Wolfowitz is gone from the World Bank

[kedoane]

One less idiot that Shrub had brought on running things...

Wolfowitz resigning from World Bank By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer
15 minutes ago



Embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz will resign at the end of June, he and the bank said late Thursday, ending his long fight to survive pressure for his ouster over the generous compensation he arranged for his girlfriend.

His departure ends a two-year run at the development bank that was marked by controversy from the start, given his previous role as a major architect of the Iraq war when he served as the No. 2 official at the Pentagon.

"He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution and we accept that," the board said in its announcement of his resignation.

His departure was all but forced, however, by the finding of a special bank panel that he violated conflict-of-interest rules in his handling of the 2005 pay package of bank employee Shaha Riza.

The board said it was clear that a number of people had erred in reviewing the pay package.

Wolfowitz, who had fought the pressure to resign for weeks, said in his own statement Thursday that he was pleased that the board "accepted my assurance that I acted ethically and in good faith in what I believed were the best interests of the institution, including protecting the rights of a valued staff member."

Now, he said, it was in the best interest of the board that its mission "be carried forward under new leadership."

[Pedantic Wretch]

This will change little.

[Monte Smith]

He stayed too long, IMO. With his croneyism, he committed the kind of failure we're always attributing to the recipients of WB funds. No excuse for that.

[groover]

Isn't it odd, though, that he went down for helping his girlfriend who is a Muslim? Truth stranger than fiction!

[LennyH]

Oh, goody. Now he can can re-join the war brain trust.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

He stayed too long, IMO. With his croneyism, he committed the kind of failure we're always attributing to the recipients of WB funds. No excuse for that.

Agreed.

Kinda hard to rant and rave about cleaning up corruption on the world stage when you're doing the exact same shit.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

With his croneyism...

Croneyism is inevitable in the 'World' Bank, since its head is always American (rather like the 'World Series').

[Scott Dolan]

Hey PW, does the story about Chavez taking folks farms by force and burning them to the ground warm your heart?

Redistribution at its finest, baby!

You seem so icy all the time, I'm just looking for something that might bring a faint glimpse of a smirk to your face.

[Paul B]

I can admire Chavez for flipping a birdie at the US--more world leaders should do it--while still not supporting everything he does in his country. The story in today's WSJ about him letting "the people" take over farms, which go to ruin because of their incompetence, was not really surprising. Dictators in Africa have done it, and their people suffer. Still, a little socialism down south lends a little balance to things.

[Scott Dolan]

Balance to what?

If Chavez were our President would you support his right to rule by decree?

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Hey PW, does the story about Chavez taking folks farms by force and burning them to the ground warm your heart?

I do not claim to be a 'chavista', but I think that, so far, his positive achievements (particularly his wider influence in the region) outweigh the negative ones. Whether they will last remains to be seen. Socialism in isolation is a doubtful concept.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Socialism in isolation is a doubtful concept.

Damn right it is. But do you see it going any other direction as far as Venezuela is concerned? Foreign investment is quickly moving towards relic status down there. And while I'm sure that brings tears of joy to Fidels face, in the end, the people probably aren't going to think it's so fucking peachy.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

This will change little.

Agreed.

Guy

[guy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Damn right it is. But do you see it going any other direction as far as Venezuela is concerned? Foreign investment is quickly moving towards relic status down there. And while I'm sure that brings tears of joy to Fidels face, in the end, the people probably aren't going to think it's so fucking peachy.

If/when the oil money dries up, people are going to wonder where the money all went.

Guy

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

But do you see it going any other direction as far as Venezuela is concerned?

Well, whatever the form of government, South America will always be at a massive disadvantage as long as the USA maintains its supremacy.

[Scott Dolan]

That really doesn't answer my question. Are you trying to hint that should Chavez extend his influence in the region even more that it would lessen the overall isolation?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by guy

If/when the oil money dries up, people are going to wonder where the money all went.

Guy

Maybe at that point they'll ask what all this ruling by decree crap really is.


BTW, good to see you around, guy.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

That really doesn't answer my question. Are you trying to hint that should Chavez extend his influence in the region even more that it would lessen the overall isolation?

Possibly - e.g. the relationship with Evo Morales in Bolivia is a good example - but the long-term odds are stacked against them in a US-led world system.

By the way, neoliberal capitalism effectively rules by decree in the US, so the case is not so different.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Maybe at that point they'll ask what all this ruling by decree crap really is.

We're going to see worse stuff from Chavez to come. "All for the greater good," of course. That said, if Venezuelans like it that way they're welcome to it.

BTW, good to see you around, guy.

Thanks buddy!

Guy

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Possibly - e.g. the relationship with Evo Morales in Bolivia is a good example - but the long-term odds are stacked against them in a US-led world system.

By the way, neoliberal capitalism effectively rules by decree in the US, so the case is not so different.

