Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Putting Friends in High Places

President George W. Bush's decision to nominate Robert Zoellick as the new World Bank president continued the president's pattern of...

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

President George W. Bush’s decision to nominate Robert Zoellick as the new World Bank president continued the president’s pattern of promoting loyalists to positions of power. Instead of relinquishing the U.S. government’s traditional right to nominate World Bank presidents or selecting someone with a demonstrated commitment to alleviating global poverty, Bush stayed the course.

Since the mid-1980s, Zoellick has traveled the globe as a high-level government official representing three Republican administrations and as an international banker with Goldman Sachs.

It’s unlikely that as the new World Bank president Zoellick will deviate from his views on the essential role of the United States in the global economy and international security. At a time when the global economy needs a new consensus about globalization and development, Zoellick brings to the world’s largest development institution the standard formulas of the discredited Washington Consensus along with the baggage of U.S. national security doctrine.

Unlike his predecessor at the Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, Zoellick is not closely associated with neoconservatives. But he was an early supporter of the neocon project that combined the idealism of a foreign policy based on U.S. moral values backed by U.S. military superiority and unilateral action.

In 1998, along with Wolfowitz and many other future Bush administration officials, Zoellick signed two public letters from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) that urged President Bill Clinton and congressional leaders to cast aside "a course of weakness and drift" and to militarily "remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."

When announcing his nominee, Bush described Zoellick as a "committed internationalist." While it is true that, unlike many other administration officials, Zoellick does not have a long record of bashing multilateralism and international institutions, the PNAC letter signed by this "committed internationalist" advocated that the U.S. government bypass the UN Security Council.

By 2000, the neocons and hardliners like Zoellick began coalescing around George Bush’s candidacy. Zoellick was one of the "Vulcans," a small group of advisers led by Condoleezza Rice who charted their candidate’s foreign policy positions. Other Vulcans included such prominent neocons as Wolfowitz and Richard Perle together with Dov Zakheim, Stephen Hadley, Robert Armitage, and Robert Blackwill.

Zoellick was often described as one of the most competent and pragmatic Bush administration officials, receiving high marks from the media for his record as U.S. Trade Representative (2001-2005) and his short stint as Secretary of State Rice’s top deputy (2005-2006). A keen strategist rather than an ideologue, Zoellick was one of the first to outline the radical dimensions of the new Republican national security doctrine.

In a January 2000 Foreign Affairs essay, Zoellick argued for a foreign policy based on U.S. military preeminence and on "the appeal of the country’s ideas." He outlined a Manichean foreign policy in which the forces of good would seek out and destroy "evil."

"A modern Republican foreign policy," wrote Zoellick, "recognizes that there is still evil in the world—people who hate America and what it stands for." He warned that "people driven by enmity or by a need to dominate will not respond to reason or goodwill." Zoellick, however, was not referring to non-state terrorists but to "enemies" like Iraq "who are hard at work to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons."

In his outline of a new Republican foreign policy, Zoellick argued for a more integrated national security strategy in which trade would have a central place in the 21st century. But he took issue with the Clinton administration’s expansive trade policy, contending that social and environmental issues had no place in trade agreements. Zoellick, who was a lead player in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations during the elder Bush’s administration, called for an aggressive new trade policy led by a renewal of "fast-track" authority or trade promotion authority for the executive branch.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks gave the Bush administration the opportunity to fast-forward its foreign policy agenda, not only for regime change in Iraq but also for fast-track authority and free trade. Nine days after the attacks, in a Washington Post op-ed titled "Fighting Terror with Trade," Zoellick wrote: "Our response has to counter fear and panic, and counter it with free trade."

A few days later, in a speech at the Institute for International Economics, Zoellick extended his argument that trade is a weapon in the war against terrorism because it "promotes values at the heart of this protracted struggle." To that end, Zoellick made the case that congressional approval of fast-track authority was essential not only to the administration’s newly launched war on terror, but also to U.S. leadership in the global economy.

As U.S. trade rep, Zoellick adopted a two-pronged strategy to reduce barriers to U.S. trade and investment—promoting multilateral economic liberalization through the World Trade Organization (WTO), while at the same time aggressively seeking new bilateral free trade agreements. He called this strategy "competitive liberalization" and aimed to forge a "coalition of liberalizers" that would set the pace for liberalization reforms.

Although Zoellick was instrumental in relaunching multilateral trade/investment negotiations in 2001 with the kick-off of the Doha Development Round of WTO negotiations, he was only partially committed to the round’s success. Prior to the critical September 2003 WTO ministerial in Cancun, Mexico, in a July 10 Wall Street Journal op-ed Zoellick warned that the U.S. government wouldn’t let the WTO’s consensus procedures block "America’s drive for global free trade."

