We’re getting to that point in an administration, that juncture that occurs just after a president’s reelection when there remains much to be done, though the inevitable end is now in sight. All else being equal, second terms are generally more eventful and controversial. Without the added pressure of having to seek reelection, a president is concerned only with his or her own personal legacy and the fate of the party after the term is up. Presidents will feel much less inhibited by public opinion or potential political backlash in pursuing personal or administration goals than in their first terms. All of this culminates with the final flurry of presidential pardons and signed legislation and accords that generally occur in the months before leaving office. All of this will come to pass with the current administration.
Yet it is also at this time – just after the turning of the electoral corner – that a much more subtle flurry of activity begins. These events are often more important and long-lived in the national and international communities than the big stories that make the headlines. In many cases they are considered to be downright insidious because they are of such structural significance but often go so unnoticed. I speak of presidential appointments to the heads of institutions and to other positions of international power.
Presidents seek to ensure that the pursuance of their policy aims outlives their own abilities to achieve them. By appointing new, and often less popular, representatives and diplomats that are generally closer to presidential views, presidents keep the legacy of their government alive and in structural power. We all hear about the high profile domestic appointments in the administration’s cabinet and to the Supreme Court, but it is the lesser publicized decisions that will have more direct impact upon the world. In the case of this administration the legacy is likely to turn even more nightmarish for the world community after Bush has gone back to Texas than it already has.
In the past week and a half two such appointments in particular scream of danger and hypocrisy. The first of these is the revelation that Paul Wolfowitz, currently undersecretary of defense, is likely to be named the next head of the World Bank and the second is the designation of John Bolton, formerly undersecretary of state, as the US Ambassador to the UN. The unleashing of Bush’s ultra-right hawks comes at an especially inopportune moment for these two institutions, both of which are undergoing some form of re-definition of their respective missions and means.
Wolfowitz is one of the most sinister members of Bush’s team, a hegemon, and if indeed he ends up replacing James Wolfensohn as head of the global lender the results could be devastating for developing and underdeveloped countries. Wolfowitz has made his intentions clear while serving under Donald Rumsfeld and in his writings at the Project for a New American Century think tank that he envisions a world in which US values are optimal for everyone. The mission of the US, then, ought to be the fomentation of its values throughout the world to establish a sustainable system according to those specific values.
Sound shady? At very best the bank is likely to revert back to its strict adherence to IMF structural adjustment criteria for loans (and who knows what additional hegemonic strings will be attached) rather than continuing to work towards a system of case-specific analysis and approach to individual countries’ needs. At very worst, the bank will deny funds for political reasons that are specific to Republican leadership in Washington.
Bolton is an ironic choice as head envoy to the United Nations given that he is one of its most outspoken opponents. This comes at a time when conciliatory measures to the UN are essential restoring its legitimacy and affirming the prevalence of a multilateral paradigm in the international system. Mr. Bolton is seen as among the most hawkish of Bush’s advisors and favors unilateral to multilateral action. His nomination (he must still be confirmed by the Senate) thus represents Bush giving the UN and the international community the cold shoulder at a time when he ostensibly seeks to mend international fences. Mr. Bolton is all but certain to undercut effective multilateral diplomacy at the UN while turning it into a stage for the Bush administration’s aggression against Iran and North Korea.
Through these delegations, the head representative of our country is sending a cold and grim message to the world. It is an antiquated message and one that reflects the backwards power politics of Bush and his cronies. In the years that come, the real Bush agenda will make itself known to the world, or at least to those that were still unclear about it. Unfortunately the world will have to learn about it the hard way.
Aaron Wodin-Schwartz is a Collegian columnist.
