David Salpeter for Head of World Bank
by Mohamed El Beih, Mohamed.elbeih
Issue date: 4/12/05 Section: Voices
- Page 1 of 2 next >
This piece is a friendly response to last week's "A Hawk in the World Bank" article by David Salpeter. First, I must say that I am eternally grateful for Mr. Saltpeter for being a great host, organizer, translator, soccer player, and party coordinator for EMA's Brazil trip. His EMA efforts and dedication are truly admirable. Yet unfortunately, I can't say that about his presentation of Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's nomination for World Bank President.
In defense of Wolfowitz's nomination, David points out the credentials of the Deputy Defense Secretary, as an ex-State Department official, former Ambassador, and Professor of International Relations. I think it is more relevant however to go beyond the titles to understand what this man is about, historically and currently. The following is my interpretation.
Wolfowitz first appeared on the public/media domain when in February 1992, the New York Times leaked a Defense Department paper that he authored. Titled "Defense Planning Guidance," the shocking policy paper quickly made global front-page headlines and drew worldwide criticism. This is due to an explicit imperial chauvinism that Wolfowitz was advocating for US post-Cold War foreign policy. The then-obscure strategist (working for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney) wrote:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
In defense of Wolfowitz's nomination, David points out the credentials of the Deputy Defense Secretary, as an ex-State Department official, former Ambassador, and Professor of International Relations. I think it is more relevant however to go beyond the titles to understand what this man is about, historically and currently. The following is my interpretation.
Wolfowitz first appeared on the public/media domain when in February 1992, the New York Times leaked a Defense Department paper that he authored. Titled "Defense Planning Guidance," the shocking policy paper quickly made global front-page headlines and drew worldwide criticism. This is due to an explicit imperial chauvinism that Wolfowitz was advocating for US post-Cold War foreign policy. The then-obscure strategist (working for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney) wrote:
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."