Despite vehement protests by Paul Wolfowitz that he has not been not given enough time to counter accusations that he broke ethic rules, World Bank’s panel pressed ahead with its investigations yesterday. Wolfowitz not only criticized the ‘committee’ for not giving him an adequate amount of time, but also accused it of turning the public opinion against him by frequently leaking its findings.
Wolfowitz’s lawyer, Robert S. Benett, issued a written statement on his client’s behalf stating:
The inability of the committee to control leaks about its draft conclusions is very harmful, not just to Mr. Wolfowitz personally but to the institution. The appearance that people are prejudging the outcome of the process weakens bank governance and disrespects both the board and the process.
Regarding the period in which Wolfowitz had been asked to respond, Benett said, ‘This is terribly unfair.’ Although, initially response time was set at one day, Benett managed to gain a day’s extension. But he still maintained that this was too short a period, referring to a five-day period which is otherwise given to staff to respond to internal investigations. It is suitable to mention here that Wolfowitz was given a 600-page report by panel late Sunday and was asked to come up with his explanation by yesterday.
Crumbling support
The calls for a speedy verdict on Wolfowitz’s alleged malpractices, have gained strength over the past few weeks. With Panel’s deliberations nearing the outcome, it seems that WB’s President has lost all support within the bank. Even his aides have resigned recently. Several European nations are rallying the board opinion against Wolfowitz. Belgium’s finance minister, Didier Reynders said:
It is impossible to go around the world speaking about good governance without good governance at the World Bank.
The German Director on the board, Eckhard Deutscher, has apparently been instructed to ensure Wolfowitz’s ouster before Chancellor Merkel hosts a Berlin forum on Africa in two weeks.
Washington’s unwavering support
Whilst most of the European countries have condemned Wolfowitz’s misadventures, Washington continues to support its trusted diplomat. President Bush’s spokesman, Tony Snow, reaffirmed this fact and said:
We still support President Wolfowitz. The conversations right now are not between the administration and the World Bank. I think it’s proper to let the process (Panel’s discussions) work itself out rather than trying to insinuate ourselves in it.
Europe versus America
As expected, this story has unfolded into a battle for supremacy between the blocs that control the premier lending institutions of the world. Europe, traditionally, has nominated the president of the IMF, while Washington nominates the president of the World Bank. The battle is not restricted to Paul Wolfowitz’s tenure only; rather, it has snowballed into a tug of war with each side trying to get ascendancy. It is an ideal time to scrap the antiquated practice of conservation of the right to nominate presidents and replace it with selection based on merit.
America obviously would not be pleased at the prospect of its nominee being shown the door. This would set dangerous precedent. At the same time, there is a much larger issue of improving the tainted reputation of World Bank. This sets the stage for a compromise in which Wolfowitz may be asked to step down on the precondition that Washington be allowed choose his successor.
The Panel is expected to come to a conclusion within two or three days. For me (or for that matter Wolfowitz) the writing is on the wall. Time to go...