Normally, I wouldn't ask this (and I don't mean any offense to you by saying that). But can I get you to expand on both of these points?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by guy

We're going to see worse stuff from Chavez to come. "All for the greater good," of course. That said, if Venezuelans like it that way they're welcome to it.

Guy

He is following his mentors lead to the letter, Guy.

It's just sad that the people of his country aren't seeing that.

Reality is a bitch.

[Ron Thorne]

Sadly, Wolfowitz is not gone from the planet . . . yet.

[hornplayer]

Originally Posted by LennyH

Oh, goody. Now he can can re-join the war brain trust.

Did he ever really leave it?

[John L]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

I do not claim to be a 'chavista', but I think that, so far, his positive achievements (particularly his wider influence in the region) outweigh the negative ones. Whether they will last remains to be seen. Socialism in isolation is a doubtful concept.

Socialism without oil is a doubtful concept. Something has to finance all of the waste and inefficiency. It is no accident that a huge drop in oil prices preceded the fall of the iron curtain in Europe.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Normally, I wouldn't ask this (and I don't mean any offense to you by saying that). But can I get you to expand on both of these points?

I'm not sure there's much which requires expanding. The USA has a disproportionately dominant role in international institutions and trade agreements. In the case of South America, there is the attempt by the US to impose the so-called Free Trade Area of the Americas, which Evo Morales has described as 'an agreement to legalise the colonisation of the Americas'. In the classic case of 'do as I say and not as I do' (this applies to the FTAA as well as the WTO), the US wants to force the liberalisation of markets in developing countries while refusing to give up its own agricultural subsidies. At the same time, it wants to extend patent/copyright law so that developing countries would be forced to pay tithes to US corporations to make use of e.g. agricultural technologies (and even patented varieties of crop), reinforcing a dependency from which the US's own historical development was exempt. Chávez and others have tried to combat the FTAA with their own Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, but this has much less international recognition.

As for my point about US politics, to sound like Gary Sisco for a moment, the range of issues which the Democrats and Republicans disagree on is trivial compared to the unspoken and unchallenged consensus on which their mutual power rests (the same is true for most Western democracies).

[Coda]

World Bank Justice
Wolfowitz's resignation offers a window into a corrupt institution.

Friday, May 18, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

So after weeks of nasty leaks and media smears, the World Bank's board of executive directors yesterday cleared President Paul Wolfowitz of ethical misconduct for following the board's own advice on how to handle a conflict of interest involving his girlfriend. And Mr. Wolfowitz in turn will resign from the bank at the end of June. Run that by us again?

We've said from the beginning that the charges against Mr. Wolfowitz were bogus, and that the effort to unseat him amounted to a political grudge by those who opposed his role in the Bush Administration and a bureaucratic vendetta by those who opposed his anti-corruption agenda at the bank. That view was vindicated by yesterday's statement, which showed how little the merits of the case against Mr. Wolfowitz had to do with the final result.

Mr. Wolfowitz "assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that," the directors said, thus rejecting the findings of a rigged investigating committee that had ignored key evidence. The most damning judgment the directors could muster is that "a number of mistakes were made," including by the bank's own ethics committee that had refused to let Mr. Wolfowitz recuse himself from matters involving his girlfriend, Shaha Riza.

In other words, this was all about politics. And all that mattered to Mr. Wolfowitz's accusers was to be rid of him, whatever the pretext or methods. The least they can do now is restore Ms. Riza to her job, assuming she wants to be part of an organization that treated her so shabbily.

This all may pass as World Bank justice. For the rest of us, it has served as a window into an institution that seems to observe no rule other than the interests of the unaccountable mandarins who consider themselves its rightful owners. There have been plenty of outrages in the bank's treatment of Mr. Wolfowitz, but for sheer chutzpah nothing exceeds the argument of last week's report by the investigating committee of the board that he had put the institution "in a bad and unfair light" by daring to defend himself publicly against selective and false media leaks designed to smear him. Had Mr. Wolfowitz taken that advice, he would have been out on his ear without so much as the benefit of the formal acquittal he has now received.

As for the Bush Administration, it might be in a better position now had it defended its man as vigorously as he defended himself. Instead, its officials were slow to understand what was happening and--with the exception of President Bush himself--largely mute as the coup unfolded. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson took the line that the U.S. would allow the bank process to work itself out, when it ought to have been clear that the process itself was rigged.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice remained on the sidelines until the very end, and her reported "quiet diplomacy" on Mr. Wolfowitz's behalf was precisely the wrong way to fight a battle being waged on front pages. Her behavior in this case is reminiscent of her pre-emptive capitulation on the famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union, words that Britain's Butler Report later concluded were "well-founded" but which now are a defining myth of the left's "Bush lied" theology.

Mr. Paulson and Ms. Rice may think that by staying on the sidelines of the Wolfowitz fight they have safeguarded their own political capital. Perhaps, but the precedent being set by Mr. Wolfowitz's departure will damage not just the Bush Administration in the time it has left but U.S. interests for years to come.

