Additional articles on Wolfowitz

The Wolfowitz Touch - or how to lose US credibility
ST, 18/05/07
Leon Hadar
Washington Correspondent

One of the maxims that you learn in Politics 101 is that exerting leadership doesn't require the use of coercion and force, and that in fact the most successful politicians and statesmen are those who can defend and advance their goals through guidance and persuasion. When heads of state resort to ordering the police to quell demonstrators opposed to their decisions or to dispatching the military to press another state that challenges their policies, they acknowledge that they have failed in utilising their power in the most cost-effective way.

Indeed, whether it's in the domestic arena or on the global stage, leader shave an interest in keeping their tools of coercion - ranging from threats and sanctions to the actual use of force - as instruments of last resort when all else, including negotiations and diplomacy, has failed. That when he talks - as opposed to when he bullies - they listen, is the true testimony to one's influence at home or abroad. Hence, being a global power doesn't mean that you have to bomb other governments into submission to get your point across; it suggests that being aware of your status and recognising your credibility, whenother governments make decisions, they have to take into consideration the way they affect your interests.

Paul Wolfowitz has a PhD in political science from a prestigious American academic institution and he fancies himself a great strategic thinker. But the former deputy to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and currently embattled head ofthe World Bank must have skipped the classes when these basic political principles were being taught. If anything, during his tenure at the Department of Defense, where he servedas a leading architect of the war in Iraq, and in the short period when he led one of the world's most important development agencies, Mr Wolfowitz demonstrated that from his perspective, guidance and persuasion should be the instruments of last resort when you try to advance your interests. First, use coercion and force as you attempt to bully your opponent into submission, and if it's a foreign government, bomb it into the Stone Age. And if that doesn't work, well, then you might want to talk and try to use the tools of negotiations and diplomacy to achieve your goals.

Compare this 'shoot first, talk later' modus operandi that Mr Wolfowitz and his neo-conservative colleagues used as they tried to promote their preemptive and unilateral strategy in the Middle East and elsewhere, with the policies that were embraced by Washington during the two terms of former President BillClinton.

The 1990s, as you recall, were the years when America, the world's only remaining superpower, reigned supreme, its international credibility at anall-time high, and its sources of soft and hard power, ranging from SiliconValley and Microsoft through Hollywood and Wall Street to the World Bank and the Pentagon, making it possible to project its influence here, there andeverywhere.

In a way, by applying US military power in a very selective way - through air power in the former Yugoslavia, for example - the Clintonites helped to maintain it as deterrence against potential threats.

But when President George W Bush, operating under the influence of Mr Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives aides, decided to use US military might to its utmost, the limits operating on that power were suddenly exposed, eroding US credibility and diminishing its ability to deter foes while encouraging them to go nuclear. At the end of the day, it proved to be a policy that wasted precious US power.

Mr Wolfowitz, who as a reward for his failure in the Pentagon, landed up in the prestigious job of the president of the World Bank, embraced the same kind of bullying strategy there. He had brought with him Republican operators with no experience in international development, extracted huge financial packages for them, for his mistress and for himself, while at the same time he tried to force on the bank his 'anti-corruption' policy with the same kind of elegance that he exhibited when he set out to impose 'democracy' on Iraq and the Broader Middle East.

The Wolfowitz Touch - reflecting unilateralism, arrogance and disdain forallies and rules of public conduct - in the World Bank has had the same disastrous impact on US global status that resulted from his policies in Iraq.

It helped highlight a reality that Washington has tried to hide under therug for years: Assigning the job of the president of the World Bank to an American is not an element in a pre-determined cosmic plan but part of a diplomatic deal with the Europeans. And by naming the incompetent Mr Wolfowitz to that position, the White House contributed not only to the growing perception that perhaps the Americans don't deserve to hold that job anymore, but also to the continuing erosion in US global credibility. It is one more example of how not to use your power, unless you want to lose it.

US rushes to safe Wolfowitz after panel's damning report
ST, 16/05/07
Derwin Pereira

The Bush administration was fighting to save World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz’s job before he met the bank’s board yesterday, following a damning internal report on his conduct.

Declaring that Mr Wolfowitz had caused a “crisis in leadership” at the bank, its 24-member executive board was mulling over a range of disciplinary options that included sacking him or asking him to resign.

