The BBC ends their story about the current situation with a telling example of what happens when you put an American neo-conservative in charge of a global organization:

Oxfam and other campaigners such as Christian Aid say the World Bank’s current policies often leave people in developing countries worse off than before.

“Imagine what life would be like if you had to run every decision you made by your bank manager and if he or she didn’t like it, you would have to change it,” Christian Aid policy manager Anna Thomas said.

“That is the reality for many poor countries and they can’t just switch accounts.”

Christian Aid points to the example of Ghana where the World Bank’s demand for a ban on tariffs and subsidies for the poultry market has led to an influx of cheap European imports and seen many thousands of Ghanaians lose their jobs and livelihoods.

I remember Senator Bob Dole saying to me once that any country that does not allow American investors to own land is no country that deserves support. In other words, like the mob, we are the most powerful player and so if we help you we should own you. Or, even more pointedly, why would a bank help you unless it gave them control over your livelihood? Default on that loan, good-bye farm. Wolfowitz has taken this torch to the extreme at the World Bank. His aim clearly is to wrestle control of markets away from locals in order to enable foreign investment to move in on developing countries. He calls this a program to “tackle corruption”.

Do you get the irony? The American neo-conservatives label their opposition as corrupt because they sense that the playing field is stacked in a direction they dislike. So they change the rules in order to privilege themselves and their friends. In other words, they perform a forceful takeover in order to shift “corruption” heavily to their favor.

Opposition to this nonsense comes from more intelligent and humantiarian men like UK International Development Secretary Hilary Benn:

“But on other issues, particularly economic policy, developing countries ought to take their own decisions and I do believe that this is one of the ways that we can increase the voice of the poorest countries of the world,” he added.

I say “more intelligent” because Wolfowitz is undermining US long-term security and its image abroad for short-term gain by a select few who are already well-to-do. He foolishly believes that developing nations will be eternally grateful if you transfer respect and equity away from them in return for cheap goods made overseas.

Turnabout is fair play, as they say, so let us imagine for a minute that the World Bank was led by a Chinese economist. Now imagine that that person required countries to abide by their particular view of market rules (e.g. Communism or even Socialism) before they would allow money to be loaned for humanitarian aid and reconstruction. The US would howl with protests and claim unfair control was putting lives at risk and destroying the independence and freedom of a sovereign state. Or, perhaps, they would characterize the growth of Asian trade relations with Africa as yet another reason why Africans should surrender domestic control of their markets, as evidenced in this BBC story?

Written by World Bank Africa Region Economic Advisor Harry Broadman, the study further calls for Africa to reform its economies to better “unleash competitive market forces, strengthen its basic market institutions, and improve governance”.

It also wants to see African countries improve their infrastructure and customs arrangements.

Taken together it said such changes were “not only in the best interests of Africa’s economic development, but in China’s and India’s own economic fortunes”.

I seriously doubt Wolfowitz would want to see Chinese expansion in influence, especially over African oil, given his work on the Project for a New American Century along side Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Jeb Bush. On the other hand, Wolfowitz seems to act on ten year old information like pushing for the 1991 invasion of Iraq which he had formulated as a plan in 1976, and then pushing again for the 2003 invasion. So perhaps this former US State Department Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs is still under the impression that China and India desperately need US assistance against Russia or some other threat.

With regard to the point made by Anna Thomas at the start of this entry, imagine that a bank told you that they would not loan you money to fix your plumbing or solve a health/safety issue unless you agreed to their code of conduct. They would further say that due to a low credit rating they see potential for corruption (you might pay your brother or neighbor to fix your plumbing, or you might not be able to repay the loan) and so they require you to accept their own company to perform the improvents. This company would be a large and influential entity of its own that you could not hold accountable and that you had no power to control or guide once they were working on the project — the company would report to the bank, not you. So if they decide to re-route all of your plumbing to your neighbor and then take the profits as “repayment”, what could you do about it? You took the money, the terms said you had to allow this company to set your policy for you, and the company begins to operate in a manner harmful to your best interests. Now what? Corruption is a relative term, in other words, and there does not seem to be much transparency or universal standard to Wolfowitz’s position. The natural result is a further decline in respect for the US and its policy-makers. Why should any country, developed or not, trust someone like Wolfowitz?

And finally, even if you are a fan of Wolfowitz and believe in his mission against corruption I challenge you to apply his standard universally. The US economist needs to take a long hard look in the mirror before s/he says that no country should be given loans unless they can eliminate corruption. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was not a coincidence. Abramoff is not an exception, he is part of the new rule. And so a man who came to power through a system rife with corruption is on shaky moral ground when he points a finger abroad and tells others to clean up their act or forget humanitarian assistance. That is why I believe that his motive is actually to feed contracts to his preferred companies, and not eliminate corruption universally. Anti-corruption is just a catchy marketing phrase that Wolfowitz will use to attack his opponents with, as in “If you do not support my policy, you must be pro-corruption”. We can only hope, like the director who broke the HP board scandal, the world will have the courage and moral strength to stand up to a leader with questionable ethics.

And now for the lighter side of this story, the Onion reports that the US has announced it will dedicate $64 billion to undermine the Gates Foundation efforts:

“If they want to use this money to purify a well, we will be there to fill it in with bacteria-infested soil before they get the chance,” Negroponte said. “If they want to ensure that millions of children receive immunity shots for typhoid, whooping cough, or diphtheria, we will ensure that country’s medicine is never received.”

[…]

A CIA statement outlined phase one of the initiative, dubbed “Freeze And Punish,” to be spearheaded by the new counter-philanthropy unit. It will “focus on disrupting the Gates Foundation’s international support network by freezing the accounts of countries that attempt to use the financial aid, and then providing small arms to violent rebel movements to fight them.” This, combined with the release of over 10 million parasitic Guinea worms into their drinking water, is expected to severely impede Gates’ impact on Africa and the rest of the developing world.