Does anyone else see a trend in the recent US nominations to world-facing positions? First Condi as Secretary of State, then John Bolton, “a guy who hates the UN”:http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18728, as UN ambassador, and now “Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1439192,00.html. Honestly, it’s like making David Duke the ambassador to Kenya.
Peter Bosshard (from the article) put it best:
_”In his career, Wolfowitz has so far not shown any interest in poverty reduction, environmental protection and human rights. His election as World Bank president would most likely exacerbate the current backlash against social and environmental concerns at the World Bank, and would initiate a new era of conflict between the Bank and civil society.”_
As I heard a commentator say in reference to these nominations, “It is a gesture of an arm outstretched to the world… middle finger extended.”
I may have this wrong, but I think other nations have veto power for this nomination, although according to NPR they’ve never used it and it’s always been something of a formality. Maybe they’ll use it now?
I sure hope so. If other nations were to loudly and openly veto the nomination, hopefully it would be another indicator to the American public that the world doesn’t really like our government much…
Of course, opposition to the invasion of Iraq didn’t get world leaders anywhere…