Wolfowitz worry?

The nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank head has thrown Africa into a frenzy, writes Gamal Nkrumah

---

It is all so sad. For the most part, Washington has set the global agenda even as the neo-conservatives tighten their grip on domestic United States politics. And, the buck has stopped at Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz the new president of the World Bank -- the most influential international development funding institution. Wolfowitz's nomination is a disturbing sign that the assault on progressive agendas in global development has shifted to a higher gear. Despite early opposition to his nomination, the directors of the bank, representing 184 countries, unanimously approved Wolfowitz as the World Bank's 10th president last month. He is due to take over from 1 June.

It is no secret that the developing countries of the South feel threatened and utterly frustrated by the nomination of Wolfowitz as the new World Bank head. "World Bank reform is on the table. Wolfowitz takes control of the bank at the precise moment when the controversy raging over whether the World Bank should continue issuing grants to poor countries has reached boiling point. The right of the poorest countries to borrow is brought into question," Yao Graham director of Third World Network-Africa told Al-Ahram Weekly.

"The Bush administration wants to smoke out leftist NGOs. Wolfowitz's World Bank agenda must be made more assertive," Graham added.

In the past, the World Bank-sponsored structural adjustment programmes have worsened poverty in developing countries. Indeed, the two regions where structural adjustment programmes have been most extensively applied are South America and Africa -- with per capita income stagnating in the former and plummeting in the latter.

How will Africa fare with a boorish, intolerant and belligerent American as head of the World Bank? "Grants will be given to countries that serve America's interests. Wolfowitz has an old-fashioned notion of poverty alleviation which smacks of right-wing paternalism. The Middle Powers (countries like China, India and Brazil) don't care much about the World Bank. They are not so dependent on the bank. It is the weakest and poorest countries that stand to lose the most by the agenda set by Wolfowitz," Graham stressed.

Wolfowitz played a key role in the Gulf War and in the invasion of Iraq. His reputation as a belligerent Pentagon hawk frightens people off. Many in Africa are highly suspicious of his motives.

Wolfowitz has been widely regarded as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration, and it is feared that his presidency of the World Bank will only compound matters. Traditionally, the World Bank has encouraged developing countries to curb government spending, privatise and open up to exploitative foreign investment. Privatisation leads to massive lay-offs and pay cuts for workers. These policies have ruined many African economies and have led to the ripping apart of the very fabric of societies.

Who heads the World Bank is a vital concern. The bank is the continent's most important development funding institution. It funds numerous development projects across Africa. The World Bank, after all, lends some $20 billion a year to developing nations.

Since being nominated, Wolfowitz has moved to reassure his detractors that the World Bank would work harder at improving its development efforts and humanitarian relief operations. Wolfowitz is already uttering the liberal jargon that rings shrill and false. He said that he had a "new appreciation" of the urgent need for debt relief and integrating regional economies, but concern about Wolfowitz's agenda had prompted African countries to review their development agendas -- especially where it concerns debt and trade -- the twin monstrous monoliths upon which the African economic predicament is founded.

Indeed, next week African leaders are meeting in the Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh precisely to discuss the continent's economic concerns. Egypt is playing host to the review meeting of the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), the African-Union sanctioned blueprint for African economic survival. Debt and trade will feature prominently at the summit.

Debt reduction is Africa's primary concern at the moment. African countries would like to see Western donor nations write off the continent's crippling debt.

Wolfowitz has made reconciliatory overtures. "The fact is that when it comes to poverty reduction, it is not a question of American foreign policy, or British foreign policy or South African foreign policy. It [poverty reduction] is a unifying goal and it is one that I believe in deeply" he stated recently. "Each organisation has to focus on its primary mission and its core competencies. The World Bank's are in the areas of poverty reduction," he added.

Wolfowitz has stated that he is "prepared to listen and prepared to be an international civil servant." Wolfowitz, 61, was assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 1983-86. He was then appointed US ambassador to Indonesia -- a country with the fourth largest population in the world (250 million) and the world's largest Muslim population.

