Bye, Bye, Dr. Wolfowitz
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published May 18, 2007, 10:27 am in News, Rhetoric.
I have written about Wolfowitz before, and I reiterate my dislike of the guy. He was one of the primary hawks that pushed for war in Iraq, and then Bush nominated him for president of the World Bank. It was a crazy move, and I still don't really understand it. And then the business about his girlfriend came out and how he got her a raise and a new job. The Board of Directors of the World Bank was furious, of course, because the Bank is a symbol of aiding the poor--that's the organization's mission, after all. An aid organization should be the most ethical, especially when one of the things it does is tries to ensure that countries it loans to act ethically. That has been one of its major tents. In order to receive funds from the World Bank, a country must demonstrate a form of ethical democracy. And here the president of that organization has broken the big rule. How can he take the speck out of his brother's eye when there is a log in his own?
That's the problem with it, and the Board wanted Wolfiwitz out of there. But then another problem quickly arose, which was that Wolfiwitz didn't want to leave. He hired a high-power lawyer, refused to appear before the board until he had prepared a defense, and then refused to step down. Well, he's gone now, and everything surrounding his departure makes it sound like it was his choice. Supposedly, that was the condition: in order to leave without a fight, the Board had to agree to a statement that said that Wolfowitz that done nothing wrong and that he had accomplished a lot in his tenure with the Bank. Here is an excerpt from their statement taken from NPR's website:
According to the Board, Wolfowitz "assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution, and we accept that. We also accept that others involved acted ethically and in good faith."
What I find funny in this statement is that the Board's actions don't quite measure up: if he acted in good faith, why must he resign? Somewhere, there's a lie, and we all know where it is--Wolfowitz screwed up and the Board is saying whatever they have to in order to get rid of him quietly. Why must they do that? Well, we'll get to that in a minute. First, let's look some more at the statement:
"It is clear from this material that a number of mistakes were made by a number of individuals in handling the matter under consideration."
Boy, if that isn't vague language. I always tell my students that the use of passive voice is tricky and sometimes misleading because it obscures the actor, which is something George Orwell would object to, I'm sure. "Mistakes were made"? What does that mean? By whom? Did Wolfowitz make these mistakes? If not, who did? We don't know. The statement only says that someone made mistakes. And now Wolfowitz must resign.
Then the statement goes through all of Wolfowitz's accomplishements of the past two years and ends with this:
"It is regrettable that these achievements have been overshadowed by recent events. Mr Wolfowitz has stressed his deep support for and attachment to the World Bank and his responsibility, as its President, to act at all stages in the best interests of the institution. This sense of duty and responsibility has led him to his announcement today. We thank him for this and underscore our appreciation for his commitment to development and his continuing support for the World Bank and its mission."
Sounds like a nice departure, doesn't it? Sounds like Wolfowitz just wanted to resign and they have accepted his resignation.
Wolfowitz's statement is even more obtuse:
"I am pleased that after reviewing all the evidence the Executive Directors of the World Bank Group have accepted my assurance that I acted ethically and in good faith in what I believed were the best interests of the institution, including protecting the rights of a valued staff member.
"The poorest people of the world, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa deserve the very best that we can deliver. Now it is necessary to find a way to move forward.
"To do that, I have concluded that it is in the best interests of those whom this institution serves for that mission to be carried forward under new leadership. Therefore, I am announcing today that I will resign as President of the World Bank Group effective at the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2007)."
He goes on and on, of course, but these first statements are interesting. No, Dr. Wolfowitz, no one accepts that you did anything ethically or in good faith. No, you were not acting in the best interests of the institution. And what the heck does Sub-Saharan Africa have to do with you? How does that transition work? Why does he go from "a valued staff member" to "The poorest people of the world"? Are those connected? I doubt it, considering that that valued staff member made somthing like $200 thousand.
But wait! Why do I say that Wolfowitz did something wrong? Where do I get that idea? Well, from these statements, I have to read between the lines. The Board only says that "mistakes were made" and now Wolfowitz is leaving on his own. In reality, I don't think Wolfowitz did anything wrong here. He saw that there was an ethical problem with his girlfriend working for the Bank so he worked with the Bank ethics committee to have her moved elsewhere. The pay raise? That was to offset the disruption in her career. She had been with the Bank for eight years, so she needed a raise to compensate for her loss of other things. Nothing crazy there. In reality, I don't think he really did do anything wrong. Maybe just a bit, but nothing that major.
But let's get back to that essential question: Why would the Board agree to exonerate Wolfowitz? Why did they want him to leave so badly that they would say that he didn't do anything wrong? Or better yet, why don't they come out and explain that he didn't do anything wrong and why what he did was okay?
Because anymore scandal could lead to investigations of the World Bank itself. The Bank is controversial as it is, and no one wants anymore probing into what this organization actually does. No one wants investigators to come in and examine how the Bank is run or what its processes are. No one wants to make these guys the subject of an external investigation.
The solution? Get rid of the problem guy. State that he didn't do anything wrong without explaining it. Hint that he did do something wrong but don't come right out and say it. So they solve the problem quietly and they can bring in someone else.
Bye, bye, Dr. Wolfowitz, although I doubt this will be the last we hear of you...
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments for this post yet...
Leave a comment