"The president of the IDB should be a Latin American"
institutions attempt to respond to today’s unprecedented global challenges, one
that already works well is the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Established
in 1959 and headquartered in Washington DC., the IDB is widely recognized for
its important role in supporting efforts to reduce Latin American poverty and
inequality in a sustainable way and facilitate inter-American economic
cooperation. Yet President Trump’s unprecedented
effort to place an American in the presidency of the IDB risks alienating the
region and politicizing this successful institution. Sixty years of
tradition—of Latin American leadership of the IDB—should not be overturned in
the Bank’s presidential elections, currently scheduled for mid-September.
As the largest source of development financing to our
hemisphere, the Inter-American Development Bank channels some $12 billion a
year in loans to Latin American and Caribbean countries to support
well-reviewed projects in infrastructure, state modernization, education and
social programs. Annually, the IDB finances more projects in Latin America than
any other multilateral development bank, including the World Bank, and has
built relationships and a reputation for problem-solving and public-private
partnerships that contribute importantly to the region’s development. The
Bank’s significance, moreover, should be even greater in the future, as Latin
America copes with the triple whammy of COVID-19 (with 28% of the world’s
fatalities so far), the steepest economic downturn of any developing region
(projected as negative growth this year of 9.4%), and major social upheavals in
many countries, fueled by the deep frustration of the middle class returning to
poverty and precariousness.
That is the context for the Trump administration’s unprecedented
nomination this month of a US citizen – a White House aide — to serve as the
IDB’s fifth president, and the first from the United States. The surprise US
announcement has provoked a storm of negative reaction in Latin America. Five recent Latin American
presidents—Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico,
Ricardo Lagos of Chile, Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia and Julio Sanguinetti of
Uruguay—all outstanding statesmen and warm friends of the United States, issued
a strong statement in opposition. Just
this week, conservative President Sebastian Piñera of Chile called for a delay
in the election until 2021. And the
European Union is lobbying its member countries who are IDB shareholders also
to support a delay.
The Trump administration is pressuring Latin American
governments to go forward in September and to support the nomination, dangling
the carrot of the Bank’s upcoming capital renewal and brandishing the stick of
withholding post-pandemic relief, in the effort to secure votes. Yet opposition
to this nomination is building, especially in Argentina, Mexico, and Peru, with
Chile already announced.
This is not about President Trump’s nominee, who brings
relevant background in economic, financial and foreign affairs, though unlike
the current and past presidents of the IDB, he has not served as a cabinet
ministerand would not bring that gravitas.
But the main objection to his
nomination is that it disregards a 60-year commitment and practice, begun under
President Eisenhower’s auspices, providing that the Bank would be headquartered in Washington,
its president would be Latin American, and its executive vice-president (COO) would be a US citizen.
This formula has worked well for six decades, years in which Latin American
countries have increased their capital contribution and sense of ownership, and
have made the Bank’s loans and programs ever more effective.
The US is the largest single contributor to and shareholder
in the IDB, but President Eisenhower’s decision to agree to Latin American
leadership of the bank is consistent with the traditional post-war US approach
to multilateral organizations that he championed – influence yes, but one-country
Some may think that the Trump administration’s unprecedented
effort to place an American in the IDB presidency is a way to counter growing Chinese influence in Latin
America. The right way to restrain Chinese clout, however, is not to hijack a
successful multilateral institution, but rather to reinforce meaningful
inter-American cooperation to meet economic and social needs. Naming an
American as head of the IDB shortly before the US presidential election risks
marginalizing and politicizing the institution, moreover, if US voters set a new direction in November.
The pandemic has delayed or made virtual many multilateral
meetings. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, for example,
postponed its annual meeting because of the pandemic. The IDB postponed its September
annual meeting for six months for the same reason. It should also defer until
March 2021 the vote to elect its new president.
That is the prudent step.
And at that time, the US government, whether led by President
Trump or Presiden Biden, should return
to the well-established norm that the IDB’s president be a Latin American. If
it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
George Shultz, former US Secretary of State, Thomas F. McLarty, former White House
Chief of Staff and Special Envoy for the Americas, Carla A. Hills, former US Trade Representative, Robert B. Zoellick, former World Bank President,
US Trade Representative, US Deputy Secretary of State, Abraham Lowenthal, President Emeritus, Pacific Council on International
Policy and Nelson W. Cunningham,
former Special Advisor to the President