A Farewell to Mr.Wolfowitz

From the March 17, 2005 Wall Street Journal editorial page:

"In fact, it is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. And it seems to us that if anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein."

Yes, everybody have seen how he stood up. The World Bank, according to the Journal, would only succeed and achieve (or "hit" I would say?) its targets only when statues of those dictators fell. But it didn't. It didn't because the world bank is a far more different place than The White House and The United States Government. At least in the way that it is administered. What Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, says is quite summarizing for the issue:

"Indeed, a big part of Wolfowitz’s weakness today is the way he came to his job, as an in-your-face appointment from a US administration weak at international cooperation. The World Bank is a development finance institution. But Wolfowitz’s background at the US State and Defense Departments gave him no real expertise or experience in either area. Instead, his claim to fame was his role as architect of America’s failed war in Iraq."

In my opinion, this is not an ethical or moral issue over Shaha Riza's pay rise and compensation upon her leave. It never was, but this very corporate governance issue only seemed like one after this S. Riza incident has been revealed. There has been serious criticism from all around the world since day one, but they gave him a chance after he came, expecting from the fact that he had responsibilities, whatever they were, at tough situations before. And actually, there was a few subjects that he show some fine management. He did good jobs at cases such as agricultural subsidies, and debt forgiveness. But when it came to the management style of running an international institution (not in a way that The White House is run) open, transparent, with people from all around the world; he failed to meet those expectations. As these events are undermining the effectiveness of the bank which is talking about governance so much, it needs to conform the highest standards available. And the leader in charge is the first one to conform before anyone else. Not only with the things that he/she is capable of, but with everything he/she has been up to before.

From now on, countries, especially Latin Americans, want to see results immediately. But before we see those results, the important issue is who should be the next leader after the latest incidents are left behind. Stiglitz suggests Kemal Dervis and Arminia Faraga while Rogoff says "What about Bill Clinton?". All rational names as I would love to see Mr. Dervis in that position as he has served as the Vice President of the bank before. Finally, I must add that, I don't give a flying **** for the fact that Mr. Wolfowitz is the mastermind behind the Iraqi war, but my only but only concern here is that, he does not deserve that title and someone else must make that prestigious institution regain its honorable position.

Edit: As I was getting this post ready for publication Mr Wolfowitz declared that he would quit the bank on 30 June. The important issue hereafter is that, the Bank’s new president should be chosen in a clean and democratic process (without the mono-proposal of President Bush) that is targeting to pick out the best-qualified candidate, regardless of whether or not he/she is from United States, Europe or developing Asia.

Related Links:
An internal World Bank report criticizes Wolfowitz
Paul Wolfowitz will resign from World Bank