Taking Aim at the World Bank
A good time to reform this symbol of western values
By Katherine Guckenberger
November 13, 2001
WASHINGTON -- Just before 10 o'clock last Thursday morning, a bomb threat forced the evacuation of 5,000 thousand people from the main building at the World Bank
headquarters in Washington, DC. It was the first time the complex had been emptied since it opened in 1960s. Not even the events of September 11 caused the Bank to sound a general alarm.
On the day of the terrorist attacks, staff members were told they could leave voluntarily, but there was no loudspeaker announcement about the situation as it unfolded at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon, across town. The Bank had not received a specific threat, but while there were planes in the air, there were whispers that it, too, could be hit.
The Bank has stepped up security since September 11 -- its mail room has been tested for anthrax, cars that park in its garage are now routinely inspected. But in addition to textbook measures, the Bank should consider its unique attraction as a target.
Though the Bank employs people of 140 different nationalities, it can't claim to be just one of many international organizations in a sea of development agencies. Viewed by many as a tool of US foreign policy and unabashed promoter of "Western" values and culture, as well as a steamroller of delicate social and environmental issues, the Bank clashes with both anti-American terrorists and anti-globalization protestors. It is a conspicuous magnet for the seething anger that triggered the September 11 attacks in the first place.
Prior to the attacks, the Bank was already skating on thin ice. It had been preparing for a showdown at its annual meetings with 100,000 increasingly violent anti-globalization protestors over its unpopular commitment to neo-liberal policies of development. Even so, a Bank spokesman was reluctant to find a connection between protestors' grievances and the bomb scare. "I would be surprised if it were anti-globalization protestors," she said. But an environmental activist saw no other alternative. "To me, a bomb threat at the World Bank would be nothing but anti-globalization protestors."
Of course, anti-globalization protestors would do little to help their cause by piggybacking on terrorism, but in mapping out security measures Bank should recognize the depth of its critics' concerns. Indeed, some critics would be secretly satisfied to see the Bank disappear all together. One said the destruction of the Bank would be an "amazing" opportunity to build a new institution from scratch. "The Bank was set up in 1944 to reconstruct Europe and the world has changed -- it's not a malleable place, it doesn't fit into this world," she said.
But that world is changing. The terrorists who attacked US soil inadvertently reopened the debate on aid to developing countries and the dangers of inequality. The benefit of reducing poverty overseas has finally hit home, and the Bank has an unprecedented opportunity to galvanize public opinion in its favor. In so doing, it must prove it does more good than harm, and adhere to a strict policy of rewarding responsible economic performers, not Bank shareholders' allies. Perhaps most importantly, the Bank must engage its critics and justify its controversial policies.
Where would we be without the World Bank? As ineffective as the Bank can be, its destruction would be disastrous for the world's poor. The Bank gives out $17 billion a year in loans and grants to more than 100 countries. In addition, it conducts independent assessments of its work and progress and is beginning to implement a system of checks and balances to prevent the wholesale dumping of billions of dollars into the coffers of corrupt politicians. Not only is it better than nothing, but it doesn't need to be destroyed to be built again.
Katherine Guckenberger is a Washington-based writer.
Copyright 2001, Global Beat Syndicate, 418 Lafayette Street, Suite 554, New York, NY 10003 http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate).