President Obama has a historic opportunity to help reform the World Bank, by nominating development expert Jeffrey Sachs to be the World Bank's next president. Sachs has said that as president he would sharpen the focus of the Bank on achieving the Millennium Development Goals for reducing poverty and extending access to health care and education. Coming from Sachs, this pledge is change you can believe in, because for years Sachs has a leading international advocate of efforts to achieve the world's poverty reduction goals, currently serving as an adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Now Members of Congress are starting to speak up.
Michigan Representative John Conyers is circulating a letter to President Obama, urging him to nominate Sachs. Signers of the letter so far include Reps. Hansen Clarke, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Jim McGovern, Lynn Woolsey, Raul Grijalva, and Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Many Members of Congress have worked closely with Sachs for years on initiatives to cancel the crushing external debt burden of poor countries; end the World Bank's imposition of user fees that block access to primary health care and education; compel the World Bank to make grants, rather than loans, in the poorest countries; compel the World Bank to support efforts to make essential medicines available in poor countries; and other pressing development challenges. It is natural that these Members of Congress should support Sachs' candidacy.
Sachs' public and worldwide campaign to lead the World Bank is unprecedented, but is entirely appropriate to our time. Until now, the leadership of the World Bank has been determined behind closed doors by the U.S. Treasury Department and European finance ministries.
But Sachs has taken his case to the public, announcing his candidacy with an op-ed in the Washington Post and with an interview on CNN. His candidacy is supported by Kenya, East Timor, Malyasia, and Jordan.
Since the World Bank was founded, no-one has ever tried to "campaign" for the position of President by trying to get support from the public and from developing countries. That already creates a different dynamic, suggesting that public opinion matters, and that the opinions of developing countries matter.
But Sachs is also trying to get the support of the Obama administration, and that's why Conyers' letter is so important. The default case -- in the absence of public and Congressional engagement -- would likely be that the administration choice would be largely determined by the interests of Wall Street. The two names most cited in press speculation have been Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. Both Summers and Geithner can be expected to prioritize Wall Street interests -- that's why their names dominate press speculation. Of course, implementing the Millenium Development Goals isn't at the top of Wall Street's agenda.
If Congress and the public want something different, the time to speak up is now, before the Obama administration announces its choice. This is the time of maximum influence. You can ask your Representative to sign Conyers letter in support of Sachs' nomination here.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Valerie Keller: Why We Need More Women Leaders
Michael Shank: Why the World Bank Needs Jeff Sachs at the Helm
Patrick Sharma: Choosing the Next President of the World Bank
Arloc Sherman: Under $2 a Day in America, Part 1
Celebrity economist Jeffrey Sachs bids to head World Bank ...
Michael Shank: Why the World Bank Needs Jeff Sachs at the Helm
Jeffrey Sachs: How I would lead the World Bank as president - The ...
Jeffrey Sachs seeks World Bank's top job - The Economic Times
1. The deadline for the Conyers letter in support of Sachs' nomination is close of business Monday.
2. Rep. Keith Ellison has signed on.
Sachs has never owned up to his role in Russia because he is simply an economist and can't be held responsible when his plan destroys a country.
The World Bank has had too many middle aged white guys. How about a real change?
In 1985, Bolivia was plagued by hyperinflation and was unable to pay back its debt to the International Monetary Fund. Sachs drew up an extensive plan for Bolivia to drastically cut inflation by scrapping all subsidies, price controls, restrictions on exports, imports and private business activity.
In Bolivia, the Sachs plan did beat inflation, but the price was continuing high unemployment, economic stagnation, labor revolt, a state of siege and a deepening involvement in the international drug market, reports noted.
To beat the hyperinflation under Sach’s plan, Bolivia ensured a large number of workers were laid off while others’ salaries were slashed, leading to widespread workers strikes.
The Bolivian government imposed a state of siege in response to a wave of strikes.
Sachs attempted a similar plan in Poland in the late 1980s, including the full convertibility of the zloty, the Polish currency, to U.S. dollars, and immediate suspension of debt repayment.
Looking back at Sach’s effect on Poland, Jon Wiener, writing in The Nation in June 1990, “Now the shelves are full, which would seem to be evidence of prosperity. But says Marta Pretrusewicz, a Polish historian teaching at Princeton University, ‘shortages don’t exist anymore because prices are so outrageous people can’t buy anything.’”
http://www.wnd.com/2011/04/283297/
The question is whether Jamie Dimon would sign off on it...