Diplomacy through Development

Anecdotal information here, and I hope sources don't mind me posting on this. But this is something to keep an eye on. I know that you all probably know some or all of this, but I want to put together three American maneuvers in international development, place them side-by-side, and see what kinds of lessons we can draw and what further moves we can more easily discern by having put these elements side by side. That's a convoluted way of saying, "check this out and keep an eye on it."

1. The IMF: the US is the principal stakeholder (in this case, funder) of the IMF. Nations that accept IMF loans understand this. Disagree or agree with the methods and results, the IMF attempts to restructure finance systems in various countries. Another level rests above these projects, however, and it is largely one of political influence. The US, as majority stakeholder, has important influence over what ultimately happens on the ground in IMF negotiations.

2. The World Bank: we all know that Wolfowitz is now president of the Bank. He is broadly hated for his involvement in the Iraq War. But others have been willing to give him a chance. Like him or not, he has a reputation as having a strong intellect. And the World Bank needs shaking up in many ways (this is not to say that he's the right guy to do it). A central concern of people at the Bank is that Wolfowitz is replacing top management with his own people. We know this pattern by simply looking at the Bush administration. The concern here, however, is that Wolfowitz is engaged in his own form of cronyism at the Bank, and that it's ultimately ideologically oriented.

3. USAID: they fund all sorts of international development projects, some good, some disastrous. They also have a reputation, given the source of their own funding, of promoting US interests above sound development processes. USAID's budget has been cut drastically recently. They are now being absorbed into the State Department and will be physically moved next to the World Bank offices in DC. The absorption into State worries the decent-minded at USAID. The new slogan is "Diplomacy through Development." That is, politicize development.

The sum total here, from a macro perspective, is an at least attempted consolidation of international development work into the hand of US administration ideologues.

Now, you might say that there's nothing new under the sun here. Anti-globalization folks, especially, have a tendency towards summing up all of this under the same pro-liberalization, Americanization, corporatization banner. It's true that these institutions have always served American interests, and have often failed miserably in the supposed missions of enabling economic growth good for all and aiding the poor.

I'm simply pointing you to the further consolidation, through restructuring the institutions themselves, of those interests under the control of this particular administration.