An interesting item by Tom Regan on the US National Public Radio blog points out that while our own Daily Telegraph and Guardian and Germany’s Der Spiegel all focus heavily on the negative aspects of the World Bank investigators’ report on Paul Wolfowitz’s conduct, both the Washington Post and the New York Times take the opposite line, giving prominence to Wolfowitz’s rebuttal of the accusation that he mishandled the issue of his girlfriend’s promotion and pay rise. Clearly the facts of the story are becoming buried under waves of anti-Us and anti-neocon sentiment; but clearly also, Wolfowitz was a hugely provocative appointment at the Bank in the first place and has failed to win even the grudging respect of many of his senior colleagues and board members. Nor has he had any significant reported impact on the level of corruption within World Bank client governments, which was his sole self-declared objective on taking up the post. So not even the White House can seriously defend him on the grounds that he is doing a marvellous job or that commands the intellectual respect of the development-banking world. He is a diminished figure on all fronts.
If the World Bank were a truly democratic international institution, or even a British one rather than a US fiefdom by long-established practice, with a cumbersome and largely ineffective international governance structure he’d have no hope of hanging on and would be busy composing a letter of apology and resignation. If he wants to hold on to his dignity, that’s what he should do now anyway.
Comments