Right Web

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

Zoellick Embraces “Multi-Polar World Economy”

The one-time backer of neocon campaigns pushing U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, World Bank head Zoellick now says the "new, fast-evolving multi-polar world economy" requires greater fiscal transparency from the Bank itself.

Inter Press Service

Speaking ahead of the World Bank and IMF annual meetings, World Bank President Robert Zoellick critiqued last week both development economics generally and the lack of transparency of his own institution.

The speech picked up on some of the themes of the speech he gave in the run-up to the last World Bank/IMF meetings, in April.

"It's time we recognise the new economic parallel," he said then. "If 1989 saw the end of the 'Second World' with Communism's demise, then 2009 saw the end of what was known as the 'Third World'. We are now in a new, fast-evolving multi-polar world economy."

Last Wednesday he repeated that message, but took it one step further, calling for development economists and policymakers to take this new, multi-polar system into account in their thinking. "As economic tectonic plates have shifted, paradigms must shift too," he said.

Zoellick also noted that developing countries are becoming new partners in development work, contributing not only aid but expertise and investment.

"The new multi-polar economy requires multi-polar knowledge. With the end of the outdated concept of the Third World, the First World must open itself to competition in ideas and experience," he said. "The flow of knowledge is no longer north to south, west to east, rich to poor. Rising economies bring new approaches and solutions."

He gave examples such as India providing expertise on dairy farming to African countries and the U.S. learning about high-speed railways from China's example.

Zoellick also focused on increasing the transparency of the Bank and making its data more available to outside scholars and policymakers.

He said the Bank is working to make its research and models more available and user-friendly and regretted that in years past some data was only available by purchase.

This would allow "researchers civil society and local communities to come up with their own findings and double- check ours," he said.

A health care worker or parent with a laptop in a village can access information on schools, health, or the history of development in her village and compare what is being done in her village with others, he said.

He also announced that in July the Bank launched a programme enlarging the public's access to its information, which he compared to the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S.

"NGOs regard the new policy as a great accomplishment in that it is the most progressive international financial institution access to information policy to date. By establishing clear request mechanisms and opening up new categories of routinely disclosed information, the Bank significantly broadened its transparency horizon," the Washington-based NGO Bank Information Center (BIC) said Wednesday.

BIC has also developed what it calls a toolkit to aid civil society in using the Bank's new policy to access documents and data. It will be launched during the Annual Meetings next week and available on their website.

In addition to his April speech, Zoellick's speech last Wednesday took off on themes laid out in a book released by the Bank last Monday.

The book, 'The Day After Tomorrow: A Handbook on the Future of Economic Policy in the Developing World', contends that developing countries have "come to the rescue" of the global economy, picking up the slack of the advanced economies which were hurt the worst by the financial crisis.

"The developing world is becoming the driver of the global economy. Led by emerging markets, developing countries now account for half of global growth and are leading the recovery in world trade," Zoellick said Wednesday.

According to the book, growth in developing countries is estimated to reach 6.1 percent in 2010, 5.9 percent in 2011, and 6.1 percent in 2012, while growth in high-income countries is estimated at 2.3 percent, 2.4 percent, and 2.6 percent respectively. This trend would mean the collective size of developing-country economies would surpass that of developed-country economies in 2015.

Five factors account for these trends, according to the Bank: "Faster technological learning, larger middle-classes, more South-South commercial integration, high commodity prices, and healthier balance sheets that will allow borrowing for infrastructure investment."

It is expected that this new economic order will mean a reordering of which countries have the most influence at the World Bank and IMF, and this topic – governance reform – is expected to be one of the top orders of business when the world's finance ministers converge on Washington next week for the international financial institutions' annual meetings.

"The governing structure needs improvement," Patrick Cirillo, deputy chief of operations at the IMF, told reporters here Wednesday afternoon. He said IMF members have committed to making "substantial changes" by January 2011.

But European countries have been reluctant to agree to reduce their share of seats on the IMF board, despite repeated calls by the U.S. for reform.

At the Spring Meetings in April, the World Bank undertook a reform, but one that many NGOs were critical of. They have contended that the reform, which allotted about three percent more voting power to low- and middle- income countries, included countries that should not have been included in those income categories, including Saudi Arabia and Hungary.

Further Bank governance reform is on the table for five years, says the London-based NGO Bretton Woods Project. They hope the reforms that are agreed this autumn regarding IMF governance are more significant.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


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.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share