A sweetheart deal turns sour at the World Bank

[Neil D]

THE World Bank and its sister organisation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), have often insisted on reforms in developing countries and imposed conditions that caused untold misery and hardship to the poorest of the poor in many regions around the world.

Good governance, transparency, campaigning against "corrupt borrowers" and determining how the funds are used are just some of the conditions imposed on borrowers.

The current president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq invasion, made fighting corruption one of his top priorities at the bank.

H.D.S. Greenway, writing in the Boston Globe, described this as a "crusade" which Wolfowitz pursued "riding roughshod over colleagues and board members".

Good governance and transparency have been other popular issues with the neo-conservative, who also had plans to beef up the bank’s presence in Baghdad. And he created the ethics police to monitor employees and cut their perks.

While developing countries have over the years adhered to the demands, with dire consequences, the same rules and strict conditions of good governance, transparency and accountability were not adhered to by the World Bank president. He applied a different standard for himself.

He used his influence to secure a job for his sweetheart, Shaha Ali Riza, in the State Department, at a tax-free salary of US$193,590 (RM675,000) — higher than Condoleezza Rice’s, the Secretary of State. Riza, a Libyan, continues to be on the bank’s payroll and it is reported that she is to return to the bank at the higher salary level and be given a rating of "outstanding" in her performance reviews while with the foundation in the State Department.

Wolfowitz also brought in two trusted aides — Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems — from the Pentagon to the bank at lucrative salaries and created an inner circle of his own.

Wolfowitz was less than transparent and violated the basic rules of good governance. His behaviour also smacks of cronyism and nepotism. He would certainly not accept such behaviour from leaders of aid-recipient poor developing countries, and rightly so. The same behaviour from the president of the World Bank is even less acceptable.

But that is not all. Wolfowitz pursued White House policies in the bank without the board’s approval. These included suspending loans to India, Chad, Kenya and other countries "because there was corruption there". But that policy seemed to evaporate when it came to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were considered strategically vital by the US.

Greenway writes: "A wiser man might have seen that suspending loans to such countries might be counterproductive to his goals at the World Bank and to the ultimate mission of reducing poverty."

In fact, funding for African states had declined on Wolfowitz’s watch. According to the Government Accountability Project (GAP), the money committed to poor African countries amounted to US$1.8 billion in the first nine months of the current fiscal year, ending on June 30. This was 35 per cent less than the bank had committed in the same period last year.

Loans to Uzbekistan were also suspended when the country denied landing rights to American aircraft.

"The same traits that marked his Pentagon job followed him into the bank — the arrogance, the hubris, and the neo-conservative doctrine of going it alone and imposing America’s way," Greenway wrote.

"A wiser man might see that ignoring World Bank experts, board members and staff to push through your own agenda, relying on henchmen you had brought over from the Pentagon, might not be the best way to go about getting the bank’s work done.

"So even if his goals are right, his methods are so deeply flawed and his presidency so badly damaged that it is unlikely he can remain effective."

The bank must be able to carry out its mandate and must maintain its reputation and credibility. But with the personality and credibility of its president in question, it certainly has put the credibility of the institution he leads into question.

There was also unprecedented rebuke from the board, asserting that "the current situation is of great concern to all of us".

The bank’s powerful oversight committee also expressed "great concern about the institution’s future and the need to preserve its credibility and staff morale".

"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," it said.

By his actions, Wolfowitz has clearly demonstrated that he cannot be held to those high standards.

The London-based Financial Times concluded that if Wolfowitz stays, the campaign for good governance will be seen as "not a believable struggle but blatant hypocrisy".

Wolfowitz remains adamant, telling the press: "I believe in the mission of this organisation and I believe that I can carry it out." Obviously, he is not listening to his staff and wants to continue his "unilateral" policies.

