Read "Bank Rebukes Wolfowitz On Ethics: Rules Were Broken, Committee Says" by Peter S. Goodman, The Washington Post, May 15, 2007.
I have worked for years as a consultant to the World Bank, and have not posted on the Wolfowitz controversy both because I didn't feel I could add anything to the discussion. The situation now seems clear enough, and perhaps comments in the blogosphere will help the Executive Board make the right decision.
Paul Wolfowitz apparently was told by the Bank's ethics committee that he had to resolve a potential conflict of interest caused by the fact that he had a romantic relationship with someone who would be his subordinate when he assumed the position as President of the World Bank. He asked the ethics committee to resolve the problem, and they (rightly) responded that it was not their job to do so. Wolfowitz could have recused himself from the matter, instructing one of the Bank Vice Presidents to resolve the issue. He did not do so. He excluded the World Bank general counsel from the negotiations. He ordered an excessive salary increase for his friend as she was detailed from the Bank to work for the U.S. government. Mr. Wolfowitz does not appear to have shown the quality of judgment in this affair that one needs in the chief executive of an organization such as the World Bank. The Bank is deeply involved in fighting corruption in its client states and, at the very least, Wolfowitz' behavior in this matter creates an appearance of an ethical lapse. (I suspect -- with no evidence at all -- that in fact, he was simply a very busy guy who wanted the problem to go away, and chose what appeared to be a fast solution. Of course, the problem has not gone away!)
Now the Executive Board has the responsibility of deciding the appropriate action to take in response to the report. It is too bad that the Bush administration is now overtly seeking to influence that decision by public statements, rather than holding by its earlier position of expressing support in the processes of the Executive Board of the Bank. I suspect that the process is highly politicized, and that it is the worst possible process except for all the others I can think of. Let the Board do its job, and hope that the Bank reputation and effectiveness does not suffer too much in the process.
The World Bank has a mission that is crucially important -- to fight poverty. It has a half century of experience in fighting poverty, and the world has learned a great deal in the course of that half century. Indeed, there has been great progress in increasing incomes, improving health, improving education, and improving the wellbeing of people. The world will be a worse place if the Bank is not as effective as possible in continuing its work to fight poverty!
Read the report of the ad hoc group of the Executive Board of the World Bank.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
No one seems to have suggested that the correct course of action would have been for Mr. Wolfowitz to choose between the job as President of the World Bank and continuing a romantic relationship with someone working for the Bank. He could have severed his relationship with Ms. Riza or he could have refused the position with the World Bank. Either course would have avoided any appearance of conflict of interest.
Then he would not have been able to carry the policies of the White House. He was already mud @ the Pentagon in 2004 and there was nowhere for him to go to spread his propaganda.Please read the following:
http://www.worldbankpresident.org/archives/000699.php
Interesting article, It in turn links to this one.
I think it naive to say that someone with the ability, connections and track record of Paul Wolfowitz would have nowhere to go if he refused the position of President of the World Bank. Indeed, I suspect that when he leaves the Bank -- be it now or later -- he will wind up in another big job.
Consider the folk who were convicted in the Iran Contra affair, and got good jobs after.
Post a Comment