In the U.S., there has been a bit of reporting about the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to be head of the World Bank. Certainly, it’s a bit baffling—okay, I’m being kind—that the guy who helped prosecute the Iraq war, which was hardly a big hit among the world community (never mind the fake “Coalition of the Willing”…oh, my god, I’m insulting the great military power, Poland), gets to move on to a post that is all about working with the international community. There continues to be quite an uproar in Europe over the choice–hardly reflected in the U.S. mainstream press but certainly present in the European press.

But, here’s a question: why does the U.S. still get to pick the head of the World Bank? It’s a left-over vestige of the post-WWII era when the twin institutions, the Bank and the International Monetary Fund, were set up. By convention, the IMF head is a European, the Bank head an American. At the time, it was the victorious allies who carved up the spoils.

But, that doesn’t fly in a world where economic powers like China, India and Japan, to mention just a few, play a role in the world economy. And here’s where it gets completely hypocritical: relative to the size of its economy, the U.S. makes a pathetic financial contribution to the world community and, particularly, when it comes to development aid. Why should the U.S. continue to run the institution whose mission is multi-lateral development throughout the world? I’m not going to delve here into the well-documented bad roles played by the World Bank and IMF in the past—giving aid only when countries agreed to open up their economies to the so-called free trade predators circling the globe. But, perhaps the nature of aid might change if the Bank was no longer run by an American? You think?

There is a petition underway to push for change. Go ahead and sign it and let’s see if this takes off.