Tweet
What of the others in the Wolfowitz affair?
Friday, May 18, 2007
It wasn't difficult to discern that the scandal involving Mr Paul Wolfowitz, the president of the World Bank, created fodder for the ongoing foreign policy joust between the United States and Europe.
Pressure for Mr Wolfowitz to resign because of his role in organising a large pay increase and promotion for his girlfriend, Ms Shaha Riza, a senior World Bank employee, was led by the European members of the 185-country bank since early April when the story was first carried in the US media.
That Mr Wolfowitz, a former US deputy defence secretary, was President George W Bush's choice for the World Bank presidency, obviously influenced Europe's strong opposition to his continued tenure, given the souring of relations between both sides over America's war in Iraq.
For despite a significant reduction in Europe's trenchant views over the Bush Administration's decision to ignore a United Nations recommendation and invade Iraq, the wounds created by Washington have not fully healed.
It was therefore not surprising that on April 25, the European Parliament passed a resolution demanding that the European Union (EU), during its scheduled April 30 meeting with President Bush, call for Mr Wolfowitz's departure.
Predictably, President Bush voiced strong support for his man, and after that meeting with the EU officials, declared that Mr Wolfowitz should remain in the job and should be given a fair hearing.
That Mr Wolfowitz described as a "smear campaign" the calls for his resignation and the leaking of an investigative committee's report to the media, gives substance to our view that the anger associated with this issue runs deeper than the Wolfowitz affair.
Yesterday, when Mr Wolfowitz announced that he would be stepping down at the end of next month, he, in our opinion, did the decent thing, albeit after it became obvious that support for him within the Bush administration had started to wane.
But even as the World Bank now begins the search for a new president, we believe that the institution's directors need to explain why Mr Wolfowitz was the sole focus of their investigation.
Surely, he could not have acted alone in this episode, and the directors, in their statement issued yesterday, pointed to that reality.
".It is clear from this material that a number of mistakes were made by a number of individuals in handling the matter under consideration, and that the bank's systems did not prove robust to the strain under which they were placed," they said.
The question we ask, therefore, is what sanctions will be imposed on the members of the Bank's Ethics Committee who played a role in this affair?
For if, as the directors claim, there is now need to "review the governance framework of the World Bank Group, including the role as well as procedural and other aspects of the Ethics Committee", they cannot be serious about reform if Mr Wolfowitz is the only casualty in this case.
People who bend the rules for convenience are highly unlikely to desist if they are confident that they will not be punished when caught. And if those who had a hand in the Wolfowitz affair are allowed to remain in their posts untouched, what is to prevent them from doing the same thing for the new boss?
Friday, May 18, 2007
It wasn't difficult to discern that the scandal involving Mr Paul Wolfowitz, the president of the World Bank, created fodder for the ongoing foreign policy joust between the United States and Europe.
Pressure for Mr Wolfowitz to resign because of his role in organising a large pay increase and promotion for his girlfriend, Ms Shaha Riza, a senior World Bank employee, was led by the European members of the 185-country bank since early April when the story was first carried in the US media.
That Mr Wolfowitz, a former US deputy defence secretary, was President George W Bush's choice for the World Bank presidency, obviously influenced Europe's strong opposition to his continued tenure, given the souring of relations between both sides over America's war in Iraq.
For despite a significant reduction in Europe's trenchant views over the Bush Administration's decision to ignore a United Nations recommendation and invade Iraq, the wounds created by Washington have not fully healed.
It was therefore not surprising that on April 25, the European Parliament passed a resolution demanding that the European Union (EU), during its scheduled April 30 meeting with President Bush, call for Mr Wolfowitz's departure.
Predictably, President Bush voiced strong support for his man, and after that meeting with the EU officials, declared that Mr Wolfowitz should remain in the job and should be given a fair hearing.
That Mr Wolfowitz described as a "smear campaign" the calls for his resignation and the leaking of an investigative committee's report to the media, gives substance to our view that the anger associated with this issue runs deeper than the Wolfowitz affair.
Yesterday, when Mr Wolfowitz announced that he would be stepping down at the end of next month, he, in our opinion, did the decent thing, albeit after it became obvious that support for him within the Bush administration had started to wane.
But even as the World Bank now begins the search for a new president, we believe that the institution's directors need to explain why Mr Wolfowitz was the sole focus of their investigation.
Surely, he could not have acted alone in this episode, and the directors, in their statement issued yesterday, pointed to that reality.
".It is clear from this material that a number of mistakes were made by a number of individuals in handling the matter under consideration, and that the bank's systems did not prove robust to the strain under which they were placed," they said.
The question we ask, therefore, is what sanctions will be imposed on the members of the Bank's Ethics Committee who played a role in this affair?
For if, as the directors claim, there is now need to "review the governance framework of the World Bank Group, including the role as well as procedural and other aspects of the Ethics Committee", they cannot be serious about reform if Mr Wolfowitz is the only casualty in this case.
People who bend the rules for convenience are highly unlikely to desist if they are confident that they will not be punished when caught. And if those who had a hand in the Wolfowitz affair are allowed to remain in their posts untouched, what is to prevent them from doing the same thing for the new boss?
Comment