But the former US deputy defense secretary is anything but benign. He was one of the main architects of the Iraq war and has never expressed any regret for the turmoil he and his Bush administration colleagues unleashed in the region. We must also not forget the comments he made after the famous vote in the Turkish Parliament on March 1, 2003, when Turkey decided not to allow the US to open a second front against Iraq through its territory. An angry Wolfowitz berated the Turkish army for not having “shown a stronger leadership role” and having failed to pressure the civilian government into agreeing to US demands. In short his record hardly qualified him as an arbiter of “good governance.”
Imposed upon the world by the Bush administration, his appointment to the World Bank was controversial from the start.
Having the right person at the head of the World Bank matters at a time when international financial institutions face a lot of criticism and are under intense scrutiny. In some parts of the globe the reputation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is as threadbare as Wolfowitz’s socks. The World Bank generally fares better than its sister institution, but it too has suffered from the perception that it targets poor governance and corruption very selectively. This trend has been even more marked since Wolfowitz took the helm of the Bretton Woods institution.
Decisions to link aid programs in some countries to strict “anti-corruption” conditions, sometimes against the advice of long-time World Bank staffers, have made him quite unpopular. This was apparent in the way World Bank employees turned against their boss as soon as the scandal over his girlfriend’s pay erupted. His policies also caused discontent among donors. Britain, for instance, threatened last year to withhold payment of 50 million pounds if some of the World Bank’s most rigid policies, which London believed were hurting poor countries, were not reviewed.
No one disputes the need to tackle corruption in developing countries, but it should be done based on measurable criteria and not driven by ideology or conditioned upon the opening up of trade. Above all corrupt practices in emerging economies should not make anyone blind to equally unsavory actions in rich countries, which are often given a legal cover.
Aside from granting his girlfriend a lucrative deal, Wolfowitz also offered high salaries to two of the close advisers he brought from the Pentagon. For Wolfowitz to remain at his post after having unfairly promoted his companion and lied about his involvement would fatally undermine the World Bank’s credibility and threaten the implementation of its development programs around the world.
For the time being, Wolfowitz is still defiantly insisting he will stay on. But his staff, members of the executive board of the bank and European governments are all piling up the pressure for him to go. It seems only a matter of time until he resigns. Support from the White House may not be sufficient to save him. His current precarious position is, after all, another sign that the neocons are losing their stronghold in Washington.
