Paul Wolfowitz’s War on Corruption
April 16th, 2007 by Stephen
Paul Wolfowitz, one of the puppeteers who used the spectre of terrorism to get George Bush to invade Iraq, was always a controversial appointment to the head of the World Bank. A man with nothing apparently to offer the role, this was patronage pure and simple.
You see, whilst European shares outweigh American shares in the World Bank, there is a cosy little arrangement whereby the IMF head is in the gift of the Europeans, and the World Bank head in the gift of the Americans. Not surprisingly, the result is political patronage and a lack of accountability in these positions.
Knowing this, Wolfowitz recently announced that he would crack down on corruption by government and officials in developing world nations (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4688022.stm).
So it is somewhat ironic that he did not crack down on his own corruption, by doing the honourable thing and resigning forthwith. Instead he argues he should stay to cintinue the work he is doing. It is arrogant of the man to suppose that he is the best man (even that he is an acceptable man) to root out corruption and lead the institution in such circumstances.
How is the World Bank supposed to be taken seriously in a drive to root out corruption and mismanagement when its head is there by virtue of patronage, and involved in just the kind of corruption that is the bane of developing countries.
It is not only time Wolfowitz was given his marchiong orders - it is time that this corrupt institution, and the IMF too, had a more democratically accountable means of selecting a competent head.
Oh well, you should read today’s Wall Street journal story which puts Wolfowitz in the clear and his accusers in the dock.
All I get is:
“WASHINGTON — World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz showed no sign he is ready to step down, even as the bank’s highest governing body signaled “great concern” with the controversy over steps Mr. Wolfowitz took to secure a generous pay-and-promotion package for his female companion.”
Unfortunately it wants me to subscribe to see the rest of the article, but it doesn’t appear to be putting Wolfowitz in the clear if the bank’s highest governing body is signalling “great concern”.
Nice name, btw. - but a little pretentious, don’t you think?
You can read it here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009948
This piece does not explain why Wolfowitz chose to give his girlfriend both a pay rise and a promotion - the core issue here. She was entitled to one or the other, not both. It also makes the claim that Europeans want to have a European head - a curious and unsubstantiated claim designed to meake this look like a US versus Europe issue. As noted above, there is a cosy relationship between IMF and world bank heads, whereby one is European, the other American.
The problem here is that the appointments then are a matter of political patronage. I have not heard an argument that a European should replace Wolfowitz. Observers have pointed out that if Wolfowitz does the honourable thing, then his replacement will still be an appointee of the Bush whitehouse.
The calls being are made are to reform the whole nasty little system. Take the political patronage out of this (and the IMF) and allow appontees to be chosen on merit, and not on their politics (which in Wolfowitz’s case onvolves opposing the very institution under which the World bank is formed).
Diolch yn fawr am eich barnau.
Stephen
Stephen
Don’t you think your “core issue” is a bit weak? I guess in most people’s experience a promotion usually does lead to a pay rise.
Anyway you might like to read this from Professor Ruth wedgewood in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wedgwood17apr17,0,7950703.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Your new link is simply a restatement of the Wall Street Journal’s opinion piece.
The Wall street journal’s interpretation is controversial. It argues that when the Ethics Committee said that Wolfowitz’s recusal was not enough for Riza to continue working at the World Bank, this implied that the Ethics Committee blocked Wolfowitz’s recusal. The editorial used this interpretation to blame the Ethics Committee for Wolfowitz’s apparent self-dealing. However, Ad Melkert has denied that the committee blocked recusal itself, or even that it could block recusal. He is adamant that Wolfowitz did not inform the committee of the specifics of the promotion.
Furthermore, as I pointed out, the journal does not acknowledge that much of the outrage arose not from the single promotion per se, so much as the multiple layers of the benefits provided to her. She was given an in-situ promotion, a tax free increase in salary from $132,000 to $180,000 and a guaranteed 8% (yes, eight percent!) annual rise. This is the level of performance related pay given to outstanding employees). She was also guaranteed further promotions should she rejoin the bank!
Also missing from these accounts you have linked to are any indication that Wolfowitz’s office had prevously issued a series of misleading statements about the contract, seeking to deflect responsibility for its detailed terms (now acknowledged to have been dictated by Wolfowitz) to the Ethics Committee, HR manager Coll, and former General Counsel Danino.
Instead we are given a bland “we don’t know why Wolfowitz apologised”. He apologised, because he feathered the nest of the woman with whom he had an adulterous affair.
Now the WSJ and LA Times pieces were seemingly based on the 109 pages of documentation issued by the World Bank at Wolfowitz’s request. I’d be happy to read the links to your sources.
How is Wolfowitz’s relationship with Riza an adultrous affair by the way?
The Wall Street Journal may well have gad 109 pages of documentation, but what they presented was not the documentation - it was an interpretation of it. An interpretation that was deficient because of what it deliberately omitted (as I pointed out above).
You would be happy to read my sources?
Some background, including Ad Melkert’s insistence that he did not know the details of the settlement are here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/663c9128-e4a5-11db-9115-000b5df10621.html
Similar points, and the background of Wolfowitz’s apology are here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041201188_pf.html
How is Wolfowitz’s relationship with Riza an adultrous affair by the way?
Wolfowitz separated from his wife because of this affair, back in 2001. Thus the affair clearly began in adultery. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any record of a subsequent divorce, and Wolfowitz’s ex wife refused to conform or deny that they were divorced. It may continue to be adulterous - but that point is moot.