Undoubtedly, he will find it extremely difficult, in the circumstances, to convince governments that the funds at the bank should be replenished to enable it to carry out its poverty eradication work.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

H.D.S. Greenway, writing in the Boston Globe

That is like a "Reader Beware" warning there. Make sure one gets the other side of the story before jumping on a bandwagon.

[Neil D]

Quote:

That is like a "Reader Beware" warning there. Make sure one gets the other side of the story before jumping on a bandwagon.

You know something about this writer? If so, spill it...what is wrong with the author?

[Dr. Shane]

The Boston Globe is one of the most left-wing, slanted newspapers in the country. Reading it is like listening to Rush Limbaugh or watch Micheal Moore. One has to beware from the very start that they are about to be fed a bunch of SPIN - which is OK as long as they are not gullible enough to think they are consuming objective news.

I have not followed this particular story enough to point out the SPIN in it but its tone sounds quite partisan.

Quote:

The current president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq invasion, made fighting corruption one of his top priorities at the bank.

Just look at the tone there. What does his role in the Iraq invasion have to do with the story? It appears to be thrown in there just to prejudice the reader.

Quote:

H.D.S. Greenway, writing in the Boston Globe, described this as a "crusade" which Wolfowitz pursued "riding roughshod over colleagues and board members".

OK, so he makes reference to some who is unhappy with Wolfowitz performance. Where is the quote from the other side that believes Wolfowitz is doing a good job?

Quote:

Good governance and transparency have been other popular issues with the neo-conservative

The term "neo-conservative" is often used as an insult by the left just like the word "liberal" is often used as an insult by the right. Let's remove that word and replace it with his name instead.

Good governance and transparency have been other popular issues with Wolfowitz, who also had plans to beef up the bank’s presence in Baghdad.

Doesn't that simple change remove a lot of the nasty sound in that sentence alone?

Quote:

He used his influence to secure a job for his sweetheart, Shaha Ali Riza, in the State Department, at a tax-free salary of US$193,590 (RM675,000) — higher than Condoleezza Rice’s, the Secretary of State.

I haven't been following this story but something like this is not unusual. Gullible readers maybe led to believe this is some kind of scandal but cronyism is part of politics.

Quote:

Greenway writes: "A wiser man might have seen that suspending loans to such countries might be counterproductive to his goals at the World Bank and to the ultimate mission of reducing poverty."

Another quote from the same critic and we have yet to hear from someone on the other side.

Again, I haven't followed the story but if these countries that got their loans suspended are indeed corrupt, then giving them the money isn't going to help poverty anyway since the money will never make it to those in need. But again, I haven't followed the story.

Quote:

that policy seemed to evaporate when it came to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were considered strategically vital by the US.

Could it be that the loans given to these countries are given for other reasons? Perhaps to ensure continued cooperation with the War on Terror? Just a guess on my part, I haven't been following the story. Yet the writer doesn't supply any explanation from a Wolfolwitz's supporter. It is obviously a slanted article intended to take the reader where the writer wants to lead him or her. No different than the tactics of Rush Limbaugh or Micheal Moore.

Quote:

Loans to Uzbekistan were also suspended when the country denied landing rights to American aircraft.

Is that the whole story? Are there facts being left out? What is the other side's explanation? We don't know because the article isn't balanced.

Articles like this is why so many people turn to FOXNews for fair and balanced coverage. People want to hear both sides. They don't want to be fed the perspective of some ivy league journalism graduate. Let the media report and the people decide. If the media wants to be bias, let them be open about their bias like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity are. That way the news consumer is warned on the offset that the commentary is bias from the start.

[Neil D]

Is this story any better? I haven't had a chance to read it as yet, but it is a couple of hours old at the time of posting.

Wolfowitz Faces New Inquiry

Board Divided on Whether He Should Continue to Lead Bank

By Krissah Williams and Karen DeYoung

The World Bank's board said yesterday that it has ordered an ad hoc group of its members to "urgently" conduct a far-reaching investigation into bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz's involvement in arranging the compensation and promotion package for his companion, who is also a bank employee.

