[Dialogue] What a shame

Fri Mar 3 14:53:53 EST 2006

What a shame

The cronyism of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank is ruining the institution
and driving the best of its staff out, writes Mohamed Hakki*
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2006/784/op2.htm#1>  

  _____  

In an article on the eclipsing fortunes of the neocons vis-à-vis Bush
foreign policy, the Wall Street Journal said: "In the past year, the ranks
of the neoconservatives within the administration, who moulded the American
response to 9/11, have grown thin and their influence has ebbed." It
mentioned the departure from key policy-making positions of some of the
administration's most prominent neoconservatives. Some of them left in
disgrace, others left their jobs for other Bush appointments. Perhaps the
most interesting of these career changes involves that of former Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who was promoted for his role in the Iraq
war to president of the World Bank.

>From day one, all vice-presidents, directors and staff members of the World
Bank were apprehensive in view of his reputation as the "high priest of the
hawks" or "The Vulcans"; nicknames for Mr Bush's tight-knit group of
security advisors, the architect of the Iraq war, and the driving
ideological force behind the decision to invade Iraq. They also wondered
about his arrogant dismissal of all misgivings about the war. They
remembered his rosy forecasts, his predictions that the Iraqis would greet
US soldiers as liberators, with open arms, and his casual dismissal of
warnings by Eric Shimseki, former US army chief of staff, that the US would
need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq (and who was fired for daring
to give his expert opinion). They remembered well his assertion that the
"oil revenues of Iraq over the course of the next two to three years would
bring in 50 to 100 billion US dollars which could more than finance its own
reconstruction." But, to be fair, they were all willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt despite the deep moral struggle they are each grappling
with; working for a man who is morally and politically responsible for a
horrendous war that has shed the blood of thousands of innocent victims in
Iraq. 

Now, it seems that the honeymoon is over. On the cost of the Iraqi war, it
is becoming more and more obvious that Wolfowitz's predictions are, at best,
a joke approaching the fanciful, and, at worse, outright intentionally
misleading. When White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay forwarded an
estimate (September 2002) of the Iraq war at a higher level of $100-$200
billion, the administration dismissed his analysis as "likely very, very
high" and promptly fired him (another person who lost his job because he did
it conscientiously and professionally). Now it turns out that even his
figures were wildly low. According to Joseph Stiglitz, professor at Columbia
University and Nobel Prize winner in economics, and Linda Blimes, a Harvard
budget expert, the war in Iraq is likely to cost up to $2 trillion. The
American Conservative magazine says: "What is certain is that before hiring
him to run the World Bank, someone should have recalled Paul Wolfowitz's
prediction that Iraq would fund the operation itself." Normal people under
normal circumstances would have been fired, but not "Wolfie!" 

However, even with this grim history in mind which they fear will impact on
their ability to address their global clients' needs and fulfil their
mission of addressing world poverty, World Bank staff have even more
immediate worries to contend with. What everybody in the Bank perceives most
evidently is the increasing rift between Wolfowitz and his inner cabal of
advisors and the staff at large. The problem is manifesting itself on
several levels.

In recent months, there had been a massive exodus of top talent from the
World Bank. The senior ethics officer of the bank has departed. Also on the
exit roster are the vice president for East Asia and the Pacific, the chief
legal counsel, the vice president for environmentally and socially
sustainable development, the bank's top managing director, the director of
institutional integrity (who monitors internal and external corruption), and
the head of the information solutions group.

Steve Clemons says in the Washington Note : "It looks as if Wolfowitz is
gut- punching the most talented teams at the Bank and morale is plummeting.
A lot of good people are leaving."

What has Wolfowitz done to start this serious wave of negative sentiment? He
appointed Kevin Kellems, former communications director and spokesman for
Vice President Cheney, to a newly created post of director of communication
strategy in addition to his position as advisor to the president,
effectively sidelining the vice president of communication, UN and External
Affairs at the Bank. While one could question Kellems' professional ability
and record in view of his previous position and the miscommunication that
flowed from Cheney's office over the years, the immediate issue for Bank
staff is that he was imposed following a Wolfowitz presidential fiat.
Wolfowitz in effect, forced a political appointment at the director level,
which is rather unheard of, especially since directorships are lower in the
administrative stratosphere and are traditionally filled following an open
competitive process based on merit, not political imposition.

Another glaring example of presidential fiat came with the appointment of
the Bank's new corruption czar, Suzanne Rich Folsom, as the new head of
"institutional integrity". Her catapulting prompted the courageous and
highly respected chairwoman of the Bank's Staff Association, Alison Cave, to
issue an open letter of protest to all staff. Ms Rich, married to a powerful
Republican leader and a powerful Republican lobbyist in her own right, was
also appointed with no concern for clear and open competitive process. She
also has the title of "Counsellor to the President". A clear conflict of
interest if there was ever one.

Another example involves the appointment of Karl Jackson, an old friend of
Wolfowitz and colleague from Johns Hopkins University as well as government,
as an advisor to the president, and who apparently has been handed the
portfolio of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Bank's private
sector supporting arm.

Perhaps the most stunning example of Wolfowitz's cronyism and complete lack
of regard for the principles of the institution he has been handed to
govern, not to mention the obvious appearance of conflict of interest,
involves the ever-growing role of his senior counsellor, Robin Cleveland. Ms
Cleveland left the Bush administration under a cloud after it emerged that
she attempted to use her connections to get a relative a job at a large
defence corporation while she was negotiating a contract on behalf of the US
government with them. However, even this apparently has not tarnished her
stature in the neocon's books, as it is said that Ms Cleveland effectively
is now running the Bank.

All these examples are only serving to fuel Bank staff's growing doubt with
the stewardship of Wolfowitz. One key senior official called it "utter
shamelessness". Another old time Bank staffer said "the fight against global
poverty is essentially a moral cause; if we lose the moral high ground, by
disregarding transparency, competence, and integrity in our own institution,
nothing else is left."

Others are saying he is appointing political hacks to positions that should
be filled by highly qualified professionals through a competitive and
transparent process. Senior Bank staff sees Wolfowitz withdrawing from the
Bank's senior professionals and relying instead on a group of political
operatives, zealots and ideologues. The current confusion and concern of the
staff of the Bank over the direction of this global institution is best
reflected in the results of the institution's own staff survey, released
only last week. When asked: "Do you have a good understanding of the
direction in which World Bank Group senior management is leading the
institution?" only 48 per cent of respondents answered favourably, in
contrast to a 67 per cent favourable response during the previous staff
survey in 2003. 

No one is comparing Wolfowitz with any of the former Bank presidents any
more. Everyone is saying that he is building his "cabal" of supporters at
the highest levels of the institution and confirming all their worst fears
of foisting a Bush administration agenda on the world's premier development
agency. Meanwhile, the board of executive directors, which represents the
184 member countries of the World Bank, remains scandalously silent. Quel
domage!

* The writer is a former member of the staff of the World Bank. 

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/784/op2.htm 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060303/5aba9d2f/attachment-0002.htm