Anyone Believe Paul Wolfowitz/John Bolton Were Right To Hate UN, G-20 & World Bank?

[TomCADem]

I see a lot of denigrating comments about international institutions like the G-20, the World Bank, IMF, or even the U.N. I understand and agree with some of the posts that address specific policies, but several posts simply attack the mere existence of these institutions and call for their dissolution. President Obama has taken an opposite tack and has embraced the use of these multi-lateral institutions, which stands in sharp contrast to the Bush administration, particularly John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz. My question is whether DUers agree with Bolton and Wolfowitz or the Obama administration with respect to international institutions such as the UN, G-20, World Bank and IMF?

Are the institutions inherently corrupt as argued by Wolfowitz and Bolton? Or, is it a reflection of the personnel and policies of the participants, which can change?

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/08/world/fg-unenvoy8

###

Harsh Critic of U.N. Named Ambassador

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday nominated State Department official John R. Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, selecting an administration loyalist who has disparaged the world body and clashed with allies over Iran and North Korea policy.

Bolton's approval seems assured by the Republican majority in the Senate. But with congressional Democrats ex- pressing dismay over his selection, the confirmation hearing may be rancorous.

In announcing Bolton's nomination, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Bolton a "tough-minded diplomat" who had developed a "proven track record for effective multilateralism" as undersecretary of State for international arms control and nonproliferation, a post he has held since 2001.

"He knows how to get things done," she said.

Bolton's supporters see him as someone who can be trusted to advance the president's agenda at the United Nations and push for reform there. Detractors of Bolton, who has been championed by Vice President Dick Cheney, have criticized him as a hawkish unilateralist and neoconservative.

###

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-fury-grows-at-wolfowitz-appointment-529184.html

###

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, has been summoned to Brussels to explain to an angry Europe how he would run the World Bank, in an escalation of the international row over his nomination to head the world's most important development body.

European countries are furious both at President George Bush's naming of an enemy of multilateralism and by the unilateral way it was done, and are considering whether to block it. But there are strong indications that, although Tony Blair knew of the appointment in advance, he did not inform his Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn.

###

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Paul Wolfawitz was head of the world bank...

until he did his girlfriend a favor. So I would say that Wolfawitz was part of the corruption at the world bank.

These men saw these institution as either being the tool of the US empire or as the enemy.

[TomCADem]

4. And Bolton Was U.N. Ambassador - Neocons Try To Undermine Institutions From Within

Its just like appointing a pro-corporate head of the EPA. So, I would not take Wolfowitz being head of the World Bank as suggesting that he supported it, any more than Bush's EPA head was pro-environment.

[anonymous171]

2. International "Law" is a joke.

Not saying that it will always be a joke, but it's state right now is quite laughable.

[spanone]

3. i see you're still supporting bu$h*

[TomCADem]

5. I Think That The UN and G-20 Are Important Multi-Lateral Institutions. Don't You?