The board did not set a timeframe for the committee's deliberations, but bank officials said an announcement could come as early as next week. The board has also postponed a nine-day trip to Mongolia and the Philippines set to start next week, bank officials said.

The directors are divided over whether Wolfowitz should continue to lead the anti-poverty institution. U.S. officials, who hold sway because the United States is the bank's largest shareholder, have expressed support for Wolfowitz. But, in its statement, the board reiterated its "great concern" over the matter.

In a separate statement, Wolfowitz said he "welcomes the decision of the board to move forward and resolve this very important issue." He said again that he does not intend to resign.

The board, which met for more than nine hours on Thursday and early yesterday, widened the investigation beyond the possible violations of staff rules committed by Wolfowitz when he outlined a transfer and career plan for Shaha Riza, a woman to whom he is romantically linked.

It said that the ad hoc group will consider bank rules for both the staff and the president, and "conflict of interest, ethical, reputation, and other relevant standards."

Before he assumed the presidency in June 2005, Wolfowitz offered to recuse himself from personnel decisions concerning Riza, but not from "professional contact" with her. The board's ethics committee rejected the offer. It instructed him to arrange a departure package for her with the personnel department, including a one-step promotion and a one-time raise.

Wolfowitz worked out the details of her compensation and directed the personnel manager to implement them. They included a promotion and a salary increase, plus a guaranteed increase for each of the next five years and another promotion upon her return, pending endorsement by a panel that Riza would approve of.

In a related matter, the Pentagon released parts of a 2005 inquiry that found that Wolfowitz had also been involved in Riza's career advancement while he was serving as deputy defense secretary. In a report first disclosed in the New York Times, the Pentagon said Wolfowitz recommended that Riza be awarded a contract for travel to Iraq in 2003 to offer advice on the provisional government.

The inquiry did not lead to a full investigation because Pentagon officials found that Riza "was uniquely qualified to provide the required services and was recommended by others," and because Wolfowitz had acknowledged the relationship, the report said.

The ad hoc group at the World Bank will consider damage to the bank's reputation. The bank's staff association, which represents about half of the institution's 10,000 employees, has called for Wolfowitz's resignation and has accused him of committing the same governance violations that he has decried in the developing world.

In addition, the group will examine "issues around employment contracts made in the Office of the President," an apparent reference to Wolfowitz's highly paid aides, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems. At a meeting with bank managers this week, Wolfowitz offered to fire or rein in Kellems and Cleveland, who are unpopular with many bank staffers.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday that "the president still has confidence" in Wolfowitz, but various European governments have indicated that they want Wolfowitz out.

The bank should be "beyond reproach from an ethical point of view," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said in Paris, according to wire service reports. The bank's "credibility is at stake," Dutch Finance Minister Wouter Bos and Development Minister Bert Koenders said in a letter to the Dutch parliament.

The United States controls 16.41 percent of the vote on the bank's board, holding an effective veto over other large shareholders. Japan controls 7.87 percent, Germany 4.49 percent, and France and Britain 4.31 percent each.

Bank staffers said that the situation has become a distraction, with internal comment boards filled with messages, most favoring Wolfowitz's resignation. The message board yesterday included a link to a YouTube video splicing scenes from the sitcom "The Office" with workers gossiping about the boss's sex life and Wolfowitz defending his action. The video has been viewed nearly 20,000 times.

[Dr. Shane]

I haven't followed the story at all. For all I know Wolfowitz is as guilty as O.J. Simpson. This article certainly reads better but I have no way to know if it is leaving out any of the facts unless I do a lot of research and I really am not that passionate about this story. The Washington Post is typically more objective than the Boston Globe so I would be more inclined to trust it to be fair with the story.

