From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sat Mar 19 2005 - 08:10:35 EST
Michael L sent his OPE-L message to PEN-L, a list that I am
not subscribed to. I already replied to Michael; Patrick Bond's reply
to his post (and my 1st OPE-L post, which appears below) is:
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2005w11/msg00129.htm >
In his post to PEN-L, Patrick calls attention to <http://www.worldbankboycott.org>.
He inquired:
> I hope he's in full agreement that efforts now to defund and indeed shut
> the BWIs -- and promote boycotts of everything they do -- are of a much
> greater priority.
Yes.
> This is a new site of unity between global justice and anti-war movements that
> we must re-energize ourselves to take full advantage of, surely?
Yes.
That is as much as I can say for now since I have to log off and get ready to
head to Harlem for an anti-war demonstration.
In solidarity, Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: michael a. lebowitz
To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Wolfowitz as the president of the World Bank
Jerry,
Your description of the independent reaction of Patrick and me to the petition calling for a protest of Wolfowitz's selection because it 'risks the Bank becoming seen as a tool of the current controversial US foreign policy, with aid flows becoming more dependent on strict adherence to US Administration priorities' as similar to the idiocy of the 'after Hitler, us' comment is way off base. Consider the following from today's Krugman column in the NYT:
The Ugly American Bank
You can say this about Paul Wolfowitz's qualifications to lead the
World Bank: He has been closely associated with America's largest
foreign aid and economic development project since the Marshall Plan.
I'm talking, of course, about reconstruction in Iraq. Unfortunately,
what happened there is likely to make countries distrust any economic
advice Mr. Wolfowitz might give. ...
Moisés Naím, editor of Foreign Policy, says that the Wolfowitz
nomination turns the World Bank into the American Bank. Make that
ugly American bank: rightly or not, developing countries will see Mr.
Wolfowitz's selection as a sign that we're still trying to impose
policies they believe have failed.
Maybe Patrick and I responded the way we did because we're in South Africa and Venezuela and see the importance of that sign and of (as Patrick said) linking 'our critique of neoliberalism to that of imperialism' and having ' the anti-war and global-justice movements unite in increasingly militant protests'. I think Patrick's closing note to the petition circulator was worth quoting:
(And please, my old friend, don't tell us all what our 'duty' is if it
involves giving the WB bogus legitimacy. Your statement b) is especially
nauseating, given the WB's ongoing role in financing imperialism, as if you
can't see that.)
So, Jerry, is that what you are proposing--- we need to fight for a 'good' head of the WB?
in solidarity,
michael
At 09:36 18/03/2005, Jerry Levy wrote:
Alejandro:
See http://www.worldbankpresident.org for some other related stories
on this topic.
Over on PEN-L, Patrick Bond wrote:
> [...] what about those of us -- I'm surely not the only one -- who consider this
> appointment a delightful turn of events?
> There are plenty of us:
> * who would delegitimize the World Bank and will have a much easier time of it now;
Patrick even went on to claim that Wolfowitz was an "excellent choice for WB
president."
Easier time of it now? This strikes me as fanciful thinking reminiscent of the
"Nach Hitler, Uns!" ("After Hitler, Us") 1932 KPD policy. The idea is that the
selection of Wolfowitz allows for greater "transparency" and therefore helps to
build resistance to the WB and Neo-Liberalism. This was similar to the KPD
policy which thought that after people were exposed to fascism and see its
iron fist in practice then this will lead to increased resistance to fascism and
the KPD will be elected into power. It didn't work in Germany. Why should we
think it will work now? (NB: Of course there are differences and thus this
analogy is not entirely accurate: e.g. bourgeois democracy nowhere directly
enters into the picture in the WB or the selection of its president.)
But Mike L agreed with Patrick:
> Exactly, Patrick! Now, what about the ILO being headed up by someone
> from Coca-Cola or Walmart? Not quite the same, of course [...]
If the WB now actively and publicly supports "regime change" in Cuba and
Venezuela will that also be an excellent development since more people
will see the "transparency" of WB policies? I doubt that the Cuban and
Venezuelan masses or their leadership would view it in such a positive
light.
What do you and others on the list think? Is it a good thing for the working-
class that the Neo-Con Wolfowitz was selected to lead the WB?
In solidarity, Jerry
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
Caracas, Venezuela
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 20 2005 - 00:00:02 EST