Wolfowitz Crash Lands
Rizwan Ghani
April 14, 2007
For today there is little to reject the opinion that Wolfowtiz’s days are numbered and the clock is ticking.
Out of nowhere Paul Wolfowitz has made a crash landing at the international scene and almost stole the center stage from battered Gonzales already struggling to memorize attorney firings “timeline” for his “irrelevant” April 17 testimony.
The incumbent World Bank chief struggling to save his job couldn’t have picked a worst time from White House perspective where thanks to top presidential aides “Emailgate” scandal is in the offing as Sen. Leahy is all revved up for already scheduled Senate Judiciary hearing.
The WB 25 member board is considering Wolfowitz’s involvement in the issue of pay raise for a female WB employee that is widely being perceived as illegal under bank policy and the board is expected to reach a decision in near future.
International community watching the event closely is divided into two groups; the first group believes the reports that Wolfowitz inherited the issue and only acted on the instruction of ethics committee and may not be in for big trouble.
The second group however believes that even if that spin is taken on its face value still he has violated his own preaching to the bank about transparency and integrity as part of good governance.
During his early days in the Bank following his own policy he had been cutting aid to corrupt countries despite the fact that WB did not go to such extreme measures in its bid to eradicate poverty.
Ironically Wolfowitz by not following his own yardstick has fallen on his own sword. And even a rare apology from Wolfowitz has failed to change his public perception covered in the hue of his days as the architect of “Iraq” and its fate. Will the apology affect the board? One never knows.
Mortally” wounded with little credibility and lost moral stature Wolfowitz like rest of the world awaits his own exit. In all probability the last act of episode has already been enacted in Wolfowitz;s meeting with WB staff in which booing of some 200 staff forced their head to leave. Reportedly, visibly shaken Wolfowitz abruptly left the meeting.
Despite Bush’s support for Wolfowitz it is believed that White House may not be willing to spend its political capital to back WB president to save his job. There are reports that he might run back to Blair who played an instrumental role to help him land this job in the first place. To some may be Blair can do little at this stage because in all probability he himself is searching for Midas touch.
Reporteldy, Wolfowitz has failed to garner support for his future and reportedly the number of those distancing themselves from him is growing by the hours.
In all probability even if Wolfowitz survives the scandal his presence as head of WB will be more of a liability. Something that he may not survive in the long run. Therefore, in all probability Wolfowitz will resign voluntarily in coming days or asked to do in the interest of WB.
This assertion rests on the reports coming from Europe and views by people holding important position who believes that with little experience of handling affairs at the scale of WB, Wolfowitz was never an asset to the bank.
And like John Bolton, US representative to UN it was only matter of time that Wolfowitz had to leave WB. And may be that time has come for his departure. Scandal may be just an excuse to rid the bank of his policies and differences.
Reportedly , difference of opinion between WB and Wolfowitz widened after his attempt to establish WB office in Iraq. It was a violation of Banks standing policy that prohibits operation in conflict zone.
To some he as head of WB tried to work as an extension of White House to support Iraq war instead of focusing on institution’s aims and objectives. An act that wasn’t forgotten by the entire institution. To some it might tilt the scale against him for one last time.
Reportedly, Wolfowitz’s working style has more to do with his likely departure than the scandal itself. Unlike Kofi Anan who despite all efforts survived the corruption allegations involving his son because UN as whole backed him. In case of Wolfowitz that is missing. His over reliance on inner circle of two aides and ignoring of bank’s policies are equally responsible for his current condition.
As a neo-conservative his reported fiddling with family planning policy has been a sore issue. With reports of Conservatives already spending some 176 million on sex abstinence education his attempt to review the policy sent a wrong signal to the liberal Europe that is overtly possessive about individual rights.
As head of the WB Wolfowitz had no real plan to alleviate poverty, fight corruption and make the institution viable in changing global economic circumstances. Especially, in the developing world that takes WB more of a subsidiary to Washington’s foreign policy tool than actually focusing on poverty alleviation. Suspension of Uzbek WB programme is case in point.
In developing countries corrupt regimes pocket funds while local populations are left indebted to such institutions for generations. Despite his calls to bring an end to such practices little has changed on ground. Poor countries headed by repressive and unaccountable regimes are gobbling or siphoning such loans and aids to strengthen their regimes instead of completing mega projects.
The bank itself done little in this regard to improve its image or even efficiency. Therefore, if and when Wolfowitz departs the banks own challenges will not decimate overnight. It needs input, initiative and commitment.
In the immediate terms starting from the scheduled WB meeting (that may well have been delayed) to find consensus way out over currency rates and hedge fund regulations. Similarly, resolve difference in G7 over reported trillion dollar hedge fund industry where lucrative, but high risk investments are drawing serious cash from big banks and public pension funds.
In the long terms it needs to the cut poverty at global level in light of its objectives. There is also a need to review the current policy reportedly that believes that fighting poverty has to come first, even if that means dealing with countries whose leaders are not above skimming a few million dollars along the way.
At least on this part Wolfwitz was justified in having his differences with the WB leadership. Ultimately these millions are used to deny constitutional and human rights, support nepotism and strengthen illegal and corrupt regimes using WB funds. Instead WB should put in place a strict monitoring system including issuance of warrants for financial irregularities to bring an end to such culture and ensure utility of funds in accordance to agreed parameters. In face of endemic embezzlements and corruption transparency in utility of WB funds is the only realistic hope for poverty alleviation in this age.
Despite his correct observations about misuse of WB loans and aid at mega scale Wolfowitz failed to use his influence with the White House and personal relations with Bush to make a difference in life of ordinary people in Asia, Africa or for that matter in other parts of the world where WB is operating.
Finally, the way things are unraveling it appears that Republicans and Bush are fast losing their share of say in places of influence and ironically in most cases they are etching their fate with their own hands. To some it is beginning of the end for Wolfowitz despite assertions that he is tough and will come back. Who knows, because no one has seen tomorrow? But for today there is little to reject the opinion that Wolfowtiz’s days are numbered and the clock is ticking. The only suspense is timing.
Out of nowhere Paul Wolfowitz has made a crash landing at the international scene and almost stole the center stage from battered Gonzales already struggling to memorize attorney firings “timeline” for his “irrelevant” April 17 testimony.
The incumbent World Bank chief struggling to save his job couldn’t have picked a worst time from White House perspective where thanks to top presidential aides “Emailgate” scandal is in the offing as Sen. Leahy is all revved up for already scheduled Senate Judiciary hearing.
The WB 25 member board is considering Wolfowitz’s involvement in the issue of pay raise for a female WB employee that is widely being perceived as illegal under bank policy and the board is expected to reach a decision in near future.
International community watching the event closely is divided into two groups; the first group believes the reports that Wolfowitz inherited the issue and only acted on the instruction of ethics committee and may not be in for big trouble.
The second group however believes that even if that spin is taken on its face value still he has violated his own preaching to the bank about transparency and integrity as part of good governance.
During his early days in the Bank following his own policy he had been cutting aid to corrupt countries despite the fact that WB did not go to such extreme measures in its bid to eradicate poverty.
Ironically Wolfowitz by not following his own yardstick has fallen on his own sword. And even a rare apology from Wolfowitz has failed to change his public perception covered in the hue of his days as the architect of “Iraq” and its fate. Will the apology affect the board? One never knows.
Mortally” wounded with little credibility and lost moral stature Wolfowitz like rest of the world awaits his own exit. In all probability the last act of episode has already been enacted in Wolfowitz;s meeting with WB staff in which booing of some 200 staff forced their head to leave. Reportedly, visibly shaken Wolfowitz abruptly left the meeting.
Despite Bush’s support for Wolfowitz it is believed that White House may not be willing to spend its political capital to back WB president to save his job. There are reports that he might run back to Blair who played an instrumental role to help him land this job in the first place. To some may be Blair can do little at this stage because in all probability he himself is searching for Midas touch.
Reporteldy, Wolfowitz has failed to garner support for his future and reportedly the number of those distancing themselves from him is growing by the hours.
In all probability even if Wolfowitz survives the scandal his presence as head of WB will be more of a liability. Something that he may not survive in the long run. Therefore, in all probability Wolfowitz will resign voluntarily in coming days or asked to do in the interest of WB.
This assertion rests on the reports coming from Europe and views by people holding important position who believes that with little experience of handling affairs at the scale of WB, Wolfowitz was never an asset to the bank.
And like John Bolton, US representative to UN it was only matter of time that Wolfowitz had to leave WB. And may be that time has come for his departure. Scandal may be just an excuse to rid the bank of his policies and differences.
Reportedly , difference of opinion between WB and Wolfowitz widened after his attempt to establish WB office in Iraq. It was a violation of Banks standing policy that prohibits operation in conflict zone.
To some he as head of WB tried to work as an extension of White House to support Iraq war instead of focusing on institution’s aims and objectives. An act that wasn’t forgotten by the entire institution. To some it might tilt the scale against him for one last time.
Reportedly, Wolfowitz’s working style has more to do with his likely departure than the scandal itself. Unlike Kofi Anan who despite all efforts survived the corruption allegations involving his son because UN as whole backed him. In case of Wolfowitz that is missing. His over reliance on inner circle of two aides and ignoring of bank’s policies are equally responsible for his current condition.
As a neo-conservative his reported fiddling with family planning policy has been a sore issue. With reports of Conservatives already spending some 176 million on sex abstinence education his attempt to review the policy sent a wrong signal to the liberal Europe that is overtly possessive about individual rights.
As head of the WB Wolfowitz had no real plan to alleviate poverty, fight corruption and make the institution viable in changing global economic circumstances. Especially, in the developing world that takes WB more of a subsidiary to Washington’s foreign policy tool than actually focusing on poverty alleviation. Suspension of Uzbek WB programme is case in point.
In developing countries corrupt regimes pocket funds while local populations are left indebted to such institutions for generations. Despite his calls to bring an end to such practices little has changed on ground. Poor countries headed by repressive and unaccountable regimes are gobbling or siphoning such loans and aids to strengthen their regimes instead of completing mega projects.
The bank itself done little in this regard to improve its image or even efficiency. Therefore, if and when Wolfowitz departs the banks own challenges will not decimate overnight. It needs input, initiative and commitment.
In the immediate terms starting from the scheduled WB meeting (that may well have been delayed) to find consensus way out over currency rates and hedge fund regulations. Similarly, resolve difference in G7 over reported trillion dollar hedge fund industry where lucrative, but high risk investments are drawing serious cash from big banks and public pension funds.
In the long terms it needs to the cut poverty at global level in light of its objectives. There is also a need to review the current policy reportedly that believes that fighting poverty has to come first, even if that means dealing with countries whose leaders are not above skimming a few million dollars along the way.
At least on this part Wolfwitz was justified in having his differences with the WB leadership. Ultimately these millions are used to deny constitutional and human rights, support nepotism and strengthen illegal and corrupt regimes using WB funds. Instead WB should put in place a strict monitoring system including issuance of warrants for financial irregularities to bring an end to such culture and ensure utility of funds in accordance to agreed parameters. In face of endemic embezzlements and corruption transparency in utility of WB funds is the only realistic hope for poverty alleviation in this age.
Despite his correct observations about misuse of WB loans and aid at mega scale Wolfowitz failed to use his influence with the White House and personal relations with Bush to make a difference in life of ordinary people in Asia, Africa or for that matter in other parts of the world where WB is operating.
Finally, the way things are unraveling it appears that Republicans and Bush are fast losing their share of say in places of influence and ironically in most cases they are etching their fate with their own hands. To some it is beginning of the end for Wolfowitz despite assertions that he is tough and will come back. Who knows, because no one has seen tomorrow? But for today there is little to reject the opinion that Wolfowtiz’s days are numbered and the clock is ticking. The only suspense is timing.
Print
Email
