Slashdot Mirror
Washington Post: Criticizing Leaders is Wrong
Dazan writes: "The Washington Post has an interesting op-ed piece on its website today, Mr. Wolfowitz and the Bank. The Post, a popular liberal paper, says that now that Paul Wolfowitz is heading the World Bank, 'People... should think carefully before they damage [the Bank] by attacking its new boss,' and that bringing up Wolfowitz's record is unhealthy. Of course it doesn't hurt for us all to watch what we say, expecially our newspapers. What does the Slashdot community think?"
It has to be.
No, this is not April Fools. This is just the Post's slow descent into a government propaganda organ, which has been going on for at least a decade.
The only joke is the part about the Post being a liberal paper.
Personally, I think its quite shoddy journalism.
"Most people agree that the World Bank is necessary."
I'm sure most people are unaware of what exactly the World Bank does, and i think a fair number would be unaware of its existence. People might approve of it in the general context of the status quo, but this does not amount to the same thing.
The article is rather presumptive and un-critical. It mentions dam building and $20 billion but, for an opinion piece, it seems rather short on opinion. There's no analysis of the methods the bank uses, or how the money is spent. It seems to be arguing that, if the money's there don't knock it. Deciding to hold fire on spending money on ecological destructive constructions is not the same as "running away from hard projects".
Personally, I do not support the work of the World Bank. It seems so driven by advancing the cause of world capitalism, that it is blind to the plight of the people that it is ostensibly supposed to benifit. I am not much of a fan of Mr. Wolfowitz either, and it seems likely that someone so deeply tied to the politics of the Bush administration is going to have something of a biased agenda in performing his duty.
Excuse me? If massive failure in your last job, failure that paves the way for 150,000+ deaths and creates an ongoing disaster that practically can't be stopped shouldn't disqualify you from working anywhere but a retail toy store, WHAT DOES?
And if we continue that logic out, we had better do away with sex offender registration, criminal records in general, and credit reporting too.
Also worth noting is that this article doesn't have anything to do with criticizing the descison, and those responsible for it, to put Paul Wolfowitz into his new position.
>one monster is elevated to a position to restrict the flow of aid to countries which
>don't fall into line. Call a Spade a Spade. That's what the 1st Amendment is really for.
The spade includes the world leaders that take out 'loans' from the World Bank without ever ever planning to repay them.
The countries that fund the world bank through taxes are under no obligation to build infrastructure in other countries.
What's so wrong with insisting that the World Bank acts like a bank?
The World Bank is like any other bank, it expects to get repaid for its loans. Take out a loan, fail to repay it, have a revolution coup d'etat, get a new dictator...
That BS won't work anymore. What's wrong with insisting that the loan is actually used for the purpose it was loaned out for?
If you borrow money to build a house, the bank can ensure that you actually spend it on build the house.
The World Bank makes loans and not handouts.
*** EMPHASIS ADDED ***
You can always write a check on your personal account for $10,000 or more if you do not think you are giving enough handouts to the countries defaulting on World Bank loans.
We need much better proof that the World Bank is doing any good than the 50 year lack of forward progress in most of the third world countries receiving World Bank loans.
>the US got the EU to go along with the deal
The US gets to appoint the World Bank leader, while the EU picks the IMF leader.
We will obviously see what all this is about in the coming years.
At this point is smacks of the war on Doha Accord. US believes they will benefit more from bilateral and multilateral trade agreements as oposed to one global same-for-all agreement. The main benefit is, of course, the power that comes from selective trade agreements - there is allways a third side that is at a loss from a bilateral agreement. Take recent US-Chile agreement which has hit Brazil hard. These agreements are controversial because they often divert trade as opposed to creating new trade (some regional agreements excluded).
US has maintained control over the world bank from the very beggining, but there is not much to argue about there - US based investors are the large majority.
Washington Post fails to ask the right questions.
Mr. Wolfowitz's critics, domestic as well as international, should now get beyond their dislike of his role in the Iraq war and give him a chance to succeed at one of the world's hardest jobs.
Why should he be given the chance? Are there no real professionals who can run this enterprise without controversy?
In fact, the real question is why Wolfowitz? One must immediatelly note the amount of work and political credits that have been put into this appointment. It is not only the 'old' Europe who were appaled by the choice. Mr Wolfowitz has travelled the world and among others, spoke to Bono from U2, apparently getting his blessing. Why? Why does he want to do this job so much?
My answer is that Wolfowitz is the best candidate to establish control over increasingly important part of the world trade and delay the Doha accord as far as possible. As a master of spin he has already excelled in convincing US and satellites into a perpetual bloody war. All while it is universally obvious that those resources could be put to a better use for dealing with real problems we are facing - environment and poverty. You can expect to see many ex-world bank employees and many new ones as well...
sosumi