Tony Blair new President World Bank?

Tony Blair new President World Bank?

www.eu-digest.com

World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz may finally be removed from his job over the way he handled a salary increase involving his girlfriend, once a Bank employee. Since the bank's top job normally goes to an American, some European nations are expected to argue quietly that in exchange for Mr. Wolfowitz leaving, President George Bush be offered a compromise: The presidency could go to a non-American for the first time, but one he probably could live with -- departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Rumours are suggesting that President George Bush will name Tony Blair as his nomination to the World Bank on June 30th. The current president of the bank has resigned, but will stay in post until the 30th.

www.eu-digest.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Why are Americans the only leaders of the World Bank?

They like to keepan eye on the Money dont they

Or keep an eye on how the money is spent

Wolfowitz probably won't quit until he can get something out of the deal and come out looking good in the end. Blair would probably be a good WB president. Maybe its about time a non-American appointee was in charge.


Pie

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Why are Americans the only leaders of the World Bank?

It might have somthing to do with the large amounts of money spent by us and OPEC trading oil in US dollars. Our GNP is over 11 trillion dollars. The closest rival to that is Japan with a 4.2 trillion GNP not even half of our wealth.

Doesn't sound like too bad of an idea to me

Personally, I think Wolfowitz was unfairly railroaded, but that's how things go in politics.

Tony Blair would be a great choice to replace him.


[edit on 5/17/2007 by djohnsto77]

Japan also has only 1/30th of the land and 1/3d of the US's population.

Numbers mean nothing if they aren't in the factual context.

It is disgusting! Blair? Since when is he the money man? This is political nepitism. I am leary of anyone that bush appoints to high political position. His track record is terrible. Is this why Britan followed us into Afganistan and Irac against the wishes of the British people? The promise of future gain? `I for one was ready to see Blair retire not rise in status. There has never been so much economic secrecy happening unquestioned. This will ensure continuity of that secrecy and coverup for the money exchanges of the global elite.

I would expect that they would discuss the matters with the particular parties first, before making the media aware and thus avoiding any ugliness in the press. I would assume that they did and perhaps Wolfowitz made his move by exposing it to the media and hopefully garnering the edge in the negotiations.

Seems that Wolfowitz does not want to go, but after it hit the media, and talks occurred, Wolfowitz at least got something out of it to quiet things down, a position at the World bank or other position.

This was a sort of bank coup, ousting the top spot for another. Of course the charges of ethics or rules violations are just laughable, I mean this stuff goes on all the time, just an excuse to oust Wolfowitz. The EU never liked him to begin with.

I like Tony Blair, he seems to a less controversial candidate for that position.

Originally posted by thematrix
Japan also has only 1/30th of the land and 1/3d of the US's population.

Numbers mean nothing if they aren't in the factual context.

So if Japan was the same size as the US it would probably be wealthier than us, maybe. Irregardless of size or population Japan is the second most wealthy nation. I'm not really worried about proportionate wealth, if that was the case Luxembourg and Lichenstein would be the richest nations on earth.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Why are Americans the only leaders of the World Bank?

I thought Tony Blair was British. Has he become a US citizen and I didn't hear about it?

Is Blair even an economist? The only reason I can see Bush choosing Blair is to make mends for the negative image he's placed on Blair, ever since the Iraq war.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by DJMessiah]

Good, let's keep putting war criminals in the UN, this will bring people against the UN!

Seriously, this is DISGUSTING. This piece of .... should end up in jail instead of going around continuing his BS and getting away with murder and much worse.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Good, let's keep putting war criminals in the UN, this will bring people against the UN!

Seriously, this is DISGUSTING. This piece of .... should end up in jail instead of going around continuing his BS and getting away with murder and much worse.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

I couldnt have said it better myself. Liar, Traitor, War Criminal. Yet some of my fellow Brits are STILL under the impression the sun shines out of his arse.

'shakes head'

I would also like to remind people that Blair used to consult for Halliburton in his capacity as a Lawyer. Just somehting to remember when seeing Blair move through the Elite circles. He knows who it is he serves.

From the link in the OP;

Adrian Wooldridge, the Washington bureau chief of the Economist magazine, says he has heard a lot of rumors about Mr. Blair's interest in the job and his departure as prime minister in late June would make the timing for a transfer just about perfect.

*bolding mine

It's a rumor being spread by unamed sources, since Adrian Wooldridge states that fact himself.

Some say rumour, others say rumor. Both ways it's still an unbased
rumour.

Furthermore, the source link of the story contains this disclaimer (if you look)

EU-Digest, a free service of Europe House, provides news highlights and links to European related news reports on economic, social and political issues. Europe House reserves the right to deny any comments or articles it finds irrelevant. The information published in EU-Digest does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint or the opinion of Europe House.

*bolding mine



Fixed 'ex' box

[edit on 17/5/07 by masqua]

The economics of the UK, the budget, etc, was controlled pretty much the entire time Tony was in office by his replacement - Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer..

Blair = not a money man.
Brown = money man.. and good at it.

Why Bush should back Blair as World Bank chief

Finanical Time

'Blair in frame at World Bank'

Gaurdian

From the articles presented above;

For many people - not least in his own country - that loyalty counts against him. Many who objected toMr Wolfowitz's appointment as inappropriate, because of his involvement in advocating and planning the Iraq war, might see giving the job to Mr Blair as a repetition of the same mistake.

-snip-

The writer is senior vice-president and chief programme officer of the Salzburg Seminar. He was formerly director of communications in the office of the UN secretary-general under Kofi Annan. The views expressed here are his own

Finanical Time

More like wishful thinking. It's time filling the position came out of something more concrete than the political 'feeding trough'.

"It wouldn't rule him (Blair) out but I would say that if I were going through a first priority list of priorities it would probably would begin with somebody with real experience in development.

Gaurdian

*bolding mine

exactly!