Wolfowitz at the World Bank is a travesty, writes Mohamed Hakki* As the saying goes, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." The Bush administration is "teaching" the rest of the world about democracy and freedom while rejecting democratically elected governments in the West Bank and Gaza and Iran and suppressing free speech and ignoring the rule of law at home. Under the cloak of the "war on terror," Bush has managed to grab for himself covert powers that even the most despotic regimes would envy. Luckily, the US public and, indeed, Bush's own party seem to have finally noticed. It should make for interesting mid-term congressional elections come November. But Bush is not alone in wanting to teach a thing or two to the rest of the world. He has placed one of his closest advisors -- the mild-mannered and professorial Paul Wolfowitz -- at the head of the World Bank. Having "taught" the Iraqis about the wonders of democracy and freedom, the former deputy secretary of defense is now teaching the rest of the world about good governance and ending corruption. Unfortunately, these are subjects he appears to know precious little about. In the run-up to the World Bank and IMF annual meetings being held this week in Singapore, member governments have openly questioned Wolfowitz's anti-corruption agenda as a thinly veiled attempt to limit the reach of World Bank funding to countries favoured by the Bush administration. Under former President Wolfensohn, the bank managed to maintain its politically neutral status. Under Wolfowitz, all pretences are gone. Following the coming to power of the new Hamas-led Palestinian government, the World Bank's programme in the West Bank and Gaza ground to a standstill. Wolfowitz has similarly blocked loans to Uzbekistan and Kenya -- along with trying to block debt relief to the Democratic Republic of Congo -- citing corruption concerns. Interestingly, Transparency International (a big fan of Wolfowitz) gives the same high corruption score to Iraq and Indonesia as it does to these three countries. Despite its low rating for combating corruption, Wolfowitz praised Indonesia's progress against corruption in his first major policy speech before the bank's spring meetings -- perhaps not surprising since his stint as US ambassador to Indonesia, 1986-89, is his only significant experience in a developing country and the one to which he alludes constantly in attempting to make credible his dubious development credentials, much to the amusement of the highly-experienced international staff of the bank. Also unsurprising, Wolfowitz is attempting to strengthen the bank's presence and operations in Iraq though little but a miracle could undo the devastation his ill-conceived war has wrought. Wolfowitz has made the fight against corruption the cornerstone of his World Bank presidency. However, the way in which he has gone about it exposed a breach between his words and his actions that has made shareholders, clients and staff all wonder what he is really up to. In keeping with the Bush administration's preference for loyalty over expertise, Wolfowitz seems to suspect everyone except his small coterie of advisors. It is the same attitude that led to Paul Bremer heading up the provisional authority in Baghdad, and we all know what a disaster that was. Those he has brought with him are all Republicans, and mostly friends from the Department of Defense. As for new hires, many are old acquaintances from the "coalition of the willing", including former Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs Ana Palacio and former Salvadoran Finance Minister Juan Jose Daboub. A year ago, he named Suzanne Folsom, an ethics lawyer with no experience in investigations and certainly no international experience, but nonetheless wife of a prominent Republican, as chief of the bank's anti-corruption unit. Since that time, very little has come out of the "Department of Institutional Integrity" except allegations of corruption against bank staff. Staff liken the atmosphere to that of a Stalinist regime: no one knows who will be denounced next, or when, for some real or imagined transgression. Wolfowitz has recently upgraded the Bank "Whistleblower Protection Policy", to make it easier for staff to report one another for suspected corruption. Very little protects staff from false accusations. But what really has insiders steamed is the lack of "good governance" within the bank. While preaching to others the need for "transparency, accountability and [the] rule of law," Wolfowitz happily ignores all these strictures within the Bank. He and his advisors refuse to share information to the point that staff, the Board of Directors, and even borrower countries themselves, learn about decisions from the press before learning about them from Wolfowitz. In a famous case, The Washington Post ran an editorial about Wolfowitz's intention to block debt relief to the Democratic Republic of Congo on the morning of the day he was to discuss it with the Board of Directors, causing directors to wonder how the Post was able to articulate Wolfowitz's position so clearly before he had shared it with anyone inside the bank. Further, Wolfowitz has managed to hire former cronies with barely a nod towards the bank's stringent procurement and recruitment guidelines. Their qualifications and functions largely remain a mystery. The Staff Association protested against the recruitment of Folsom, noting that, at the very least, the Bank's anti-corruption chief should be hired in a transparent and competitive manner befitting the position. One staff member complained, "It is difficult for us to tell a minister that he cannot hire his cronies on Bank projects when our own president does so with impunity." The Staff Association and the Board of Directors have also questioned the role of Wolfowitz's closest advisor, Robin Cleveland. Wolfowitz's pointed refusal to answer inquiries has further increased suspicion. As for "accountability," many inside and outside the bank are wondering when Wolfowitz will take responsibility for the mess he made in Iraq. As is now widely reported in the American press, his rationale for going to war and his predictions about its aftermath were not only wrong, but were deliberately so. His chief spokesman, Kevin Kellems (former spokesman for Dick Cheney) is on record as having said that Saddam Hussein was sponsoring terrorist organisations, including Al-Qaeda, a "fact" that was known by the Bush government to be false well before the war. Cleveland is known as the mind behind Wolfowitz's assertion that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the country's reconstruction. She has now turned her attention to the bank's internal budget, castigating staff for their "fat-cat salaries" and luxury travel. Never mind the fact that Cleveland is quite happy with her quarter of a million dollar annual salary and had her boss get an exception for the bank's travel policy so that she could fly to the annual meetings in first class. From many quarters it is to be hoped that the bank's shareholders will take a close look at the man installed at the head of their institution and determine whether he really is right for the job. So far, he has shown himself reluctant to practice what he preaches. * The writer is a political analyst resident in Washington.
