World Bank exists to serve American interest?
It is hard to make a case for continued support of the World Bank. Serving America’s national security and diplomatic interest is not persuasive for the remaining 189 member countries of the Bank. It is not even persuasive for Americans.
The World Bank, which receives tens of billions of dollars from the US in hard cash and guarantees, has been facing strong criticism in the US challenging its existence. In the August 10, 2017 issue of The Hill (a conservative American newspaper), Shermichael Singleton (a conservative political analyst) wrote a damaging piece titled, “Is liberalism the key to fighting global poverty? Or does it cause it?”
In his concluding lines, Singleton asked: “What will happen if one provides a liberal establishment with trillions of dollars, grants it immunity from legal accountability, and leaves it alone for three-quarters of a century to do good in the world?” He answered: “Tragedy and institutionalized racism at the expense of the American taxpayer.”
The World Bank responded in the same newspaper to make itself relevant, even indispensable. The response titled, “Born out of war, World Bank is beacon of security around the globe” was revealing in many ways. The piece was authored by William Danvers, the Bank’s special representative for international affairs. Before joining the World Bank, Danvers was part of the Obama administration’s Department of State, under Secretary John Kerry.
His piece was contrived to convey an image of an international agency that was borne out of necessity and remains indispensable for the US “economic, national security, and diplomatic interests and priorities.” He suggests that the US national interest is assured by its unique advantage as “the only country that possesses veto power” in the World Bank.
By Jonathan Mensah