A special bank panel had said his involvement in securing an improper pay and promotion deal for his Libyan-born girlfriend Shaha Riza, a fellow bankemployee, represented a conflict of interest. It broke bank rules and the ethical obligations in his contract.

It also noted that he had tried to hide the salary and promotion package offered to Ms Riza from top bank officials in the months after he became bank president in 2005.

“Mr Wolfowitz’s contract requiring that he adhere to the code of conduct for board officials and that he avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent, was violated,” it said.

And in what the panel described as the “central theme” of the matter, it said Mr Wolfowitz “saw himself as the outsider to whom the established rules and standards did not apply”.

But the man at the centre of the storm appeared to be digging in a bitter fight to the end, accusing his adversaries of carrying out a “smear campaign”. In a response to the panel’s report, he said: “It is highly unfair and unwarranted to now find that I engaged in a conflict of interest because I relied on the advice of the ethics committee as best as I understood it.”

The affair has dragged on for more than a month and has divided the bank’s 185 member states, with the US standing by one of its key architects in the Iraq war, and European governments pushing for his early exit.

The White House yesterday acknowledged that Mr Wolfowitz had made mistakes in his handling of the affair, but insisted that it was no reason to fire him.

“We’ve made clear that we support Paul Wolfowitz,” spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. “He has said – and we agree – that certainly, a lot of mistakes were made in the personnel process. But it’s not a firing offence.”

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and other senior officials continued to lobby key finance ministers to support Mr Wolfowitz, blaming the controversy on missteps “on all sides”.

A senior board official said yesterday that Mr Wolfowitz still had a chance of rescuing his job, depending on whether he could present a clear plan for rebuilding his credibility when he appears before the executive board later in the day.

It is unlikely to make a final decision before today as it weighs the panel’s findings.

But speculation as to who might succeed Mr Wolfowitz has already begun.

Media reports put former US trade representative and deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick at the top of the list.

Time for Wolfowitz to go
ST, 01/05/07
Derwin Pereira

As Paul Wolfowitz continues to resist the growing pressure on him to resign as World Bank president, it is becoming clear that the efforts by the ex-Bushadministration official to hold on to his position in this important development agency is eroding the bank's credibility - especially on the central policy issues of good governance and anti-corruption in the developing world.

The crisis over Mr Wolfowitz's future in the bank revolves around the accusations that he made arrangements for his romantic companion Shaha Ali Riza when she was detailed from the bank to the US State Department (where she now makes double the salary of her boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice).

This revelation came on top of his placement of political Republican functionaries with no background of international development in his office (where they were rewarded with huge salaries).

In addition, many of the bank's executive boardmembers and staff have accused Mr Wolfowitz of adopting an authoritarian management style, of dismissing advice and squashing dissent. Ironically, these charges of unethical professional conduct recall the same kind of allegations of favouritism and nepotism that Mr Wolfowitz has been levelling against leaders and officials in developing countries.

In fact, he has threatened to cut loans to them as part of the ambitious anti-corruption campaign that he adopted. American neo-conservatives allege that his critics are motivated by their disdain for US President George W Bush and his policies in Iraq.

It is certainly true that as one of the leading architects and cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, Mr Wolfowitz's decisions resulted in a disastrous war for America. But that is really irrelevant to his current difficulties. The issue now is his own inability to live up to the standards of public conduct he set for the others.

This affair provides an opportunity for the members of the bank to reconsider the long-held expectation that the job of heading this international development agency should go to an American, and to study the idea that theselection process should be open competition. After all, the president ofthe World Bank is recruited by a 24-member board that represents the 185 governments that control the bank. The US has the largest vote, reflecting its 'ownership' of 16 per cent of the bank's capital.

But the tradition of nominating an American for president is a result of a deal with the Europeans, under which their representative has been assigned the leadership position in the International Monetary Fund (IMF). But the emerging economies, especially in Asia, should challenge this division of spoils between the Americans and the Europeans, and demand consideration of a non-American for the presidency of thebank.

It may be doubtful that the Bush administration would welcome such a dramatic change in status of the US in the World Bank. But, at a minimum,Washington should accept the consensus that seems to be emerging in the other world capitals that Mr Wolfowitz's departure has become a precondition for any serious effort to restore the bank's credibility.

