FT Dons the Euro Blinders for the World Bank
The chaps and chapettes over at a popular pink foreign newspaper have taken grave offense at the sullying of the World Bank's stature and lament that its mission is in peril of permanent impairment. In a classic exposition of the European mindset that values intentions versus the American mindset that values results, the editorialists at said pink newspaper make the courageous claim that Europeans don't like corruption either.
"Some of the Americans who want such a showdown see what is happening as a malevolent European plot to bring down their courageous warrior against corruption. But the notion that the US alone cares about corruption in development assistance is outrageous..."
As we know on this side of the pond, for them that suffices. For us, an historical track record of not doing anything about it cuts the claim to shreads. If you care, you demand results, intentions are not enough. Of course, we see this almost everywhere we turn from the stunning wimpishness with which the Euro-3 confronted Iran over its violations in seeking nuclear capability to the incessant lecturing we get from Europeans over global warming while they violate their Kyoto requirements. As usual Europeans care in the cocktail party sense, but have no desire to get their hands dirty. If they truly think Wolfowitz is such an execrable character based on his actions at the World Bank (and not actions in previous capacities) and they were as committed to anti-corruption as they say, they would put forward a replacement candidate that is committed to the Wolfowitz agenda but was free of whatever ethical taint they claim. Instead, as the WSJ pointed out the other day, a leading candidate appears to be Mark Malloch Brown, for whom there is a good case is either oblivious or indifferent to corruption. That's on a good day.
The thorny problem here for the Bush administration is a question of ends versus means. The World Bank is a failure and ought to be reformed or euthanized, but reform looks increasing impossible. However, the proper way to sunset the Bank is not to debilitate it through a crisis of confidence, but rather on the basis of the evidence of its failure and the affirmative merits of an alternative approach, perhaps on the model of Hernando de Soto's Institute for Liberty and Democracy. This is the way I would like to see the end of the World Bank, but the world doesn't always work that way; sometimes the right ends come about by the wrong means. I think here of that British civil servant who abdicated professional responsibility because he wanted John Kerry to be President of some other people's country.
UPDATE: George Will, as well, says pull the plug. On the Bank that is, not Wolfowitz.
"Some of the Americans who want such a showdown see what is happening as a malevolent European plot to bring down their courageous warrior against corruption. But the notion that the US alone cares about corruption in development assistance is outrageous..."
As we know on this side of the pond, for them that suffices. For us, an historical track record of not doing anything about it cuts the claim to shreads. If you care, you demand results, intentions are not enough. Of course, we see this almost everywhere we turn from the stunning wimpishness with which the Euro-3 confronted Iran over its violations in seeking nuclear capability to the incessant lecturing we get from Europeans over global warming while they violate their Kyoto requirements. As usual Europeans care in the cocktail party sense, but have no desire to get their hands dirty. If they truly think Wolfowitz is such an execrable character based on his actions at the World Bank (and not actions in previous capacities) and they were as committed to anti-corruption as they say, they would put forward a replacement candidate that is committed to the Wolfowitz agenda but was free of whatever ethical taint they claim. Instead, as the WSJ pointed out the other day, a leading candidate appears to be Mark Malloch Brown, for whom there is a good case is either oblivious or indifferent to corruption. That's on a good day.
The thorny problem here for the Bush administration is a question of ends versus means. The World Bank is a failure and ought to be reformed or euthanized, but reform looks increasing impossible. However, the proper way to sunset the Bank is not to debilitate it through a crisis of confidence, but rather on the basis of the evidence of its failure and the affirmative merits of an alternative approach, perhaps on the model of Hernando de Soto's Institute for Liberty and Democracy. This is the way I would like to see the end of the World Bank, but the world doesn't always work that way; sometimes the right ends come about by the wrong means. I think here of that British civil servant who abdicated professional responsibility because he wanted John Kerry to be President of some other people's country.
UPDATE: George Will, as well, says pull the plug. On the Bank that is, not Wolfowitz.
posted by Donny Baseball at 10:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home