Mr. Paul Wolfowitz
as the tenth president of the World Bank Group ... since 31 March 2005.
Prior to that, Mr. Wolfowitz was, for 2, the head of the US Department of State's Office of Policy Planning ...
From 2001 to 2005, as Deputy Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush, Wolfowitz was responsible, among other things, for overseeing the budget process and developing policies to respond to terrorist attacks. of the September 11 2001.
**** Paul Wolfowitz, former 2 number of the Pentagon
_______
"Over the past year, the neo-conservative positions within the administration, which shaped the US response to the September 11 attacks, have been reduced and their influence has weakened." This article refers to the departure of some of the most prominent neoconservative administrators from key positions in shaping policy directions. Some of them left in disgrace, others left their posts for other appointments decided by Bush. The most interesting of these career changes is undoubtedly that of Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State for Defense, who was promoted to President of the World Bank for the role he played during the war in Iraq.
From day one, all World Bank vice-presidents, directors, and staff were concerned because of his reputation as a "high priest of hawks" or "volcanoes," nicknames given to Bush's group of political advisers, all closely related to each other, architects of the war in Iraq and ideological driving force behind the decision to invade Iraq. They also wondered about his arrogant way of ignoring all the doubts surrounding this war. They remembered his promising predictions, his predictions that the Iraqis were going to welcome American soldiers as liberators, with open arms, and his flippant rejection of the warnings of Eric Shimseki, a former US chief of staff, who announced that the United States would need to send hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq (and was forced to resign for daring to give an expert opinion). They remembered very well his statement that "Iraq's oil revenues over the next two to three years would bring 50 to 100 billion, which would reimburse the country's own reconstruction and more." But, to be honest, they all wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt despite the deep case of conscience they are all struggling with: working for a man who is morally and politically responsible for a horrible war who shed the blood of thousands of innocent victims in Iraq.
From now on, the honeymoon seems over. 
Given the cost of the war in Iraq, it is becoming increasingly clear that Wolfowitz's predictions are, at best, a joke bordering on ridicule, or, at worst, pure and simple intentional lies. When the White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsay, estimated (in September 2002) the cost of the war in Iraq to the higher amount of $ 00 200 billion, the administration rejected his analysis, "surely very according to her, and dismissed her quickly (another person who lost her job because she had exercised it with a true professional conscience). It now appears that even his numbers were well below reality. According to Joseph Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University and Nobel Prize in Economics, and Linda Blimes, budget expert at Harvard, the war in Iraq is likely to cost more than 2 000 billion. The American Conservative magazine says: "What is certain is that, before he was appointed to the head of the World Bank, someone should have remembered that Paul Wolfowitz foresaw that Iraq would finance the reconstruction operation itself. Normal people, under normal circumstances, would have been fired, but not "Wolfie"!
Nevertheless, even with this dark history in mind, they are afraid that they will have an impact on their ability to meet the needs of their international clients and fulfill their mission of tackling global poverty. , World Bank staff are facing even more immediate concerns. What everyone sees most easily is the growing divide between Wolfowitz and his group of close advisors and the staff as a whole. This problem is manifesting itself at different levels.
In recent months, there has been a massive exodus of high-level talent from the World Bank. The Senior Ethics Officer of the World Bank is gone. Also on the list of departures are the Vice President for East Asia and the Pacific, the Chief Legal Counsel, the Vice President for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, the Director of Human Resources of the Bank, the director of international integrity (who controls internal and external corruption); and the leader of the information solutions group.
Steve Clemons indicates in the Washington Note that: "It looks like Wolfowitz is trying to scare away the most talented teams in the bank, and morale is falling. A lot of quality people are leaving. "
What did Wolfowitz do to trigger this disturbing wave of negative feelings?
He named Kevin kellems, former director of communication and spokesman for Vice President Cheney, the newly created post of director of communications strategy in addition to his position of advisor to the president, thus setting aside the vice president for communication, external affairs and relations with the United Nations of the Bank. While one might wonder about Kellem's professional ability and recall his previous position and the misinformation that emerged from Cheney's office year after year, the first difficulty for World Bank staff stems from the fact that was imposed following a coup by President Wolfowitz.
Wolfowitz, in fact, has imposed a political appointment at the level of the management, something rather rare, especially since the positions of direction are lower in the administrative hierarchy and are traditionally filled following a process of transparent selection and based on merit, not by political choice.
Another scandalous example of a presidential coup is the appointment of the Bank's new anti-corruption tsarina, Suzanne Rich Folsom, as the new director of "institutional integrity". That she was catapulted in this way prompted Alison Cave, the courageous and highly respected president of the Bank's Staff Association, to send an open letter of protest to all the staff. Ms. Rich, wife of a powerful Republican leader and powerful Republican lobbyist, was also named in defiance of a transparent and open competition process. It also bears the title of "Adviser to the President". A clear conflict of interest, or there may never be one.
Another example is the appointment to the position of advisor to the president of Karl Jackson, a long-time friend of Wolfowitz whom he has worked with at Johns Hopkins University as well as the government, and who apparently managed the portfolio of activities of the International Finance Corporation, the private sector support arm of the Bank.
But perhaps the most shocking example of Wolfowitz's cronyism, and his total lack of consideration of the principles of the institution he has been charged with leading, let alone the obvious manifestations of conflicts of interest, involves the ever more important role given to its chief consultant, Robin Cleveland. Ms. Cleveland left the Bush administration in turbulent circumstances, after her attempt to use her relationship to bring a family member into a large arms company was exposed as she negotiated with her. undertaking a contract on behalf of the United States Government. Nevertheless, even that does not seem to have tarnished his image in the address book of the neo-conservatives, everyone agrees that it is actually Mrs. Cleveland who now heads the World Bank.
All these examples only serve to fuel the growing doubts of Bank staff about the management of Wolfowitz. A frame speaks of "absolute effrontery". Another employee of the Bank, former of the house, indicates that "the fight against the generalized poverty is above all a moral cause; if we lose this moral foundation, disregarding transparency, competence and integrity within our institution, there is nothing left. "
Others say he is appointing political mercenaries to positions that should be filled by highly qualified professionals following a competitive and transparent process. World Bank executives see Wolfowitz move away from senior Bank officials and instead rely on a group of political actors, zealots and ideologues. The current confusion and concern of the Bank's staff about the direction of this international institution is most apparent through the results of the survey conducted by the institution itself with its staff, and made public last week. only. To the question: "Do you have a good understanding of the direction in which the administration of the World Bank leads the institution? ", Only 48% of respondents responded favorably, against 67% of positive responses in the previous survey conducted in 2003.
No one today compares Wolfowitz to one of the former presidents of the Bank. Everyone is saying that he is building his support group at the highest levels of the institution, thus confirming their most terrible fears that the Bush administration's agenda will be imposed on development of the world. Meanwhile, the Board of Governors, representing the 184 member countries of the World Bank, remains scandalously silent. What a pity !*
_________
Written by:
Mohamed Hakki. A former staff member of the World Bank. This article was originally published in Al-Ahram.
____________________________________
In case of reproduction of the source:
URL: http://www.cadtm.org
source: www.counterpunch.org, March 3 2006
Translation: Aurélie Vitry (CADTM Orléans)
.