As it turned out, the negotiations in Cancun broke down largely because the United States, together with the European Union, wouldn’t accede to the developing countries’ demands that the United States liberalize its own economy by cutting trade-distorting farm subsidies. Although he postures as a free trader, Zoellick is really an "America firster" who as U.S. trade rep signed off on a subsidy-laden farm bill and protectionist tariffs for the steel industry.

Zoellick’s patronizing attitude toward the less-developed countries that wouldn’t bow to U.S. demands at the 2003 WTO meeting highlighted his dubious commitment to development. His view seems to be that what’s good for the United States is good for the rest of the world. "The WTO’s influence will wane if it comes to embody a new ‘dependency theory’ of trade, blaming developed countries," wrote Zoellick prior to the ministerial.

After the talks broke down at the last hour in Cancun, Zoellick blamed the failure on the "won’t do" countries that obstructed the will of the "can do" countries. "We’re going to keep opening markets one way or another," warned Zoellick.

As he takes over the helm of the badly fractured World Bank, Zoellick faces a growing Latin American backlash against the international financial institutions and the type of economic policies that he and the bank have long championed.

In a May 2002 speech at the corporate Council of the Americas, Zoellick outlined the standard conservative philosophy about Latin America development. He praised the "twin revolutions" of political and economic reform that were "sweeping through the region."

In Zoellick’s view, unlike previous Latin American revolutions these were "revolutions of ideas" and were peaceful. The centerpiece of both revolutions was free trade, according to Zoellick. "Free trade is about freedom," he asserted, arguing that free trade is "about more than economic efficiency." It’s also about political revolutions—"the right of individuals and associations of individuals to make choices." What is more, he said, "By diffusing economic decisions, free trade and free markets reduce the ability of people in high places to use power to strengthen privilege."

Although it was not until February 2001 (when he became President George W. Bush’s trade representative) that Zoellick began to promote free trade agreements throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, he was a principal player in sealing the NAFTA agreement with Mexico during the George H.W. Bush administration.

Zoellick was the standard-bearer of the campaign to wrap the Americas in U.S.-dominated free trade under a NAFTA upgrade called Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Zoellick initiated bilateral free trade negotiations with an array of Latin American nations eager to gain secured access to the U.S. market, and he signed free trade agreements (FTAs) with Chile, the Dominican Republic, and five Central American nations.

Along the way, however, Zoellick found that the economic liberalization policies that the U.S. government had fostered in the Americas were creating a backlash against neoliberal reforms and the political parties that had sponsored them. While some countries such as Colombia and Peru are still eager to cement FTAs with the United States, a surge of left-centrist governments have explicitly rejected the free trade revolution that Zoellick had predicted would sweep the entire continent.

At the end of Zoellick’s tenure in late 2005, the FTAA was dead and the Doha negotiations remain stalled, as the industrial world continued to refuse to make concessions to the poor and developing nations.

Now, as he begins his new job at the World Bank, Zoellick not only faces skepticism about his theory of free trade revolutions but also a widening rejection of the international financial institutions.

Several nations, notably Argentina and Brazil, have over the past couple of years intentionally distanced themselves from the International Monetary Fund by paying off their debts ahead of schedule. Signaling the discontent with World Bank’s onerous conditionality, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa earlier this year declared the multilateral bank’s country representative "persona non grata" in the Andean country. Another sign of dissatisfaction with the World Bank was the recent decision by Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to withdraw from the bank’s arbitration body. The withdrawing nations, echoing a widely shared observation, charged that the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes favored the interests of the world’s wealthiest nations. In a move to chart financial and developmental paths independent of the World Bank and the IMF, several South American nations have recently created a new regional financial institution. Formed by Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Venezuela, the upstart Banco del Sur is a project of a sector of Latin American nations that are increasingly willing to buck U.S. control and join hands with Venezuela on regional projects. Other countries, such as Mexico and Colombia, dismiss Banco del Sur as a political project of oil-rich Venezuela.

Going into his new job as World Bank president, Zoellick urgently needs to establish a new consensus within the dispirited, directionless multilateral bank. But his conviction that U.S.-led coalitions of those who "can do" the American way will override those who "won’t do" what Washington mandates doesn’t bode well for the emergence of a new post-Wolfowitz consensus at the World Bank. In the end, Zoellick’s instrumentalist approach to multilateralism, belief in U.S. exceptionalism, and his trade-centered philosophy of development are about all one could expect from the administration that appointed him.

Tom Barry is a senior analyst with the Americas Program at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC, and a contributor to Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org/).

 

 

Citations

Tom Barry, "Putting Friends in High Places," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, July 10, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.


A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share