h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So, Mr. Blair is a possibility to follow Mr. Wolfowitz at the World Bank:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=455673&in_page_id=1811


Personally, I'd like to see someonw from the other side of the bleeding big situation that is ripping the world apart. Is there a 'Draft Hans Blix for World Bank President' campaign anywhere?

Seriously, could anyone in the position of President -- apart from Karl Rove -- reduce the credibility of the World Bank more than Tony Blair?

Blair doesn't really sound like a practical choice for the president of World Bank.

I'm sure Blair won't be faced with any disapproval from the US.

The World Bank may be part of the UN, but its not a neutral body. It is controlled by and represents the countries which put the money in. Given its for that particular interest group, I can see why Tony Blair might be considered a candidate. Some organisations are there to look after everyone, but some are there to look after their own, and there's no point moaning when you get the position you were expecting from them.

Well as Wolfowitz was forced into the position by the Yanks they would want to see someone else they can manipulate and rely upon.

And why break a tradition: have two heads of The World Bank who have been intimately involved in invading two countries.

For a start, Blair would be the first head of the World Bank *ever* who wasn't a US citizen. He may not be Hans Blix, but he'd surely be more open to balancing out the interests of various different nations than some of the previous holders of the position? Be the first time Europeans were at the top of the World Bank and the IMF at the same time too.

The position of Head of the World Bank is in the gift of the President of the US (though the nomination has to be confirmed by the directors). So... Hans Blix? Never going to happen. Nor anyone else you might *like* to see there. It then becomes a question of which you'd prefer: another US economist from within the Bush Whitehouse with one eye always on his domestic audience and their interests and quite possibly further political ambitions of his own, or Blair, who you may not like (not that fond of him myself) but who might well be able to take the World Bank in a slightly different direction (appointed by this administration, but it's not going to be there for very much longer) and be seen as a bit more of a neutral figure (relatively speaking, of course).

He won't do it though.

I mentioned Hans Blix as a contrast. I don't seriously think he would ever be considered and I don't know that he'd be particularly good at the job.

My expectation is that the credibility of the institution well continue to deteriorate no matter who is given the top job.

You're probably right. But maybe Blair would be a little more likely to concentrate on bridge-building than another Bush insider. A whole new exercise in polishing up a legacy

Anhaga, its not supposed to be credible to you, or to me. Its supposed to be credible the fairly conservative economists who have had political influence over the past couple of decades. Blair's government followed their policies to the letter: continued public investment, but with an extremely close eye on inflation and making absolutely sure they paid their debts on time.

Don't be duped by 'World Bank': its never been for the world.

Wolfowitz dug his own grave with his *Neoconcubine* and now the backlash has to be dealt with. I could see Blair as an honourary Rich White Man (US version) and fitting in quite well.

Isn't it largely a yes man figurehead position of an organisation run by bureaucrats?

Of course it's not supposed to be credible to us. And so, more and more people like us and like the leaders of the less developed countries will say 'screw the World Bank, the IMF and the rich white guys.' The rich Northwest will become more and more disengaged.