[Dialogue] Leading by hubris

[Harry Wainwright]

Leading by hubris

Wolfowitz at the World Bank is a travesty, writes Mohamed Hakki*
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2006/814/op33.htm#1>  

As the saying goes, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." The Bush
administration is "teaching" the rest of the world about democracy and
freedom while rejecting democratically elected governments in the West Bank
and Gaza and Iran and suppressing free speech and ignoring the rule of law
at home. Under the cloak of the "war on terror," Bush has managed to grab
for himself covert powers that even the most despotic regimes would envy.
Luckily, the US public and, indeed, Bush's own party seem to have finally
noticed. It should make for interesting mid-term congressional elections
come November.

But Bush is not alone in wanting to teach a thing or two to the rest of the
world. He has placed one of his closest advisors -- the mild-mannered and
professorial Paul Wolfowitz -- at the head of the World Bank. Having
"taught" the Iraqis about the wonders of democracy and freedom, the former
deputy secretary of defense is now teaching the rest of the world about good
governance and ending corruption. Unfortunately, these are subjects he
appears to know precious little about. 

In the run-up to the World Bank and IMF annual meetings being held this week
in Singapore, member governments have openly questioned Wolfowitz's
anti-corruption agenda as a thinly veiled attempt to limit the reach of
World Bank funding to countries favoured by the Bush administration. Under
former President Wolfensohn, the bank managed to maintain its politically
neutral status. Under Wolfowitz, all pretences are gone. Following the
coming to power of the new Hamas-led Palestinian government, the World
Bank's programme in the West Bank and Gaza ground to a standstill. Wolfowitz
has similarly blocked loans to Uzbekistan and Kenya -- along with trying to
block debt relief to the Democratic Republic of Congo -- citing corruption
concerns. 

Interestingly, Transparency International (a big fan of Wolfowitz) gives the
same high corruption score to Iraq and Indonesia as it does to these three
countries. Despite its low rating for combating corruption, Wolfowitz
praised Indonesia's progress against corruption in his first major policy
speech before the bank's spring meetings -- perhaps not surprising since his
stint as US ambassador to Indonesia, 1986-89, is his only significant
experience in a developing country and the one to which he alludes
constantly in attempting to make credible his dubious development
credentials, much to the amusement of the highly-experienced international
staff of the bank. Also unsurprising, Wolfowitz is attempting to strengthen
the bank's presence and operations in Iraq though little but a miracle could
undo the devastation his ill-conceived war has wrought.

Wolfowitz has made the fight against corruption the cornerstone of his World
Bank presidency. However, the way in which he has gone about it exposed a
breach between his words and his actions that has made shareholders, clients
and staff all wonder what he is really up to. In keeping with the Bush
administration's preference for loyalty over expertise, Wolfowitz seems to
suspect everyone except his small coterie of advisors. It is the same
attitude that led to Paul Bremer heading up the provisional authority in
Baghdad, and we all know what a disaster that was. Those he has brought with
him are all Republicans, and mostly friends from the Department of Defense. 

As for new hires, many are old acquaintances from the "coalition of the
willing", including former Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs Ana Palacio
and former Salvadoran Finance Minister Juan Jose Daboub. A year ago, he
named Suzanne Folsom, an ethics lawyer with no experience in investigations
and certainly no international experience, but nonetheless wife of a
prominent Republican, as chief of the bank's anti-corruption unit. Since
that time, very little has come out of the "Department of Institutional
Integrity" except allegations of corruption against bank staff. Staff liken
the atmosphere to that of a Stalinist regime: no one knows who will be
denounced next, or when, for some real or imagined transgression. Wolfowitz
has recently upgraded the Bank "Whistleblower Protection Policy", to make it
easier for staff to report one another for suspected corruption. Very little
protects staff from false accusations.

But what really has insiders steamed is the lack of "good governance" within
the bank. While preaching to others the need for "transparency,
accountability and [the] rule of law," Wolfowitz happily ignores all these
strictures within the Bank. He and his advisors refuse to share information
to the point that staff, the Board of Directors, and even borrower countries
themselves, learn about decisions from the press before learning about them
from Wolfowitz. 

In a famous case, The Washington Post ran an editorial about Wolfowitz's
intention to block debt relief to the Democratic Republic of Congo on the
morning of the day he was to discuss it with the Board of Directors, causing
directors to wonder how the Post was able to articulate Wolfowitz's position
so clearly before he had shared it with anyone inside the bank. Further,
Wolfowitz has managed to hire former cronies with barely a nod towards the
bank's stringent procurement and recruitment guidelines. Their
qualifications and functions largely remain a mystery. The Staff Association
protested against the recruitment of Folsom, noting that, at the very least,
the Bank's anti-corruption chief should be hired in a transparent and
competitive manner befitting the position. One staff member complained, "It
is difficult for us to tell a minister that he cannot hire his cronies on
Bank projects when our own president does so with impunity." The Staff
Association and the Board of Directors have also questioned the role of
Wolfowitz's closest advisor, Robin Cleveland. Wolfowitz's pointed refusal to
answer inquiries has further increased suspicion.

As for "accountability," many inside and outside the bank are wondering when
Wolfowitz will take responsibility for the mess he made in Iraq. As is now
widely reported in the American press, his rationale for going to war and
his predictions about its aftermath were not only wrong, but were
deliberately so. His chief spokesman, Kevin Kellems (former spokesman for
Dick Cheney) is on record as having said that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring
terrorist organisations, including Al-Qaeda, a "fact" that was known by the
Bush government to be false well before the war. Cleveland is known as the
mind behind Wolfowitz's assertion that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the
country's reconstruction. She has now turned her attention to the bank's
internal budget, castigating staff for their "fat-cat salaries" and luxury
travel. Never mind the fact that Cleveland is quite happy with her quarter
of a million dollar annual salary and had her boss get an exception for the
bank's travel policy so that she could fly to the annual meetings in first
class.

>From many quarters it is to be hoped that the bank's shareholders will take
a close look at the man installed at the head of their institution and
determine whether he really is right for the job. So far, he has shown
himself reluctant to practice what he preaches.

* The writer is a political analyst resident in Washington. 

C Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/814/op33.htm 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060929/4f97cdad/attachment.html