[Tom Wetmore]

The Boston Globe is one of the most left-wing, slanted newspapers in the country.... One has to beware from the very start that they are about to be fed a bunch of SPIN - which is OK as long as they are not gullible enough to think they are consuming objective news.

I have not followed this particular story enough to point out the SPIN in it but its tone sounds quite partisan...

Articles like this is why so many people turn to FOXNews for fair and balanced coverage....

Obviously, Shane you have not spent anytime on this story even doing minimal due diligence to know who is SPINNING the story before you resort to your own knee-jerk efforts to SPIN...

Your "fair and balanced" FauxNews seems rather out of step and out of touch with current reality in their efforts to SPIN this story to satisfy their right-wing ideological agenda and to strongly resist speaking ill of Bush or any of his cronies or policies. Here is how they led out this story in their coverage yesterday:

Quote:

Pentagon Report: Wolfowitz Did Not Abuse Position by Recommending Girlfriend for Contract

Embattled former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz did not abuse his office by recommending his girlfriend for an Iraq reconstruction-related job four years ago, according to a report released Friday by the Pentagon's inspector general...

Under the guise of reporting the current story of Wolfowitz's troubles at the World Bank FOXNoise leads with a two year old Pentagon IG report (just released Friday???) that was a dressed up rehash of a 2005 Pentagon report from when Wolfowitz was still with the Pentagon.

Now if you would have taken but a few minutes and checked Yahoo News leads from world-wide news sources on the Wolfowitz story you would note that of the 100+ stories about Wolfowitz in the past few days FOXNoise stands among a very select few (< 5%) of news agencies that SPIN it this way. Can so many be so wrong and only FAUXNews get it right? Those behind FOXNoise have very little real interest in anything fair and balanced...

Tom

FOXNews - fair and balanced?!?! I may hurt myself

[Dr. Shane]

There is a lot of idealogical hatred of FOXNews out there. Since no link was provided to the above story, we don't even know that it actually came from FOXNews. A couple of weeks ago we had a member here at C/A post a story critical of FOXNews that turned out to be lies. LIES!!! They were actually lying about what was broadcast on FOXNews. One of our honorable members believed the lies and posted them here.

I haven't followed this story and don't care to. That wasn't the point I was making. My point was the incredible left-wing bias of the Boston Globe which was shown to be true.

[Tom Wetmore]

First of all Shane I will not quote anything without being certain of the source. I do not appreciate the implied questioning of my integrity in your post. And if you would have taken about 90 seconds to follow the link I did provide you could have found the source at FOXNews. But that would have required scanning quickly through real news headlines...

To save you the trouble here is the link - FOX News Wolfowitz Story

It's not ideological hatred of FAUXNews - Its utter amazement at their hubris and profound disgust that they have the continuing chutzpah to claim to offer "fair and balanced reporting". Can I assume that your source of proof that criticism of FOXNoise was nothing but lies was... someone on FOXNEWS?!?

Tom

(I had to laugh when I spell checked my post - It wanted to change "Wolfowitz" to "Halfwits"...)

[Dr. Shane]

OK, I found that story on Fox News. Now check out this one.

Wolfowitz May Not Survive World Bank Scandal Involving Girlfriend's Promotion, Pay Hike

Quote:

After a week of shifting explanations by bank officials, a clearly-beleaguered Wolfowitz on Thursday announced at a Washington press briefing that he made "a mistake for which I am sorry" over his handling of a promotion and huge pay increases for bank staffer Shaha Riza, who had a romantic relationship with Wolfowitz that precedes his appointment to the bank’s helm in 2005.

Can we say "fair and balanced"? Can we say FOXNews?

[Tom Wetmore]

...Can we say "fair and balanced"? Can we say FOXNews?

Yes, but not in the same sentence...

How about if you will admit that labeling the Boston Globe "one of the most left-wing slanted" and "biased" newspapers in the country and any criticism of FAUXNews as all "lies" is any less an expression of "idealogical hatred"...

