US President George W. Bush appointed Robert Zoellick as the official candidate to the presidency of the World Bank after the former President, Paul Wolfowitz, who will leave office on 30th June, resigned. Before the end of June, the World Bank Board will vote on the appointment of the next President who is currently the managing director of the Goldman Sachs investment bank. After being one of the main actors in the negotiations for the reunion of Germany, in 2000 Zoellick participated in the drafting of the current US Presidentìs foreign policy program and between 2001 and 2006 he was responsible for commercial negotiations. As a commercial negotiator for the Washington government he concluded bilateral agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia and Morocco. The only task he did not manage to accomplish was the conclusion of the WTO Doha Round.

After the re-election of President Bush, Zoellick was appointed as vice-secretary of State and personally took care of the rapprochement of the US with European partners that had opposed the US decision to begin military operations in Iraq. Those who criticised Bush's decision to appoint Zoellick as the president of the international financial organisation pointed out that his career has not been full of successes alone, as the White House tried to underline in the press releases presenting his appointment. Zoellick was part of the advisory board of Enron, the huge US industry involved in one of the worst financial scandals ever, and it is rumoured that he was, together with Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, one of the co-signers of a letter sent to former President Clinton in which the administration was invited to use all diplomatic, political, and military efforts possible in trying to remove Saddam Hussein. Some sources inside the World Bank claim the Wolfowitz-Zoellick turnover represents a lack of willingness in the Bush administration to implement real changes in the management of the international institution set up following the Bretton Woods agreements.

Simone Comi

As had been announced, the Progressive Party left the government majority as a consequence of its dissatisfaction with the 12th May electoral results. The Independent Party (IP) joined the Social democratic, the former opposition, in order to create a new government coalition. On May 24th the Iceland President, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, accepted the proposal of the Premier Geir H. Haarde concerning the composition of his second government composed of six members from the Independent Party and six from the Social democratic Party.

The priority actions of the government clearly refers to social democratic values such as social equality, health, school but also immigration, European Union and environment. As concerns this last point the Government declared it wants to draft an ecology plan by 2009 in order to fight against hazardous gas emissions, to preserve protected areas and respect the geothermic temperatures of the territory. Before the plan is ready, it will thus be necessary to obtain a Parliamentary permission in order to carry out any initiative that might have consequences on the environment. Social democrats seem to have won the dispute over the Fjardaal foundry of the ALCOA group. The feasibility studies already carried out under the previous Haarde government have to be reviewed and the works have been postponed.

Decisions in the foreign policy will be of a considerable importance if we consider that Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, the Socialdemocratic leader, has been appointed as Foreign Affairs Minister. Her party, differently from the IP, declared it is in favour of joining the European Union in the future and this could capsize the pro-USA position of the former Haarder government. The only risk for the country is that the government reshuffle, hung in the balance between centre-left and centre-right priorities, might reduce last years' development.

Gianfranco Brusaporci

The UN Security Council voted on Wednesday the Resolution 1757 for the set up of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon. This International Criminal Court will try those alleged to be responsible for the assassination of the then Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri and other cases related to this murder.

The establishment of a mixed tribunal (composed of both Lebanese judges and judges coming from other countries) has been the reason for last months' intense political debate. A growing polarisation opposed the 14th March coalition and Foaus Siniora's government on the one side and the opposition forces (more or less explicitly supported by the president of the Parliament Nabih Berri and the outgoing president of the republic Émile Lahoud) on the other. Such a stand-off would have pushed the Security Council (and in particular France and the USA) to leap political and institutional Lebanese dynamics over and vote, on the base of the Chapter VII of the UN Charter, for the establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Lebanese Parliament has to carry out all necessary actions for the ratification of the resolution by 10th June.

The news was very positively welcomed by the 14th March coalition exponents while Hezbollah made very strong declarations saying the resolution is "illegal", it's an aggression in the internal Lebanese affairs and a violation of the UN Chart principles. It is difficult to foresee a reconciliation of the positions of the two different groups even because the situations is worsened by the possibility the fight opposing the Lebanese army and the radical Palestinian factions might extend from the Nahr al-Bared camp to the Ain al-Hilweh camp. Syria could moreover restate its refusal to let its citizens be trialled by an international tribunal. The issue of court decisions implementation, especially as concerns the imposition of penal sanctions, is left unsolved.

Francesco Mazzucotelli

During its annual summit held in Dakar at the end of May the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) decided that more than a half of its funds are to be allocated to African development plans. With such a wide opening of lines of credit in favour of Africa the IDB, that supports the economical and social development of the Member States and of Muslim communities in non Member States according to the shari'ah principles, works in the socioeconomic support network in order to have access to the decision-making processes of the African States it grants funds to.

The Management Board of the Bank approved in total 3 development projects and 7 commercial operations: half of the funds (370 million $ out of 651.9) have been granted to African countries. In detail, Morocco has been given 150 million dollars, Egypt 126 million, Nigeria 25 million, Benin 21 million, Sudan 13.7 million, Senegal and Sierra Leone 10.4, Mozambique 10.3 while other countries received more modest sums. The Islamic high finance most important body, located in Gedda (Saudi Arabia) and with a 45 billion dollar registered capital, has inaugurated in Senegal a new phase of its banking policy that allows the powerful Islamic cooperation world network to strongly penetrate and influence African decision-making systems. This new African step locates itself in a general context where financial institutions (IMF and WB) and single States (USA, China, India in the run for energetic resources) are putting pressure on African states as concerns their economic policy and their political and diplomatic preferences. Moreover, in the wider African context, IDB sees itself as the means by which African countries with Muslim majority or having considerable Islamic communities in their territories can approach and confront themselves. The Bank is in fact a privileged place where countries sharing the same religion can support one another thus creating a solidarity network that might influence political choices.

Through the Dakar meeting the Islamic finance, an already important base for funding and microcredit in the Arabic countries, shows it wants to take its rightful place in the geopolitical and geoeconomic revival of the African continent even though it has delayed a bit its move; the African revival, begun with the explosion of the energetic issue at a global level, made Africa bounce at the first places in the political agenda of the economic world superpowers.

Alessio Fabbiano

The oil course carrying each day half of the total quantity of fossil fuel could be submitted to a considerable process of decongestion. The Strait of Malacca, the thin strip of sea dividing the Indonesian isle of Sumatra and the Peninsula of Malaysia, is in fact the international main oil transit path. Thanks to its strategic location, it is an extremely delicate geographical point allowing important nations dependent from crude oil imports to receive millions of barrels daily.

Issues related to this narrow transit path, only 3 km wide in its narrowest part near Singapore, have visibly increased during the last years. From the logistic point of view, it appears more and more inadequate to bear the transit of volumes of oil whose constant growth is due to the rapid increase in the Chinese demand. As concerns safety, a sudden closure of the Strait is believed to represent a geopolitical and economic risk. Moreover, attacks carried out by organised crime aimed at stealing oil are frequent.

It is deemed therefore necessary to diversify a maritime route that has proved to be insufficient from several points of view. To this aim a consortium composed of Indonesian, Malaysian and Saudi Arabian companies concluded a contract for the construction of a 300-kilometer-long gas pipeline. The project should be completed in about 7 years and should be extended to the Peninsula of Malaysia, that constitutes the Northern bank of the Strait of Malacca.

Once completed, the gas pipeline should lessen of a third the traffic invading the path the oil coming from Middle East and bound to Asia has to pass through. Consequences could be particularly advantageous for some countries, such as China or Japan, whose operations of fossil fuel supplies could be made easier.

Michele Tempera