If the US really wants, in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's phrase, "a conversation, not a monologue," with the rest of the world, it is time to start talking. But simply not invading any more countries isn't enough; something more positive is needed.
As luck has it, the US has an issue sitting in its lap that would instantly make it friends around the world. In May, James Wolfensohn steps down as president of the World Bank, the wealthy world's premier multinational development agency. The US, as the bank's largest shareholder and deepest pockets, gets to appoint the new president.
Here's the big idea. Instead of filling the job from a list of insiders, cronies and yes-persons drawn up in the West Wing, the Bush administration could do something entirely radical: make the appointment on merit. Failing that, it could at least introduce some transparency into proceedings, and entertain the extraordinary idea that a non-US citizen could be qualified for the job.
Why this is important is that the World Bank has been transformed in recent years into a hyperactive international aid provider, filling a role that is far too big or important for even the largest non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent.
The bank's rapid reconstruction work in Bosnia following the Dayton peace accord showed its ability to harness international relief efforts, as did its late but eventually effective enrollment in the battle against HIV/AIDS, and its concentration on the wretched state of sub-Saharan Africa. For all its faults -- and it certainly has many -- the bank is the best tool to influence development for the world's poor.
Yet it is a bank in name only. It relies on just US$20 billion of financing a year. Chastened by its unsuccessful record in the 1980s, the bank now holds regular dialogues with NGOs and grassroots organizations. Last week alone it fast-tracked US$25 million to Rwanda for urgent electricity supplies to rehabilitate the country's power grid and shift it away from using ecologically damaging charcoal for fuel. That is why the right choice of president is vital -- but also why the method of making that choice is crucial.
In recent years the bank has spent much time lecturing its aid recipients on the need for good governance. An avalanche of research has found that development is powerless to effect change in places where society has been distorted by corruption.
The drumbeat behind international aid has constantly rapped out calls for openness and accountability. Yet at its heart, the appointment to the top job in the world's leading development agency is as open and accountable as the bad old days of the Suharto regime in Indonesia.
The current situation is the result of an unhealthy carve-up, between the Europeans -- mainly, the French, Germans and British -- who get to choose the head of the IMF, and the US, which gets to name the bank president in a quid pro quo. Some argue that this actually works in the bank's favor. Because the US is the bank's largest shareholder, with 20 percent of its funds, and biggest potential contributor, it needs to be kept happy.
The World Bank, they argue, is not supposed to be a democratic institution. Instead, the bank is designed to cajole a small group of rich countries into funding projects for a large group of poor countries. By protesting against the US's droit du seigneur, developing nations may provoke a backlash by the neocons and backwoodsmen of Congress. The World Bank could find itself in the same bind as the UN: derided on Capitol Hill and starved of extra US funds.
That pragmatic view ignores the fact that while the US does have a 20 percent stake, the rest of the world has 80 percent. It also means that economic powerhouses such as Japan and China are locked out of the process and left without a say in who gets the bank's top job.
The democratic deficit wouldn't be so bad if the US insisted on nominating its finest minds. Sometimes that has been the case: between 1968 and 1981 the bank was run by Robert McNamara, a formidable character, as viewers of Errol Morris' documentary The Fog of War will know.
A Cold War warrior who directed America's gruesome battle in Vietnam as secretary of defense for former presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, McNamara changed his spots and became anti-poverty's biggest cheerleader as bank president. McNamara's vision transformed the bank and gave it a new role, tackling poverty in all its causes. But his successors sadly showed little of his energy or ability.
Plucked from the back catalogue of Washington's backers and brokers, such non-household names as Tom Clausen (head of Bank America), Barber Conable (retired congressman) and Lewis Preston (retired head of JP Morgan) have run the bank in the post-McNamara era, appointed by former presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush respectively.
None of the trio had any experience or background in development. "The average congressman doesn't understand the World Bank," Conable once said, "and I was the average congressman."
Their appointments reflected the suspicion with which the prevailing Reaganite claque held the bank.
The result was 15 years of drift, leaving the bank unable to oppose the raw spirit of "structural adjustment" and unfettered free-marketeerism pushed through the 1980s.
The danger of another Republican appointment is another nobody, and the bank's focus on poverty being again diverted in favor of US bilateralism. It also leaves the bank vulnerable to the turf war breaking out between it and the IMF. The signs are not good, given some of the candidates being bandied around in Washington.
The Web site worldbankpresident.org lists a series of rumored names, including a conservative Republican senator, an old classmate of US President George W. Bush at prep school, and one of the consultants of the US' postwar Iraq economy. Such an appointment would be seen as moving the bank back to the periphery of Washington policymaking.
That would be a shame, because the bank has been the target of muttering by some of those unhappy that it didn't react more enthusiastically to the US invasion of Iraq. The bone-chewing scribes of the Wall Street Journal editorial pages have already declared the bank's current role to be useless, before sneering that "the bank plays a useful geopolitical role for the US."
Yet the bank's presidency offers the Bush administration a painless and cost-free way of setting out some multilateral credentials, and gaining kudos in the developing world. By treating the job like any other, the US will be doing its bit for international transparency. More importantly, if the US is not willing to take this step, the bank's other shareholders should make their power felt.
For the Bush administration to trumpet freedom and democracy abroad while relying on shabby stitch-ups in Washington does no one any favors, and certainly not the world's poor. The most important job at the world's most important development institution should not be left to the mercy of a US president's whim.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations