Wolfowitz Hanging By A Thread

Paul D Wolfowitz has already been partially responsible for the wholesale destruction of Iraq, as one of THE major architects of the Iraq War debacle, now he is destroying the World Bank.

World Bank Panel Finds Wolfowitz at Fault; Aide Resigns
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, May 7 — A committee of World Bank directors has formally notified Paul D. Wolfowitz that they found him to be guilty of a conflict of interest in arranging for a pay raise and promotion for Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, in 2005. The findings stepped up the pressure on Mr. Wolfowitz to resign.

The contents of the panel’s findings were not made public. People who are familiar with the panel’s report said that it reviewed extensive documents and testimony before concluding that Mr. Wolfowitz breached his obligations in arranging for Ms. Riza’s reassignment from the bank to the State Department.

The report, as transmitted to Mr. Wolfowitz, did not recommend a punishment for Mr. Wolfowitz. Bank officials, speaking anonymously because the proceedings are supposed to be confidential, said that the special committee was still working today on what to recommend.

It was not clear whether the committee, consisting of 7 of the bank’s 24 board members, would remove Mr. Wolfowitz from his post or, more likely, express a loss of confidence in his leadership in a manner that might persuade him to resign. Bank officials say that a majority of the bank board has concluded that he should go.

In another sign of Mr. Wolfowitz’s difficulties, his top communications aide, Kevin Kellems, resigned today, saying that “the current environment surrounding the leadership” at the bank made it “very difficult to be effective in helping to advance the mission of the institution.”

Mr. Kellems said in a written statement that he had “tremendous respect and admiration” for the bank’s staff. He made no mention of Mr. Wolfowitz, with whom he had a close association when the bank president was deputy secretary of defense.

European officials at the bank said that if Mr. Wolfowitz resigns, either now or some time in the future, Europeans may be willing to let the United States continue to exercise its customary prerogative of choosing the next bank president.

Since the bank was established as part of the post-World War II global economic architecture in a conference at Bretton Woods, N.H., the United States has always chosen the bank’s president, in part because it has always had the largest single share of voting rights at the bank, currently 16.4 percent.

A senior European official said that Europeans have informally told Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. that many of their governments, some of whom asked for the custom to be discarded in 2005, would now renew their demand, especially if Mr. Wolfowitz is forced out by a vote of the bank board.

This official said that the overwhelming sentiment in Europe, as expressed in editorials, political commentaries and even web logs, was that European governments should never again let the United States pick the president of the World Bank all by itself.

In addition, the Europeans say that they have begun signaling their intention of aiding African countries and other poor nations through their own development agencies, rather than through the World Bank or its principal vehicle for aid to the poorest countries, known as the International Development Agency.

The bank estimates that there are now about 230 separate government and non-government organizations that channel aid to the poorest countries, resulting in a splintering of aid programs that have created duplications and contradictions.

Some officials at the bank said that despite the antipathy toward Mr. Wolfowitz among members of the bank board, they will probably take their cue from the finance and development ministries in their home countries. These ministries, in turn, may be guided by the wishes of the political leadership of their nations.

Technically, it is the bank’s 24-member board of executive directors that has the power to choose, remove or reprimand a bank president. Each director represents either a single country or a “constituency” of countries that vote as a bloc after polling their home governments.
Bank officials say that as of now, only the United States, Japan and Canada would vote in favor of Mr. Wolfowitz. They represent less than 30 percent of the voting shares. Most other directors are reported to be willing to vote against Mr. Wolfowitz, though some countries, mainly in Africa, are said to be wavering.

Mr. Kellems’s departure leaves another top aide to Mr. Wolfowitz, Robin Cleveland, still in place. Both Mr. Kellems and Ms. Cleveland have been the focus of complaints from the bank’s staff over their unusually high salaries — about $250,000 each — and unusual level of control at the bank.

Ms. Cleveland remains at the bank, but officials said that she moved out of her office just outside Mr. Wolfowitz’s last week, and into a smaller office elsewhere at the bank headquarters.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Bush in the Bunker, Having A Major Whiney Rant

Bush In The Bunker (28 comments )


I doubt President Bush is drinking again (although with him, anything is possible). That being said Bush probably feels like he is living in a pressure cooker (one of his own making, I hasten to add). And it appears he is not happy with it!

From tonight's uber-insider Washington newsletter, The Nelson Report:

Sometimes insider gossip seems to confirm what all us outsiders think we're seeing, so, for what it's worth...we're hearing that some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he's doing things would be OK...etc., etc.

This is called a "bunker mentality" and it's not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.

Its relevance to various current issues is all too obvious, including the fate of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. Ask anyone at or close to the Bank, and you know, just as a professional, that Wolfowitz's effectiveness is finished, no matter what. But there are now other issues in play, assuming you think that the US role in selecting the Bank leadership remains important.

Here's a private comment summing up the entire situation, from a Loyal Reader out in the real world of the Rocky Mountains, who happens to be a lifetime Republican, and a business person. We pass it along, as it is representative of comments we get ALL the time from Republican friends...a mixture of hyperbole, irony, and angst...and is thus a cautionary tale in itself:
Sometimes I am tempted to feel sorry for Republicans like this, but then I remember that in the aftermath of 9/11 they choose tax-cuts and short-term partisan gain over national unity and then I realize they are and will get their just desserts.

As Nelson's interlocutor writes:

"You know, if Bush would stop his self-indulgent stubbornness for half a day, he could see plain as day that he has an opportunity to retain American control of the World Bank by easing Wolfie out. If he tries to keep Wolfie in that spot, American control could end.

I really wonder whether his failure to distinguish between necessary toughness and catastrophically shoot-ourselves-(America)-in-our-foot pigheadedness results from biological anomaly. His inability to harvest experience, and so to think and form successful judgements, is just so inexplicable".

Actually it's not inexplicable at all. See, Bush's interests--his legacy, his leverage vis-a-vis Congress and the like--diverge starkly from those of the U.S., the World Bank and the international community insofar as this: if it doesn't benefit Bush or rebound to him in some positive way--most often only in a short term, expedient political sense--it's not worth the effort.

But I digress. Back to Nelson:

Assuming the Europeans want Wolfowitz out badly enough to compromise with the White House on his replacement, ARE there qualified Republican players available, at this point? One might be tempted to remind Bush that then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick wanted the Bank very much, and one might be tempted to add that Zoellick would have been a perfect choice professionally and personally...one who would never have embarrassed himself, the President, and his country, as Wolfowitz seems intent on doing.

One would probably be wrong to remind Bush of all this, and in any event, indicators are Zoellick rather enjoys making a zillion dollars as a big time investment banker, and so maybe he's not available.

One might then be tempted to suggest the former Asia Subcommittee chair, Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican whose defeat last Fall came almost entirely due to the war in Iraq, and who would be seen by most of the rest of the world as a superb choice from his days as a Foreign Service officer, and his three decades in the House, during which he served on both Foreign Affairs and, if memory serves, the Banking Committee.

Of course Leach is a "liberal Republican"...an endangered species, and not one generally found south of the Pecos River...and he was a persistent critic of Bush North Korea policy until the White House finally took his advice, and let Asst. Sec. State Chris Hill actually practice diplomacy. Leach is probably still waiting for the thank-you call on that.

But if temperament, talent, and training has anything to do with it, and with Wolfowitz now absolutely untenable, perhaps the White House might want to give Leach a call, over in his Wilson Center office. Just a suggestion.

But I imagine the White House will probably call Doug Feith, John Bolton or maybe even crazy Curt Weldon to run the bank when Wolfowitz goes. For Bush it's always about Bush's short-term political gain and nothing more.

Steve Clemons has thoughts on this too.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free

Pressure Mounts on Wolfowitz To Resign

By Deborah Haynes

LONDON (Reuters) - A group of top former World Bank executives has urged Paul Wolfowitz to resign, as the bank's watchdog warned his actions were undermining the ability of the institution to carry out development work.

The 42 senior executives wrote a letter to the Financial Times, published on Monday, advising Wolfowitz to give up the presidency for the good of the bank following a controversy over the promotion of his girlfriend.

"We believe that he can no longer be an effective leader," said the letter, which was signed by former World Bank No. 2 under Wolfowitz Shengman Zhang, amongst others.

"He has lost the trust and respect of bank staff at all levels, provoked a rift among senior managers, developed tense relations with the board, damaged his own credibility on good governance -- his flagship issue -- and alienated some key shareholders at a time when their support is essential for a successful replenishment of the resources needed to help the poorest countries, especially in Africa."

The letter concluded: "There is only one way for Wolfowitz to further the mission of the bank: he should resign."

Upping the pressure on Wolfowitz, a former deputy defense secretary who helped plan the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) issued a critical statement that was carried on the FT's Web site.

The newspaper said the "formal statement" would be considered by the World Bank's board this week. Continued...


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free