restrictions on the use of capital controls," Bhagwati says. "I can't think of a single developmental economist who would say this is a good idea, and it suggests a cavalier interest in developing countries."

Moreover, Zoellick's Office of the USTR often put economic development at the service of the Bush administration's foreign policy. Before the invasion of Iraq, a trade official darkly hinted that the administration would have a "long memory" when it came to those who crossed it. That year, Zoellick scotched a trade deal with New Zealand, which had opposed the war — while fast-tracking a deal with Australia, which had backed it. He also reacted angrily when Egypt balked at supporting a U.S. challenge to Europe's ban on genetically modified foods, announcing that the country had jeopardized its hopes of a free-trade agreement.

During a speech in May 2003, Zoellick said the United States would require "cooperation — or better — on foreign policy and security issues" from potential trading partners. While such a worldview may be defensible from the U.S. trade representative, it could encounter heavy resistance at the World Bank. One of the main complaints about Wolfowitz's anti-corruption campaign was that he conducted it in a haphazard and selective manner: It wasn't always clear why Chad was targeted but not Lebanon, or Uzbekistan but not Tajikistan, and many suspected that Wolfowitz was simply carrying out a neoconservative foreign policy by other means. "I think he sees the bank as another instrument to achieve what I see as long-held goals," one former Bank official told The New Yorker. Given his track record, Zoellick will have to prove quickly that he does not intend to take the same tack.

At the moment, of course, he is sending all the right signals. As USTR, Zoellick hired Chris Padilla, a former Kodak lobbyist, to do public outreach and put a more palatable face on the agency. Padilla, who now works in the Commerce Department, is quietly reaching out to European representatives to assuage their concerns over Zoellick's appointment. Moreover, at the beginning of this month, Zoellick embarked on a two-week listening tour in Africa, Europe, and Latin America — a sign that he is serious about mollifying those countries still seething over Wolfowitz's tenure.

Yet former colleagues at the Office of the USTR note that Zoellick did something very similar in his first year there, making a show of extending an olive branch to labor and environmental groups only to disregard their concerns later. If that's what happens at the World Bank, President Bush won't be the only one scowling.

[rjstolba]

He even looks like a BUSHY!!!!

[neoconrcrazy]

let's hope the World Bank takes this neocon apart real slow - just like wolfie - and throws him into the neocon garbage pile where he belongs.

[bluestardad]

TAKE BACK U.S. GOVERNMENT FROM THE ISRAELI LOBBIES!

It is not anti Semitic to believe there are millions of other good people in the Middle East with valid concerns!

Even Eisenhower had problems with Israeli groups READ BELOW but he did not let them buy him!

READ AS THEY BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON OUR GOVERNMENT!
http://www.aipac.org/forms/
join_aipacClubs.htm


Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. According to UCLA political science professor and author, Steven Spiegel, "the tension between the Eisenhower administration and Israeli supporters was so acute that there were rumors that the administration would investigate the American Zionist Council. Therefore, an independent lobbying committee was formed, which years later was renamed [AIPAC]." Today, AIPAC has over 100,000 members.[1] Activities and stated goals
AIPAC's stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation "to ensure that the U.S.-Israel relationship is strong so that both countries can work together" to meet the challenges of "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.[2] It regularly meets with members of Congress where it can share its views. AIPAC has been effective in gaining support for Israel among members of Congress and White House administrations.
The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East."

[brianbwb-2009]

Enron And Goldman Sachs in your resume, Mr. Zoellick? Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but the World Bank needs to be disbanded anyway, nothing but loan sharking developing countries, and backing corrupt authoritarians.

[incog-nito]

gkc99:

FYI: Most neocons are Jewish. Check out:
http//www.commentarymagazine.com

[gkc99]

The idea that the US is in the Middle East due to Jewish lobbies is a bit ludicrous. The US is in the Middle East for the oil and the money it can make for the people who own America--if there were no resources there do you think the neocon fascists would give a flying f**k for a bunch of Hebes? Wake up and smell the coffee!

[walt1944-2009]

Why is everyone so surprised that Bush would put another neocon into the World Bank? Did they think he would nominate Al Gore or Ted Kennedy? Take a lesson from Nazis Germany, children, and realize that a total dictator surrounds himself with people who think just like he does (or in Bush's case, don't think at all!).

SIG HEIL, BUSH!

[king77shaw]

bluestardad - you are spot on..

[sparks224]

A neo-con by any other name will smell just as bad.

[bluestardad]

HE IS A PRO ISRAELI AIPAC NEOCON! ENOUGH SAID!

AMERICA SIMPLY MUST TAKE BACK ITS GOVERNMENT FROM THE ISRAELI LOBBIES OR OUR COUNTRY WILL BE IN THE MIDDLE EAST FIGHTING FOR CENTURIES!

[incog-nito]

Hold grudges? Thin-skinned? Temper tantrum? Sounds a lot like the neocon lot.

[bareemperor]

Bu$h chose Zoellick.

Failure follows Bu$h.

Zoellick will fail.

[neoconrcrazy]

Zoellick was one of the signatories (who also included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John R. Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Bill Kristol) of a January 26, 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton drafted by the Project for the New American Century calling for "removing Saddam [Hussein]'s regime from power.

In other words, a neocon. I hope he meets the same fate as Wolfowitz.