However, critics question his credentials. "Now the developing world has to live with Paul Wolfowitz, a man with no relevant experience but his oversight of the reconstruction of Iraq -- a project beset by corruption, cronyism and incompetence," said Robert Weisman director of Essential Action, a Ralph Nader-founded corporate accountability group.

Debt is the continent's most gruelling challenge at the moment, but trade is another. In the aftermath of 11 September 2001, the world agreed at Doha that there should be ways of looking more specifically at the means of creating an enabling international economic environment for impoverished African countries. Indeed, achieving industrial diversification of African economies depends in large measure on the expansion of trade opportunities.

They pledged to stage a trade round especially focussed on making trade rules fair for developing countries. Trade, and not aid, is what Africa needs most.

Wolfowitz said he wanted his legacy to be "real success in reducing poverty especially in Africa, the continent which most desperately needs it". The problem with this is apparent: how can we expect poverty to be substantially reduced when subsidies by Western nations are crippling the trade opportunities of African countries?

The world is perturbed by the real reasons behind the Bush administration's decision to have a new man to head the agency. Wolfowitz succeeds Australian-born John Wolfensohn, nominated by former United States president Bill Clinton.

Wolfensohn, the current World Bank president, is scheduled to relinquish office at the end of May when his second five- year term concludes.

After 10 years as president of the World Bank, his landmark 1996 "cancer of corruption" speech shed new light on the pitfalls of corruption in developing countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), traditionally headed by a European as opposed to an American, predicts that in 2005 the average growth rate in Africa south of the Sahara will exceed five per cent. Prospects for improved economic growth in Africa are promising, but only if the continent's debts are written off and trade opportunities increase. What is worrying is that Wolfensohn had let it be known that he would like to serve another five-year term, but his lobbying efforts in Washington were deliberately thwarted. Wolfensohn was no angel, but his credentials were somewhat better than Wolfowitz's.

Wolfensohn attempted to transform the institution. During his 10 years as head of the bank, Wolfensohn stressed the need to fight poverty in developing countries. He was among the big players loudly leading the international campaign of poverty reduction. He made noises about reducing the debts owed by some of the world's poorest countries, especially those in Africa. Wolfowitz is not going to take up Africa's case with such zeal.

Africans are not the only ones to be ambivalent about the choice of Wolfowitz as World Bank head. "The enthusiasm in old Europe is not exactly overwhelming," warned German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul.

Wolfowitz has also led a parallel career in academia where he taught at Yale and Johns Hopkins University. His lack of development experience is disconcerting, though. "He is a man without international development experience, without professional qualifications. He has not demonstrated an interest in the Millennium Development Goals, the shared international commitments to the fight against extreme poverty," said Professor Jeffrey Sachs, from the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Wolfowitz is among those in the "wrecking crew to demolish internationalism," warned Emira Woods, co-director of the New Mexico-based Foreign Policy Focus think-tank, an international network of 700 analysts and advocates promoting a citizen-oriented foreign policy agenda. His assumption of office comes at a time "when the world community needs to come together to tackle the debt crisis, HIV/AIDS, access to clean water, affordable education and healthcare, livable wages and a clean environment," she points out.

Others were more forthright. "A truly terrifying appointment. You can't have a situation where rich countries lecture developing countries about democracy and then aren't prepared to exercise democracy in this kind of appointment," explained Dave Timms of the World Development Movement.

The US is the bank's largest shareholder. And, Washington traditionally chooses who should head the institution. Wolfowitz's nomination by the Bush administration was widely viewed as an attempt to get the multilateral body to more compliantly carry out American dictates.

Immediately after his nomination was approved, Wolfowitz announced that he would focus on key subjects such as international trade, subsidies and private sector investment. The big question is: will Wolfowitz deliver? Wolfowitz has promised to seek a "truly multinational" management team.

The Europeans want a European as the bank's deputy head. Wolfowitz has so far declined to give a lucid promise to give a European the much-covetted post. The Europeans have developed specific terms of engagement with the US and the rest of the world, but Europe, let alone Africa, is in no position to dictate terms to the US.