WASHINGTON (Reuters) - World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on Sunday dug in his heels over the promotion he approved for his girlfriend and said he intends to stay in his job, even as bank member governments voiced "great concern" the institution might not be able to function properly.
"I believe in the mission of this organization and I believe that I can carry it out," Wolfowitz told a news conference shortly after the World Bank development committee issued a strongly-worded statement conveying unease.
The committee of aid ministers from around the globe said it was crucial the bank's credibility not be tarnished by the controversy over the high-paying promotion Wolfowitz agreed for his girlfriend, bank employee Shaha Riza, before she was assigned to work at the State Department.
"The current situation is of great concern to all of us," the ministers said in a communique after the committee met.
"We have to ensure that the bank can effectively carry out its mandate and maintain its credibility and reputation as well as motivation of the staff," the ministers said.
In a news conference shortly after those tough words, Wolfowitz said a decision on the matter should be left to the bank's board of member countries.
"We need to work our way through this," he said. "The board is looking into the matter and we'll let them complete their work."
The former Pentagon No. 2 cited his accomplishments since taking the helm of the poverty-fighting lender in mid-2005, pointing at several projects in Africa, where he has found his strongest backing.
But the bank staff association renewed a call for Wolfowitz to quit. "We do not see how he can possibly regain the trust of the staff," association chair Alison Cave said. "We don't see how he can regain the credibility that has been lost."
"I don't think he fully understands how much this has damaged the organization," she said.
European countries, including Britain and Germany, were the most vocal in making a case that the scandal threatened to cripple the bank.
In an interview with Reuters, Dutch Development Minister Bert Koenders said he believed the row had put the bank into a crisis situation that needed to be resolved quickly.
"It has become clear to us ... that there is also a lack of trust at the moment in the leadership and in the management. So, that is something that has to be resolved," Koenders said.
Sources monitoring the closed meeting said several European nations touched on the issue, but did not call outright for Wolfowitz to step down.
MORAL AUTHORITY QUESTIONED
Staff and development activists accuse Wolfowitz of breaking bank rules in helping to arrange Riza's promotion.
They argue the institution's moral authority is in tatters, especially its authority to make countries who receive aid accountable for the money, a priority for Wolfowitz, who has ruffled feathers with a strong-arm anti-corruption push.
However, his backers in the White House have come to his defense and, like other World Bank members, have cautioned against judging Wolfowitz until the examination by the bank's board wraps up.
Still, the scandal has stirred up lingering antagonism over Wolfowitz's appointment to the bank by the Bush administration and bitterness over the prominent role he played in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq.
"It's time for the board to show Wolfowitz the door," said Eric Gutierrez, international policy coordinator for ActionAid. "It is absolutely hypocritical for the World Bank to stand against corruption in poor countries when its president is embroiled in a corruption scandal."
Earlier, Wolfowitz had appealed to rich nations to deliver on aid promises and to keep the bank's coffers stocked so it can keep lending to needy countries.
But his appeal was clouded by the concerns many of the bank's major donors have on his leadership, prompting worries inside the bank that some of those nations could pull the plug on funding for the bank's program for the poorest countries.
Original article posted here.
6 comments:
Oh well, you should read today's Wall Street journal story which puts Wolfowitz in the clear and his accusers in the dock.
Well, that would make it about 1,000 other periodicals to one. And the Wall Street Journal doesn't really come off as a neutral observer, now does it?
But if you wanted to be helpful and advance the discussion, I would have thought that you would put a link to the artice you reference. But the innuendo probably serves you better than the text, so I understand your need to be cryptic.
I don't think all the other staffers were making contracts on behalf of their lovers at the same office, so I sincerely doubt they could "all be in the dock" with Wolfowitz. Fact is that they were shouting for his dismissal, not a good sign when you're supposed to be supervising these very same people.
Face it, the neo-cons have just, to a person, been a neo con, a three card monte, a slight of hand fraud. The best of these raggedly clowns jumped ship early, and the worse cling in desperation the posts that none of them had either the qualifications or capacity to rightfully assume.
And all of us have to pay for their idiocy.
Sorry.
OK, here's the link:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009948
What do you think?
Okay, well I have read the article, and the best I can say is that if it appears that there was absolutely no impropriety about Wolfowitz actions then why do his employees hate him so? In fact, this question is best addressed to World Bank employees, many of whom have been visiting this site, for example:
http://www.worldbankpresident.org/archives/000356.php
(there have been many more)
But if he is as hated as much as has been reported, then what is his motivation for staying? First off, it appears he has been lobbying for a strong World Bank presence in Iraq when it is quite obvious to all but the most brain damaged that Iraq is in no shape ready for Western instutions like the World Bank to come there yet (if every). And it must strike someone as strange that he would be involved in the negotiation of his lover's contract under ANY circumstance, much less when he is advocating an anti corruption program. And it seems also quite odd that the African president who comes to his defense in the president of Liberia, who herself was accused of rigged elections, is from a country with a HORRENDOUS tradition of cronyism and corruption, and has the kind of Harvard pedigree background that makes her a perfect candidate for the pro-US style corruption that the neo-cons are famous about pursuing. Examples? Go to Colombia with Harvard educated thug Uribe and to Mexico where Fox just presided over another farcical election with the hand of Bush involved in the outcome. So in short, Wolfie has precious few defenders, both within the bank and without. So what does he gain from being there? First off, he has absolutely NO experience in development work or economics, finance or accounting, so what would make him fit to lead? Just the precedent of having another failed Department of Defense higher up having a smooth transition for a job poorly done with Robert MacNamara. And an ideological devotion to help peddle neo con failed pet projects like abstence programs to fight AIDS in Africa. Bright idea. So anyway, regardless of the factual basis of the charges, it reveals a whole lot that his employees do not come to his defense. He seems like a general with no troops. So maybe it might be better to have someone who doesn't hail from a group with such an unbroken string of failures.
I am sure there are many, many far more capable, competant and likeable choices.
Hope this is a fair response to your question.
Do all the employees hate him? If he is really trying to get a World bank that actually helps the poor, then I would say that was a good thing. I know that in any organisation a lot of people love the status quo, hate reform and are amongst the most conservative forces.
I hope I didn't say that all the employees hate him. But if what you say is true: "I know that in any organization a lot of people love the status quo, hate reform and are amongst the most conservative forces", then they should scrap the idea and make a new organization that is effective. Sounds like you don't believe much in organizations. But that kind of facile logic I don't really think gets very far. Any data or evidence supporting your assertion? I'd love to see it.
As far as his vision goes of changing the World Bank for the better, it seems like his own cronyism is what has gotten him into trouble. Far from change, sounds like the same ole World Bank to me.
Post a Comment