World Bank candidate not fit for the job

Once again, the Bush administration has elected an official unprepared for the job. For example, John Bolton, who once said it wouldn't matter if a few floors of the United Nations building were blown up, was our recent U.S. representative to the U.N. Paul Wolfowitz was elected World Bank chief, although his only experience is in U.S. politics.

With Wolfowitz's retirement after a scandal with his girlfriend, President Bush just nominated Robert Zoellick to replace him. Zoellick should not lead one of the world's largest donor agencies, nor should any American.

Zoellick's past dealings as U.S. trade representative for the Bush administration highlights that his theories and opinions do not represent the needs of Third World countries.

While representing U.S. policy, he supported policies that hurt the poor. First, while promoting regional free trade agreements to "level the playing field," Zoellick never considered decreasing U.S. agricultural subsidies.

These subsidies are greater than the gross domestic product (GDP) of most developing nations, allowing the United States to pour its surplus agricultural products into developing nations and make a phenomenal profit while weakening local markets. These subsidies are one of the greatest challenges facing developing nations created by rich nations.

During the second round of the Doha trade talks at the World Trade Organization, which discussed the lessening of agricultural subsidies in the West, nothing was accomplished. Zoellick claimed the United States would decrease subsidies by one-third, which is still a phenomenal amount of money, but he refused to negotiate.

Undoubtedly, Zoellick is there to represent the interests of the U.S. government, but if he is truly "pro-poor," he would have pushed for some conclusion at the Doha rounds, which failed.

Zoellick also denied public health needs in negotiating regional trade agreements, particularly the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Low-income countries are allowed to negotiate patents and access generic medications, particularly for AIDS drugs that are almost one-third of the price of major pharmaceutical drugs.

CAFTA restricted access to critical medications for poor nations by forcing Central American countries to buy from major U.S. pharmaceutical companies. Hundreds of thousands of people have and will lose access to critical medications.

Criticizing Zoellick's nomination, Paul Zietz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, said, "He has been a close friend to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, and the bilateral trade agreements he has negotiated effectively block access to generic medication for millions of people."

Furthermore, as a wealthy American, Zoellick probably has very little understanding of life in a developing nation. Emphasizing his ignorance, Zietz said, "Zoellick has no significant experience in economic development in poor countries."

Based on Zoellick's history, he will probably implement neoclassical economic theory similar to his trade policy. However, in the imperfect markets of the Third World, such policy creates negative feedback and disregards day-to-day needs of the poor.

It continues to baffle me that World Bank presidents are always white American males with very little experience living in Third World countries. How can anyone ethically and responsibly represent the needs of 80 percent of the world's population in developing nations with such little experience?

I suppose the answers are the same as usual: U.S. interests, corporate bureaucracy and general ignorance of global development issues.

The Bush administration and future presidents need to go beyond their personal interests for the sake of the world's population. We would all be better off.

Reach columnist Brooke McKean at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.