It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Stiglitz warns of violence if Wolfowitz goes to World Bank
By Robert Peston (Filed: 20/03/2005)
Joseph Stiglitz, the former chief economist of the World Bank and one of the world's most influential economic thinkers, has launched a savage attack on US plans to appoint Paul Wolfowitz as the World Bank's new president.
In an exclusive interview, the American Nobel laureate said: "The World Bank will once again become a hate figure. This could bring street protests and violence across the developing world." He described President Bush's determination to appoint his deputy defence secretary to the important post as "either an act of provocation or an act so insensitive as to look like provocation". Wolfowitz is widely regarded as the creator of the policy that led to the US war in Iraq.
Choosing Wolfowitz definitely benefits Israel
3/17/2005 10:06:00 AM GMT
Wolfowitz, a leading neo-conservative, is widely viewed as a close friend to Israel
Senior Israeli officials expressed high satisfaction after hearing news of choosing Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of Bush's administration's hawks, to take over as head of the World Bank.
Wolfowitz, currently Deputy Defence Secretary to Donald Rumsfeld, was "a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job at the World Bank. That's why I put him up," U.S. President George W. Bush told a news conference on Wednesday.
Wolfowitz is slated to replace James Wolfensohn, who will end 10 years as World Bank President on June 1.
According to analysts, choosing Wolfowitz to head the World Bank will have significance for Israel, as the World Bank is expected to play a key economic role in Gaza after the implementation of Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal plan.
Mar 18, 2005
Global: America Smells the Coffee
Stephen Roach (from Beijing)
In the end, of course, there’s far more to this story than economics. As I noted recently, history is replete with examples of leadership tests that pit a nation’s military prowess against its economic base (see my 28 February dispatch, “The Pendulum of Global Leadership”). Yale historian Paul Kennedy has long argued that great powers typically fail when military reach outstrips a nation’s economic strength. In that vein, there’s little doubt that America is extending its reach in this post-9/11 world. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the opening salvos. The Bush Administration’s recent nomination of two leading neocons to key global positions -- John Bolton as America’s ambassador to the UN and Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank (also announced on March 16) -- are more recent examples of a White House that is upping the ante on its “transformational” projection of global power. In Paul Kennedy’s historical framework, America is extending its reach at precisely the moment when its economic power base is weakening -- a classic warning sign of the fall of a Great Power.
Originally posted by marg6043
Economist are saying that the new terror attacking our nation is the deficit, not only our natinal debt but also our trading deficit.
Originally posted by marg6043
He (WOLFOWITZ) believe that the politics and military power in the US should have not rival, and that “benevolent domination by one power”
I would not be surprised if he is also one of the “Carlyle’s man”