The infraction that may cost Paul Wolfowitz his job as president of the World Bank pales in comparison to the endemic corruption entailed by the Iraq war, of which he was a principal architect. But that doesn't make his dismissal any less justified.
The whole sorry Wolfowitz affair looks like it is finally drawing to a close. It is hard to believe that he will stay on much longer at the World Bank, and it is time to start thinking more closely about the future of that institution. From the first, I was critical of the way he was chosen because I have long opposed the “old boy” agreement between the United States and Europe, by which the US always appoints the head of the World Bank and Europe the head of the IMF. This unspoken arrangement dates from the founding of the Bretton Woods institution at a time when colonialism was still alive, and makes no sense in the twenty-first century.
There are reports that European leaders have told the US that if they get Wolfowitz to step down quickly and quietly, they will be allowed to choose Wolfowitz’s successor. It’s easy to see why the US and Europe want to stick to business as usual, but such a deal would amount to a wasted opportunity. I can think of no better way to restore confidence in these two venerable institutions than to finally open up the way their presidents are selected.
One of the lessons of the Wolfowitz debacle is that it does actually matter how stakeholders and employees feel about the Bank’s leadership. The world was prejudiced against him from the start because of his involvement in the Iraq War. But people were willing to give him a chance. Some said that perhaps he would be another Robert McNamara, the US defense secretary who helped mire America in the Vietnam War, but used his service to the Bank as penance.
We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.
To continue reading, subscribe now.
Subscribe
Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.
Already have an account or want to create one?
Log in
The whole sorry Wolfowitz affair looks like it is finally drawing to a close. It is hard to believe that he will stay on much longer at the World Bank, and it is time to start thinking more closely about the future of that institution. From the first, I was critical of the way he was chosen because I have long opposed the “old boy” agreement between the United States and Europe, by which the US always appoints the head of the World Bank and Europe the head of the IMF. This unspoken arrangement dates from the founding of the Bretton Woods institution at a time when colonialism was still alive, and makes no sense in the twenty-first century.
There are reports that European leaders have told the US that if they get Wolfowitz to step down quickly and quietly, they will be allowed to choose Wolfowitz’s successor. It’s easy to see why the US and Europe want to stick to business as usual, but such a deal would amount to a wasted opportunity. I can think of no better way to restore confidence in these two venerable institutions than to finally open up the way their presidents are selected.
One of the lessons of the Wolfowitz debacle is that it does actually matter how stakeholders and employees feel about the Bank’s leadership. The world was prejudiced against him from the start because of his involvement in the Iraq War. But people were willing to give him a chance. Some said that perhaps he would be another Robert McNamara, the US defense secretary who helped mire America in the Vietnam War, but used his service to the Bank as penance.
We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.
To continue reading, subscribe now.
Subscribe
Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.
Already have an account or want to create one? Log in