RSS« How not to get (re)financed | Terror & Opposition: Mohammed Faiz - Casablanca Bombing encores »
April 13, 2007
For My Dear Wolfowitz
You know, I have long had a fond place in my heart for Wolfowitz - can't say I know him really, but my long ago interactions still left me with a fond memory of a beer or two and some truly queer but interesting conversations. As such, the FT report that Wolfowitz laid out terms for partner’s pay package saddens me a bit.
The man must resign. His cred is in shreds, and frankly while I don't doubt he could have made a decent head of World Bank were it not for present political entanglements (which he himself created, so not too much sympathy), now he cannot.
Pity, but he really is more of a professor than a manager.
UPDATED:
Ah, I missed the FT's followups today:
World Bank pledges action on Wolfowitz, rather clearly he should resign before the greater humiliation of being asked to resign comes.
As of Friday morning, though, there was no indication that Mr Wolfowitz – who issued a public apology Thursday morning – was ready to give up the fight.
I am afraid the man truly does lack judgement. A professor rather than a manager, it is more and more clear.
Sad, really.
Further arty: on Wolfowitz and his own standards and of course the FT editorial calling for his head.
Some select quotes, I think, are worthy of notice:
The president of the World Bank has one asset: his credibility. The Bank’s capacity to make a difference lies not in its money and ideas but in its ability to be the world’s voice for development. This includes, as Paul Wolfowitz, the current president, has insisted, being the voice for good governance. Recent revelations have, however, demonstrated such serious failures that the Bank’s moral authority is endangered. If the president stays, it risks becoming an object not of respect, but of scorn, and its campaign in favour of good governance not a believable struggle, but blatant hypocrisy.It is important to understand what is not at issue here. It is not Mr Wolfowitz’s unpopularity, even though his role as an architect of the Iraq war made him disliked from the start. It is not failures of management, even though his reliance on a group of outside appointees made him mistrusted by many inside and outside the Bank. It is not disagreements over development doctrine, where some convergence of views has occurred. It is not a romantic relationship with a subordinate, itself hardly a rarity in today’s world.
The issue is whether the failures of corporate governance are serious enough to damage the Bank’s moral authority. In a world where curtailing corruption and improving governance have become central to the practice of development, the world’s premier development institution must, like Caesar’s wife, stand above suspicion.
This is true, and reasonable.
The World Bank has moved from being a self-proclaimed exemplar of best practice in corporate governance to an example of shoddiness. As long as Mr Wolfowitz stays, this can be neither repaired nor forgotten, be it outside the Bank or inside it. In the interests of the Bank itself, he should resign. If he does not, the board must ask him to go.
I would hope he has the character to resign. He might yet rescue some shred of credibility.
Posted by The Lounsbury at April 13, 2007 02:23 PM
Filed Under:
Perso
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3296
Comments
I wonder why she went along with it, considering the optics/risks of doing so.
And that's not even considering the principle of accepting certain kinds of gifts from men. Fine if the guy opens a few doors for you, but why destroy your professional credibility by giving everyone the impression that you'd rather get promoted by bedding the alpha male?
Annoying.
Posted by: eerie at April 13, 2007 04:27 PM
There seems to be a parallel between his most recent pointless stupidity and his plans in Iraq. The guy obviously cannot seperate likely future reality from his fantasies about the way he'd like things to work out.
Anybody, ANYBODY, with even a tenuous grasp on the relationship between cause and probable effect would know that you do not dictate the terms of your girlfriends cushy government job WHILE SPEARHEADING A BLOODY ANTI-CORRUPTION CAMPAIGN. I cannot fathom how anybody could remain out of jail, let alone rise to such a position of prominence, while being such a muttonhead.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2007 08:55 PM
Anon my man.
I absolutely agree.
Had I not met him ... well a long time ago, but still, I would be rather less sympathetic.
He is, by all instincts, a professor. Abstractions. Not practicalities.
Queer the supposed "MBA" president managed to pull together a team that was composed of the worst combination of bureaucrats and impractical egg-heads.
I absolutely agree, overall. The sweetheart deal reflects his inability to separate the fantasies - the tendency to excessive idealisation - from pragmatic reality.
As to how he has advanced, well, insofar as you trust that I am telling you the truth, I will assert that given my personal contact - again rather aged, and people do change - he is at once charming, engaging, and not stupid. And not, I thought, a bad administrator when issues did not involve his... ideals. He was, I would say, utterly blind to a practical disconnect between an intellectualised life and ... well what one has to do outside of Platonic ideals.
Pity he chose the path he did. He would have made a fine head of an academic department. Or even had he remained a Dean or something.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at April 13, 2007 09:31 PM
Did you ever get a look at the New Yorker profile on him?
Posted by: eerie at April 13, 2007 09:36 PM
Bush admin stays true to its values. I'm sure they expect him to stay on.
At this point, all the Bush scandals simply amuse me. It's a new phase I've discovered:
1. Disbelief (naaah...shurely shome mishtake)
2. Outrage (impeach! rah rah)
3. Apathy (it just keeps coming.)
4. Amusement (it just keeps coming! lolz.)
Posted by: Klaus ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://lounsbury.aqoul.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 14, 2007 02:46 AM
Did anyone see the article in the NYT about his spiritual experience that led to the WB? I think it was on the front page. The story was that after the tsunami hit Indonesia, he had toured the region and viewed the smashed villages from a helicopter. Not the most gripping news. But supposedly what made it worth the attention was that looking out on the devastation, a cosmic empathy with human suffering overwhelmed him, and he resolved to devote the rest of his life to his fellow man. It made him sound like a combination of Mother Teresa and Dag Hammarskjold.
Not mentioned was that Iraq was turning out to be as big a disaster as feared. It was clear he was jumping ship, but I couldn't figure out the target of the article. Any one smart enough to be in a position to influence the WB appointment wasn't going to believe the story. Even in the NYT. Rather, especially in the NYT.
Posted by: Roger Bigod at April 16, 2007 01:48 PM
Missed it, but I would suspect US political audience. Not the technocrats, the political and the blogs.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at April 18, 2007 03:09 PM
Ignoring the New Age sentimentality, the message was that he was leaving for a positive reason, not jumping ship. The cynical view is that he had completed his neocon mission in destroyng Iraq and wanted to get distance from the fallout. Conversely, I'd entertain the idea that he still believed in democratizing the ME but considered his effectiveness ended because of conflicts with the generals, perhaps Rumsfeld or WH, and thought he could pursue his goals at the WB. Either view of his character has some evidence.
Even if he's a totally sincere good guy, the trust he placed in Chalabi raises some questions. I thought bankers were expected to have a healthy skepticism about people like that.
Posted by: Roger Bigod at April 19, 2007 01:52 AM
