US Congressman French Hill: World Bank 'way off course'

Congressman French Hill doesn’t support pulling the United States out of the multilateral system and said it’s compatible with President Donald Trump’s “America First” ethos. At the same time, multilateral institutions are “way off course,” especially when it comes to climate change. “I believe these organizations — from the United Nations to the World Bank to the European Bank for Reconstruction to the IMF — are way, way off course. But I think only through forceful leadership from the United States, from our president, from our treasury secretary or secretary of state, can we move them back on course,” said the Republican lawmaker from Arkansas during a recent Devex Pro briefing. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Hill oversees the U.S. relationship with multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, which he slammed for disproportionately focusing on climate change at the expense, he said, of its core mission to alleviate poverty. “In the World Bank annual report, just for example, you see climate change mentioned 100 times, but you don't see malaria or HIV/AIDS or malnutrition or lack of education referenced virtually at all,” he said. “If that's not a classic example of being way off course, I don't know what is.” “The World Bank is not focused on its mission — which is to help other nations through multilateral leadership and technical assistance and lending — to eliminate poverty,” he continued. “And you eliminate poverty by first of all, having sound education, sound public health, and a functioning society that protects religious liberty and allows an economy to function no matter how tiny the country — and we've taken our eye off the ball if we're mentioning climate change 100 times.” Rather than renewables, which Hill said won’t offer the type of power that lower-income countries need to prosper, he advocated for a Trump-style “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. “If you look at the forecast demands for electricity and for power consumption in the years ahead, you cannot do it with renewables, and you need an all-of-the-above energy strategy,” he said. “And all-of-the-above energy policy includes financing nuclear power, because it's the cleanest, safest power generation in the world, and yet we have development banks that have declined to finance nuclear power. I find that stunning,” he added, noting that he’s talked to World Bank President Ajay Banga about all-of-the-above energy as being absolutely essential. “And I didn't hear disagreement from him on that. And I've noted recently him talking about nuclear financing, particularly, which I think is good.” But part of the opposition to ushering in a new age of nuclear power is that some countries are not equipped to handle it, whether for safety or security reasons, which Hill admitted are real concerns. “It's not trying to put nuclear where it doesn't have a home. Regulatory, safety-wise, security-wise, I've got that, and that would take a lot of preparatory work,” he said. “This is not an argument between not doing nuclear or doing nuclear. This is an argument that if we have Western companies … that can help nations develop nuclear power, clean nuclear power, it's an alternative to China and Russia, who are doing this in spades all around the world.” “I think it's good for the climate, but I think it's also good for U.S. leadership,” he added. “Otherwise, you're just left with giveaways of Chinese and Russian technology. I think that's a classic place to say, ‘Buy American.’” Hill cited China and Russia — along with North Korea and Iran — as reasons why the U.S. should not abandon the multilateral system. And despite Trump’s frequent criticisms of multilateralism, Hill refuted the notion that it’s contrary to what some call an “America First” strain of isolationism. “Because part of ‘America First’ is taking policy decisions that allow our economy to grow, our citizens to thrive, America's leadership to be continued, to protect the status of the dollar as the reserve currency. All these things are important. They're all fundamental to I think the campaign of President Trump, but they have a multilateral dimension. You cannot do that in isolation,” he argued. “Abandoning multilateral leadership simply cedes the entire world to the other team, which is not a Western democratic team. It is Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, who are very predatory in their economic and military policies. They're not in any way attempting to truly help people.” So is the U.S. serious about helping people when the Trump administration eviscerates foreign aid? Hill said he’s a proponent of foreign aid — though he said he was “not familiar” with the recent proposal to slash half of the State Department’s budget — but he caveats his support with the need for aid to have focus, value, and burden-sharing. “The U.S. has been such a leader since World War II in development assistance, and even for decades before World War II, but [we’re] running $2 trillion budget deficits. How do we prioritize what we do? “And I would argue things like public health and things of that nature have to be at the forefront, rather than some softer aspects of bilateral assistance. So I'm a strong supporter of the PEPFAR [HIV/AIDS] program, for example, in partnering with countries in West Africa,” he said, noting that “free market Western democracies of all stripes” need to band together not only on multilateralism, but on bilateral aid. “There's not enough money in any one country to provide the kind of care and assistance and leadership that we need across the developing world, where we have over 70 extremely poor countries,” he said. “And so I hope that we can turn this into priority-setting. No doubt, with our resources, let's spend dollars where we should spend them the most, where it benefits the country the most, and where it's most effective for U.S. foreign policy. But let's also do that in conjunction with our Western Democratic allies.”