An American appointee has been ousted from a multilateral institution by a staff and media cabal on trumped-up charges solely because they disliked Mr. Wolfowitz's priorities. The inmates are now in charge. Yet the U.S. will still be expected to provide the bulk of funding to these institutions--more than 16% at the World Bank--while it cedes de facto control of its operations to a multilateral elite. That's a recipe for declining American influence.

If there is a silver lining here, it is that the public has been able to get a glimpse of how the World Bank works and what it actually accomplishes. Among other lowlights, we've recently been reminded that the bank annually pushes billions in loans to countries like China and Mexico that can easily get credit in private capital markets. We've seen that many of those loans go to projects in places like India or Kenya that are riddled by corruption; the bank may have lost as much as $8 billion to corruption in 25 years of lending to the Suharto regime in Indonesia. We've also learned that the bank funds literally hundreds of projects from Albania to Niger that were ill-conceived and proved to be failures.

We've seen that senior bank personnel, such as former Indonesia country director Dennis de Tray, openly argue that corruption is no big deal and should not get in the way of the bank's "helping people." We've seen how the bank trashed the careers of longstanding and well-regarded employees such as Bahram Mahmoudi, who blew the whistle on a misamanaged project. We've seen how Shengman Zhang, the bank's No. 2 under former President Jim Wolfensohn, seems to think there's nothing amiss with calling for Mr. Wolfowitz's resignation despite the fact that Mr. Zhang's wife was swiftly promoted while working under him.

We've seen how the board of directors apparently covered for one of their own--British Executive Director Tom Scholar--when he was accused of having a conflict of interest because of a personal relationship with an employee at the bank. And we've seen how the bank has served as a well-paid sinecure for out-of-office politicians such as Dutchman Ad Melkert, who has moved comfortably within multilateral institutions making an enviable tax-free salary while performing incompetently and behaving dishonorably.

In a better world, the bank would shrink to perform only its core mission of helping the world's poorest nations. That's not going to happen, however, so the best that President Bush can do now to minimize the damage of the Wolfowitz putsch is by replacing him with someone who shares his agenda and will clean the place up. No European should have a chance to do that given what has transpired, not even Tony Blair. Nor should he name another well known member of the Council on Foreign Relations seminar circuit whom the Europeans and staff can quickly capture.

We've suggested former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who saw first-hand how these institutions function while investigating the U.N.'s Oil for Food scandal. But whoever it is, the core task of Mr. Wolfowitz's successor should be to clean the World Bank stables, or shut it down.

[John L]

That piece is complete bullshit, a total misunderstanding of the situation. To begin with, there was no anti-corruption campaign within the World Bank led by Wolfowitz that could have threatened Bank management: none at all.

Facing accusations that he lacked his own agenda and was only continuing the anti-poverty campaign of his predecessor, Wolfowitz decided to become the "anti-corruption tsar," and proposed a huge reallocation of resources away from poverty reduction programs toward corruption reduction programs (NOT corruption within the World Bank, but corruption in countries where the World Bank works). When he submitted these plans to the Bank board, they were received very negatively for the simple reasons that some of the poverty reduction programs facing cuts had delivered results, there did not yet exist any anti-corruption programs to evaluate from the point of view of cost-benefit (we'll reallocate the money now and think up the programs later), and there was little to no consultation within the World Bank on this change in priorities. It was all decided in the context of the small entourage of outsiders that Wolfowitz had surrounded himself with in the Bank.

When the World Bank board responded negatively to Wolfowitz's poorly though-out proposal, Wolfowitz sent his dirty-compaign trained PR men to the mass media to smear the Bank board, deliberately distorting the facts to suggest that the anti-corruption campaign was aimed at reducing corruption WITHIN the World Bank. Believe me, there was no such initiative or proposed program.

Yes, the recent scandal was, far and away, not the only reason why World Bank management and most member countries wanted to dump Wolfowitz. But the notion that corrupt managers in the World Bank feared that Wolfowitz would expose them is pure bullshit, plain and simple.

[Gary Sisco]

What has become of the oh-so-powerful neocons, so powerful that is absurd to think they can be overcome?

He'll not be back anywhere near the Pentagon -- there is already an officers' revolt going on, as well as an enlisted revolt.

He'll find a place to sit his soft ass in front of a computer like his fellow neocons, who for a considerable time into the future, will chew each other up in journals and such that only they read or care about. And in time, they will die off.

But their days in power in the US are over and done.

Thank goodness. The lamest ever ducks.

Bye bye.

Next.

[crawjo]

That's too bad. He had the support of the African nations, who are always getting screwed over by the World Bank.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

He stayed too long, IMO. With his croneyism, he committed the kind of failure we're always attributing to the recipients of WB funds. No excuse for that.

Since when does a Republican in good standing have a problem with cronyism?