Wolfowitz et notre “mea culpa”

Il n’y a pas si longtemps encore, nous ironisions sur Wolfowitz, sur sa position par rapport au conflit irakien, sur sa position à la tête de la Banque Mondiale. Depuis, un avis honorable est venu nous troubler et nous faire envisager que Wolfowitz mériterait aujourd’hui bien moins le sarcasme qu’il n’en fut l’objet hier.

L’avis est celui du Prix Nobel d’Économie Joseph Stiglitz, “dissident” notoire et critique avéré du système. Stiglitz s’était élevé in illo tempore (il y a à peu près un an) contre la nomination de Wolfowitz à la Banque Mondiale. Voici ce que dit The Independent d’aujourd’hui, — de Stiglitz et de Wolfowitz :

« There is a curious mixture of the pessimist and the optimist about Joseph Stiglitz in all this. But it is born out of pragmatism rather than ideology. “Research shows that it is very difficult to buy good behaviour by imposing economic conditionality on poor countries. On the other hand selectivity does make a lot of sense — to give money to countries that are performing better. In particular it doesn't make any sense to give money to countries that have high levels of corruption.” So he backs the decision of Paul Wolfowitz, the new head of the World Bank — whose appointment he vehemently opposed — to halt loans to Kenya.

» Indeed he is far more positive about Wolfowitz — whose appointment he vehemently condemned — than might be supposed. “His pronouncements have been, by and large, on the right side on the debt and trade issues. The positions he ahs adopted have been somewhat different from the US positions. The way he stood up on the issue of trade has been very helpful and he's been very positive on the Bank proving funds for middle income countries, which a lot of the right wing don't approve of.” »

Mis en ligne le 22 février 2006 à 10H33