Wolfowitz a convenient distraction
ST, 21/04/07

The scandal which has engulfed Mr Paul Wolfowitz, the president of the WorldBank, is a classic example that even great people are capable of doing pretty silly things.

He must have known that his involvement in securing a huge salary hike for girlfriend Shaha Riza would sooner or later come into the open.

The man who only last autumn lectured everyone in Singapore about the vices of corruption is now exposed as someone who has allegedly used his position toadvance his own private interests.

Unsurprisingly, his tenure now hangs by a thread; the decision of one of his two senior deputies to call publicly for his resignation is probably more wounding than the “great concern” expressed by the bank’s oversight committee about his deeds.

But concentration on his predicament should not be carried too far. For there is a danger that far more serious political games will be played behind the scenes.

An indication that countries may already be using the scandal for otherpurposes came last week, during the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Those meetings were supposed to discuss global financial and trade imbalances. But, instead of dealing with such thorny issues as the exchange rate of China’s yuan or the huge US budget deficit, everyone preferred to talk about Mr Wolfowitz. It was the easy way out, but hardly a contribution to economic stability.

Mr Wolfowitz has been leading a drive to raise US$25 billion (S$38 billion) from rich donors to sustain development funding for the poorest countries. The Europeans have seized on his misfortune as an excuse for scuppering the entire idea.

The struggles against corruption and poverty remain important. It is just that Mr Wolfowitz is no longer the appropriate man to lead them.

World Bank chief responds to attacks on him: I'm not quitting
ST, 17/04/07
Derwin Pereira

A defiant World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz dug in his heels over a favouritism scam, declaring on Sunday that he would not resign despite a public dressing-down by European ministers and senior bank officials.

In a strongly worded communique, a high-level steering committee delivered an unprecedented attack that deepened uncertainty over Mr Wolfowitz’s future and threw into even greater doubt his ability to lead the institution.

“The current situation is of great concern to all of us,” the committee, which oversees both the bank and the International Monetary Fund, noted. “We have to ensure that the bank can effectively carry out its mandate and maintain its credibility and reputation as well as the motivation of its staff. We expect the bank to adhere to a high standard of internal governance.”

That statement was hardly the vote of confidence Mr Wolfowitz needed following last week’s revolt by World Bank staff, who demanded his resignation over allegations that he played a direct role in granting a hefty pay rise and promotion to his Libyan-born girlfriend, who worked in the bank.

The former US deputy secretary of defence continued to put up a front of bravado.He told a news conference after the release of the communique: “Look, I believe in the mission of this organisation, and I believe I can carry it out.”He said a decision on the controversy should be left to the bank’s board of member countries.

“We need to work our way through this,” he said. “The board is looking into thematter and we’ll let them complete their work.”

If the steering committee has delivered a stinging indictment of Mr Wolfowitz, the bank’s executive board is likely to further undercut his credibility to run the organisation when it delivers its recommendations.

Giving a glimpse of what to expect in its final report – which some speculate could be out in a week – the 24-member board released incriminating documents last Friday that gave him less room to manoeuvre.

The board acts as a kind of legislature setting policies as a counterweight to the president. In some ways, Mr Wolfowitz’s last two years in office have resembled a tug-of-war between two branches of government.

The board usually decides matters by consensus, but its power centres are the United States, Japan and Europe, the largest donors to its programmes. European members are likely to play a key role in determining whether Mr Wolfowitz keeps his job. They have long had doubts about his suitability to be bank president and have clashed with him over his emphasis on rooting out corruption in developing countries and holding up loans for countries with poor governance records.

Mr Wolfowitz’s defiance on Sunday might well further convince European donors like Britain, France and Germany that he needed to step aside for the good of the bank.

But voting power is based on shares in the bank.

The US, with 16 per cent, has the largest share, making it customary for the White House to nominate the bank president. It also means it is imperative that the major donor countries consult President George W. Bush if there is a decision to remove Mr Wolfowitz.

US support, however, is not assured. Despite its public backing for the beleaguered bank chief, Washington surprisingly went along with the communique criticising him.

The thinking among bank officials and analysts is that the board and the world’s finance ministers are unlikely to force him out in a putsch. What is likely to happen is that they would issue a strong reprimand over his involvement in the scam.

That would tear apart his credibility further and leave him no option but to quit.