A One-Nation Conversation
At her Senate confirmation hearing, Condoleeza Rice did her very best to assuage the minds of all those who see the current American administration as being dismissive of world opinion. She insisted that relations with the rest of the world need to be a “conversation, not a monologue”, nearly a tacit admission that the government had hitherto been far more comfortable in laying down the law amongst friends and enemies alike, paying little heed to any discomfiture it caused. What Donald Rumsfeld made of these comments, widely interpreted as being an olive branch to what he famously termed ‘old Europe’, has not thus far been divulged. Yet two political appointments by the White House during the last month suggests that the Secretary of Defence is unlikely to have trouble sleeping any time soon.
On February 16th, George Bush announced the new United States ambassador for the United Nations: a striking individual by the name of John Bolton. Mr. Bolton is certainly familiar with the UN; moreover, he has distinguished himself in recent years by frequently displaying his contempt for that organisation. A sample comment from this acerbic individual swiftly demonstrates his attitude: “There is no such thing as the United Nations”. He also doesn’t have much time for America’s erstwhile partners, saying of Europeans that some “have never lost faith in appeasement as a way of life”.
Now, Paul Wolfowitz, has been nominated for the presidency of the World Bank. Despite having little experience with international development, and seemingly little concern for the plight of the world’s impoverished people, the White House has decided that Mr. Wolfowitz is the best man for the job. A much better candidate, many analysts agreed, would have been former Mexican president – and Yale PhD – Ernesto Zedillo. Yet Mr. Zedillo was effectively ruled out by his nationality; by decree of a sixty-year old convention, the job will always go to an American citizen, while the leader of the International Monetary Fund is selected from Europe. Thus, we have the nomination of Mr. Wolfowitz, who was most recently one of the chief architects in Washington of the Iraq war, and who is now seen as something of an idealist for suggesting that the cost of that war could be recouped through Iraq’s oil revenues.
It is almost tempting to say that the question of whether Wolfowitz will be a success in his new role is a moot point. What is more revealing is what his appointment, like that of John Bolton, reveals about the US attitude to such institutions as the World Bank and the UN. By seeking to install such trenchant neo-conservatives into these multilateral institutions, In the case of Wolfowitz, it will be interesting to see whether or not he can reorder the Bank around his commitment to neoliberal economic policies, as opposed to vast amounts of financial aid. As for Mr. Bolton: this is a man who once said that, if he were to remould the United Nations, it would have just one permanent member. I think we can guess to whom he is referring. All of these factors add up to suggest that the commitment to “conversation” with the world that Condoleeza Rice promised is so far turning out to be nothing more than a disdainful sneer.
On February 16th, George Bush announced the new United States ambassador for the United Nations: a striking individual by the name of John Bolton. Mr. Bolton is certainly familiar with the UN; moreover, he has distinguished himself in recent years by frequently displaying his contempt for that organisation. A sample comment from this acerbic individual swiftly demonstrates his attitude: “There is no such thing as the United Nations”. He also doesn’t have much time for America’s erstwhile partners, saying of Europeans that some “have never lost faith in appeasement as a way of life”.
Now, Paul Wolfowitz, has been nominated for the presidency of the World Bank. Despite having little experience with international development, and seemingly little concern for the plight of the world’s impoverished people, the White House has decided that Mr. Wolfowitz is the best man for the job. A much better candidate, many analysts agreed, would have been former Mexican president – and Yale PhD – Ernesto Zedillo. Yet Mr. Zedillo was effectively ruled out by his nationality; by decree of a sixty-year old convention, the job will always go to an American citizen, while the leader of the International Monetary Fund is selected from Europe. Thus, we have the nomination of Mr. Wolfowitz, who was most recently one of the chief architects in Washington of the Iraq war, and who is now seen as something of an idealist for suggesting that the cost of that war could be recouped through Iraq’s oil revenues.
It is almost tempting to say that the question of whether Wolfowitz will be a success in his new role is a moot point. What is more revealing is what his appointment, like that of John Bolton, reveals about the US attitude to such institutions as the World Bank and the UN. By seeking to install such trenchant neo-conservatives into these multilateral institutions, In the case of Wolfowitz, it will be interesting to see whether or not he can reorder the Bank around his commitment to neoliberal economic policies, as opposed to vast amounts of financial aid. As for Mr. Bolton: this is a man who once said that, if he were to remould the United Nations, it would have just one permanent member. I think we can guess to whom he is referring. All of these factors add up to suggest that the commitment to “conversation” with the world that Condoleeza Rice promised is so far turning out to be nothing more than a disdainful sneer.
posted by DN at 5:51 AM
1 Comments:
sneers suck, especially when they're disdainful. bloody doublespeaking Rice. if her statement were upheld by US actions it would be like a light shining down from on high, as it is it's more like the cheap flicker of a burnt-out neon sign to a peep show. too bad the Bush administration equates being good Christians with putting more money in the pockets of its members and cronies. the real question its actions beg is: how can so many people be So delusional?
Post a Comment
<< Home