Public Rebuke, but Wolfowitz Digs In

Paul Wolfowitz's future as head of the World Bank is looking increasingly uncertain after the World Bank's most powerful oversight committee delivered a stinging rebuke of his actions and Wolfowitz repeated his intention to stay despite the fact that some 90% of his staff are adamant that he should go.

One by one, various European country's lined up to express their concerns.

The Dutch development minister added his voice to those raising questions about the impact of Mr Wolfowitz's actions, saying he saw the situation as a "substantial crisis for the institution".

"I don't want to hide the fact that I have doubts about his functioning," Bert Koenders told Reuters.

Germany's development minister hinted that the bank may face future difficulty in gaining funding from member states.

"An institution like the World Bank lives by its moral authority and its credibility," Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said.

A communique issued by 24 development and finance ministers meeting in Washington said it was important the bank should maintain its credibility and reputation as well as the motivation of its staff.

The bank's staff association reiterated calls for their boss to go.

"We don't see how he can regain the credibility that has been lost," said Alison Cave, chair of the association.

"I don't think he fully understands how much this has damaged the organisation."

There has never been any time in the World Bank's history when there has been such an open revolt between the staff of the bank and the head of the organisation. And the irony is that all of the time spent discussing Wolfowitz and his future is time that should be spent discussing poverty and development strategies. Were Wolfowitz to share in those concerns then one imagines he would realise why his time at the World Bank really should be over.

The Oversight Committee have issued a report that is startlingly frank by the usual standards of such committees.

Though the language was indirect, the message it sent was unmistakable, according to officials who have been meeting in Washington the last few days. “Words like ‘concerned,’ ‘credibility’ and ‘reputation’ are pretty unprecedented for a communiqué from a place like the World Bank,” said an official involved in the drafting of the statement.

At issue in these statements was a crisis arising from Mr. Wolfowitz’s involvement in decisions to transfer his companion, Shaha Ali Riza, to a new job and give her a raise.

Officially, Mr. Wolfowitz and the bank are now to wait for a full report by the bank’s board on his leadership and charges of favoritism in dealing with Ms. Riza, who was employed at the bank until 2005. But bank officials said that in delaying a finding, the board seemed to be buying time for Mr. Wolfowitz to consider resigning.

Wolfowitz's statement, that he intends to continue as Head of the World Bank, displays a typical neo-con disconnect from reality and the idea that he can overcome anything simply by stating that he wishes it to be so. This attitude is unlikely to endear him to Europeans, still looking for ways to punish and isolate the US for the Iraq war.

He was always a desperately unpopular choice which Bush rammed down the throats of the World Bank in much the same way as he inflicted John Bolton upon the UN.

Wolfowitz's decision to attack corruption further alienated him from banking staff who bridled at the suggestion that they had been, somehow, accessories to such corruption.

When he, himself, has been found to be engaging in the corrupt act of negotiating his girlfriend a salary that made her higher paid than Condaleezza Rice, then he crossed the line as far as most of the staff are concerned and it's beginning to look increasingly unlikely that Europeans will not take this opportunity to make their feelings about him and the Iraq war felt.

Even nations like Britain, France and Germany are making it clear that it will be impossible for the bank to raise the $30 billion it needs with Wolfowitz at the helm; which is a code indicating that they will withhold funding unless he goes.

Wolfowitz has continued to hold meetings all over the weekend, determined to send the signal that life goes on as normal, and is clearly hoping that this situation will simply fade away. Again, it's the neo-con mindset. The total absence of what one normally asks for from leadership. He thinks he leads, not because he has a vision that others will feel compelled to follow, but because he was hired by George Bush and the rest of the planet will simply have to accept that. Neo-cons have always confused stubbornness with leadership, but I feel sure that Wolfowitz is about to be made well aware of the limitations of his own willpower to impact on how events eventually transpire.

“I think he has just wanted to tough it out,” said a bank official who watched him. “He’s clearly hoping that once everyone leaves town, he can go on and that all this will fade away. That has not happened and it is not going to happen.”

He has also sent all bank staff an email with hyper-links to recently released documents which show that he tried to remove himself from the negotiations concerning Ms. Riza’s transfer and raise but was forced to make the arrangements himself because top lawyers and ethics officials at the bank said they did not want to get involved.

It really does say something about his disconnect from reality that he thinks pointing out the fact that "top lawyers and ethics officials" did not want anything to do with what he was proposing somehow strengthens his case.

It has backfired spectacularly. Surprise, surprise.

Some bank officials said that as a practical matter, Mr. Wolfowitz’s future may be decided by a complicated interplay of Bush administration and European politics.

The antipathy to his leadership is especially high in Britain, France and Germany, they said. The British chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, who is expected to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister as early as this summer, is under pressure from his own political base to stand up to the United States more than Mr. Blair has done.

Europeans are already channelling their aid for poor countries away from the bank and toward agencies based in Europe, a trend that many say will accelerate rapidly if Mr. Wolfowitz remains.

It has always been customary for the United States to choose the president of the World Bank, but there are certain to be demands for that tradition to be scrapped if Mr. Wolfowitz leaves.

And here we see, once again, the damage to US interests that Bush and his neo-con gang are actually producing. The US has always, as the world's largest economy and World Bank's largest donor, named the leader of the World Bank and have usually named an American. However, the naming of Paul Wolfowitz has been such a slap in the face that Europeans are almost certain to demand that this tradition be scrapped.

Bush will no doubt fight to save Wolfowitz just as he hopes to save Gonzales, but it looks to me as if the writing is on the wall.

The neo-con arrogance that strutted the globe could only endure as long as Bush maintained control of both houses. The Dems victory in the November mid-terms has brought reality crashing through their ideological walls.

Wolfowitz may huff and puff, but the Europeans are going to blow his house down.

UPDATE:

Bruce Anderson is one of those writers that The Independent occasionally publish in order to induce heart attacks amongst their readership. He really represents everything that is wrong with the right wing mindset. However, today he excels in his stupidity.

He begins by admitting that he was one of the few people who thought Paul Wolfowitz was just the kind of "idealist" who would have been perfect as Head of The World Bank Group, even though - by his own admission - Paul Wolfowitz's "executive powers would be at full stretch in managing his own desk." And yet, Anderson thought little about handing him a job that could aid or hinder millions in the developing world. However, that wasn't what caused me to splutter. It was his suggestion for who should take over next as Head of the World Bank Group:

In the short run, there is an obvious candidate to succeed Mr Wolfowitz: another neo-con, the former UN Ambassador, John Bolton. No-one ever accused him of lacking grip. Nor is he overburdened with sentimentality. Confronted with obstruction or incompetence, he uses his temper as a bulldozer. Mr Bolton is the man the World Bank needs, and deserves.

Having already applauded as the job was handed to a man who couldn't manage his own desk, Anderson now wants the task of aiding the world's poorest country's to be given to a man who is "not overburdened with sentimentality" and who "uses his temper like a bulldozer", both of which he sees as positive attributes.

How do you get to be that dumb and not fall over?

Click title for full article.

Tags: Wolfowitz, World Bank, Shaha Riza, Britain, France, Germany, US, scandal