The Wall Street Journal came quickly to the defense to Wolfowitz's nomination to the leading economic development job in the world:
More important, Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak truth to power. In Indonesia, and before that in the Philippines, he saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. Too bad they didn't take his advice. His predecessor at the Bank has devoted a lot of time to berating democratic donor states for being too "stingy" with their largesse, as if another $100 billion is all that stands in the way between the poor and their redemption.
In fact, it is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. And it seems to us that if anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein.
The WSJ editorial board rewrites history.
(1) In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration, without public dissent from Wolfowitz, coddled dictators--from South Korea, to Indonesia, to South Africa, to the Philippines. Wolfowitz has not been a longtime champion of speaking truth to power--rather he has preferred to nuzzle power's ear. Public exhortations to democratize cannot cover private assurances of support. I did follow the fall of Marcos closely, and my recollection is that the Reagan Administration hardly led the way for Marcos' departure, but only responded to what became necessary because of popular dissent among the Filipino people--People Power, not American leadership toward democracy.
This is one critic's assessment: "During the Reagan years, there was no greater champion of Suharto than Wolfowitz, whose career is a textbook example of Cold War politics that focused for nearly 50 years on the care and feeding of dictators like Suharto, Chun Doo-hwan in South Korea, and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. "
I have not followed Wolfowitz's actions closely for the last few decades, but I hardly recall the Reagan Administration's foreign policy as one championing democracy in the face of ruthless dictators. Rather the policy was "the democrats seem like they might go against U.S. interests, so let's keep the tyrants in power as long as they can hold out, because they further our interests." This was the Realpolitik
Here's another take, from a Vassar College professor: "Wolfowitz served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs from 1982 to 1986, and as ambassador to Indonesia during the Reagan administration's final three years. He was the primary architect of U.S. policy toward the resource-rich country in the 1980s. During his tenure, U.S. support for the TNI [the Indonesian military] peaked despite, among many crimes, the military's illegal occupation of East Timor, which resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 people."
Again, I cannot verify this assessment, but it's worth examining any claim that Wolfowitz has been a longtime champion of democracy carefully.
(2) The fact that in the 1980s W. was a diplomat in Indonesia and later worked in the State Department on East Asian matters hardly makes him an expert in development. If this is his basis for knowledge, it seems to me that Bono has a greater claim to expertise in development than Wolfowitz. The additional facts that he taught political science for a handful of years, and was dean of a public policy school, hardly establish expertise. Having a girlfriend at the World Bank who herself hails from the Middle East is also insufficient.
(3) Are dictators the chief cause of the world's poverty, as the Wall Street Journal argues ("it is the world’s dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty")?
It's an intriguing claim, and one worthy of greater scrutiny (calling Larry Summers). Of course, a huge percentage of the world's poverty-stricken population lives in India, which has been a democracy for 50 years now. One wonders if the WSJ has been a longtime champion of India's freedom struggle. One wonders if many folks there don't secretly harbor the view that India would be better off if it had remained under the British Raj. What does this claim do to their view of their fave Niall Ferguson's claims about the virtues of empire?
Also, what about poverty within the U.S.? Does it exist because certain states in the South are run by dictators? Of course, corruption is a leading cause of underdevelopment, but Suharto managed to siphon off lots of money, yet still lead Indonesia to huge reductions in poverty.
Of course, the Wall Street Journal's concern about poverty seems quite new and fresh. And its newfound distaste for dictators seems refreshing as well. Let's hope it continues beyond Wolfowitz's nomination.
(4) The World Bank is the world's leading economic development institution. It deals with some of the world's most dire problems. Its presidency should not be treated as a reward for loyal service.