New WB chief named, Africa disappointed

NAIROBI – Many in Africa expressed disappointment at yesterday’s news that former US trade envoy Robert Zoellick was to replace Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank, saying the job should have gone to a developing country.

After decades of Americans heading the international lender, many on the world’s poorest continent felt their time had come to play a key role – and then been snatched away. “Look at the United Nations.When Africans had one of their own leading it, they felt so much closer to the organisation,” Kenyan political scientist Ludeki Chweya said, referring to Ghana’s Kofi Annan, who was UN secretary general for a decade.”Such an appointment would give the impression that the Bank might just become a bit more sensitive to the needs and particularities of Africa.”The scandal surrounding Wolfowitz’s departure especially irked many Africans who saw a clear case of double standards by a man seeking to crack down on corruption in their midst.Wolfowitz – already derided by many as a key architect of the Iraq war – stepped down after it was revealed he had authorised a hefty pay rise for his companion.Despite unwavering support from the White House until the very end, he gave up a weeks-long fight to cling onto his job and tendered his resignation two weeks ago.Some acknowledged Zoellick, whom President George W Bush was due to nominate later yesterday, would benefit from years of experience negotiating trade deals with developing nations.’BANK OF AMERICA?’ “He is a great defender of free trade and in any case he will not be worse than Wolfowitz,” Tunisian economics expert Rida el Kefi told Reuters.”He knows the subject.He is a man who is suited to the task, unlike his predecessor.”Others noted Zoellick’s diplomatic experience in Africa.As deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he helped guide the Bush administration’s strategy on Darfur.But some were angered by what they saw as US arrogance.”Why should the chairman of the World Bank always be an American? It’s called the World Bank not the Bank of America,” said Moroccan entrepreneur Hassan Cherif.The White House appeared determined to retain political control, he charged.”I don’t think it is a democratic process, but the United States have their own definition of democracy anyway,” Cherif added.”They use it when it suits them and ignore it when it goes against their interests.”Some lamented what they saw as a missed opportunity.”It has been the same since the Second World War,” said one woman working for Kenya’s government who asked not to be named.”Washington appoints the Bank’s leader and Europe the International Monetary Fund.We are the ones those things are meant to help.This should have been the start of a new era.”(Additional reporting by Tarek Amara in Tunis and Zakia Abdennebi in Rabat)Nampa-Reuters”Look at the United Nations.When Africans had one of their own leading it, they felt so much closer to the organisation,” Kenyan political scientist Ludeki Chweya said, referring to Ghana’s Kofi Annan, who was UN secretary general for a decade.”Such an appointment would give the impression that the Bank might just become a bit more sensitive to the needs and particularities of Africa.”The scandal surrounding Wolfowitz’s departure especially irked many Africans who saw a clear case of double standards by a man seeking to crack down on corruption in their midst.Wolfowitz – already derided by many as a key architect of the Iraq war – stepped down after it was revealed he had authorised a hefty pay rise for his companion.Despite unwavering support from the White House until the very end, he gave up a weeks-long fight to cling onto his job and tendered his resignation two weeks ago.Some acknowledged Zoellick, whom President George W Bush was due to nominate later yesterday, would benefit from years of experience negotiating trade deals with developing nations.’BANK OF AMERICA?’ “He is a great defender of free trade and in any case he will not be worse than Wolfowitz,” Tunisian economics expert Rida el Kefi told Reuters.”He knows the subject.He is a man who is suited to the task, unlike his predecessor.”Others noted Zoellick’s diplomatic experience in Africa.As deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he helped guide the Bush administration’s strategy on Darfur.But some were angered by what they saw as US arrogance.”Why should the chairman of the World Bank always be an American? It’s called the World Bank not the Bank of America,” said Moroccan entrepreneur Hassan Cherif.The White House appeared determined to retain political control, he charged.”I don’t think it is a democratic process, but the United States have their own definition of democracy anyway,” Cherif added.”They use it when it suits them and ignore it when it goes against their interests.”Some lamented what they saw as a missed opportunity.”It has been the same since the Second World War,” said one woman working for Kenya’s government who asked not to be named.”Washington appoints the Bank’s leader and Europe the International Monetary Fund.We are the ones those things are meant to help.This should have been the start of a new era.”(Additional reporting by Tarek Amara in Tunis and Zakia Abdennebi in Rabat) Nampa-Reuters