The Neo-con Bank

So, Bush has thrown down the gauntlet of U.S. multilateralism vs. U.S. unilateralism and dominance in international policy. Within the last week, Bush has nominated John Bolton as U.N. ambassador (a man who claimed that if 15 stories of the U.N. building were removed, no one would notice). This provides a big F.U. to the world and the U.N. If the U.S. cannot eliminate the secretary-general through a phony scandal (the U.S. had to approve every transaction under the oil-for-food program since it was directly controlled through the Security Council), then it will do everything it can to undermine the influence of the U.N. If that wasn't enough, yesterday, Bush nominated Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defence and a leading neo-con in the drive to war with Iraq, to head the World Bank. If the Europeans don't step in and block his nomination (traditionally the U.S. picks the head of the World Bank and the Europeans pick the head of the IMF) the transition of the World Bank from an organization involved in large infrastructure projects in the developing world (which largely failed) to an organization that does more to reduce poverty across the world will be slowed or stopped. This movement has been hugely beneficial to the World Bank and developing countries. To go back would to reinforce the idea that the World Bank is the tool of the countries that lend to developing countries instead of what it should be (a more democratic and transparent structure wouldn't hurt either). Bush is trying to undermine everything Keynes did outside of economic theory (Bush already showed his contempt for that in his tax cut plans), Bretton Woods. The World Bank and IMF have been evolving in the right direction,but apparently, Bush wants to undermine this evolution.