It's amazing that FOXNoise gets to call itself "fair and balanced" for covering all the same Wolfowitz stories, angles and facts widely covered by the vast majority of mainsteam media, including the Boston Globe, but everyone else is biased and slanted. And equally interesting that clearly neo-con right-wing SPINNING featured on FAUXNews has no effect on "fair and balanced" but any amount of leftward lean turns a news agency into a bastion of unreliably biased reporting...

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I do not appreciate the implied questioning of my integrity in your post.

Let's not go there. If we are going to have a mature and healthy exchange of ideas, let's not start accusing others of personally insulting us. That is not productive and does not create an environment for healthy discussion.

I can post something here from an idealogical website that is wrong and that does not hinder my credibility unless I try to hide the fact that it is from an idealogical site and try to pass it off as something objective.

Quote:

It's amazing that FOXNoise gets to call itself "fair and balanced"

I don't know how others were raised but my mother taught me not to call names. Using words like "FAUXNews" and "FOXNoise" do not contribute to a healthy environment for the exchange of ideas. One can dispute their claim to being fair and balanced without calling them childish names. I assume we are all adults here.

Quote:

How about if you will admit that labeling the Boston Globe "one of the most left-wing slanted" and "biased" newspapers in the country and any criticism of FAUXNews as all "lies" is any less an expression of "idealogical hatred"...

Actually, I use the term "left-wing" instead of the term "liberal" because I am trying not to be inflammatory. I know many conservative use the word liberal as an insult and want to avoid that confusion. The Boston Globe is one of the most left-wing or liberal newspapers in the country. I don't know if stating that is idealogical hatred. I think comparing the two articles that our loving brother Neil posted - one from the Boston Globe, the other from the Washington Post - it seems clear that the Globe's article is much more idealogical than the Post's.

Now lets look at FOXNews' take.

On Thursday Richard Behar does a story with a headline entitled "Wolfowitz May Not Survive World Bank Scandal Involving Girlfriend's Promotion, Pay Hike" and is pretty damaging to Wolfowitz. And then the next day (yesterday) Nick Simeone and Jennifer Griffin do a pieces entitled "Pentagon Report: Wolfowitz Did Not Abuse Position by Recommending Girlfriend for Contract"

There we have two different prespectives of the same story. That is what FOXNews claims to do - present both sides - fair and balanced. Is there "neo-con right-wing SPINNING" on FOXNews? Absolutely! No one denies that. But they also give the other side.

[Neil D]

Yesterday, I saw Robert Kennedy Jr and listened to his speech on the enviorment and the current administration. In the course, he characterized the nations papers as ' lazy ' and the reason for that was that in 1988, Regan removed the principle of "fair and balanced" from the air waves. Before then, anyone using the airwaves, which used to belong to the common people, the station allowing opinioons were to allow the counter opinion on the same subject. Thus, fulfilling Thomas Jefferson's vision of an informed/educated public. Now, the stations across the country are controled by 5 corporations who main goal is to make more money than the other one. Thus, the content of the stories now, are sensationalizm and entertainment....NOT INFORMATION. Did you know that the 6 o'clock news is required, and used to give both sides of an arguement..and not the slanted stuff that FoxNews gives. [mostly a strong republican and weak democratic positions].

So called "left wing " news is relgated to "The Nation", Mother Jones, Air America [and I forget the other one or two] [Remember, Shane, you didn't know of any left wing organization that printed anything? Well, now you know why.]

Major news organizations, like NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, have lost thier 'investigative reporters' [anyone know if Fox ever had a real investigative reporter?] And all of them used to have a "foriegn Correspondant" so as to get world opinion... Now we have none...

I think that I will get Robert Kennedy's book...He spouted off the facts, and yes, htey were well rehersed...but they were not acted out...I think he actually might know something about how this country USED to be and where it's values need to go now.

[Dr. Shane]

I will start another thread on the Fairness Doctrine.