Wolfowitz Death Watch

by hilzoy

From tomorrow's NYT:

"Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. on Tuesday endorsed the request by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the World Bank president, for more time to defend himself against charges of misconduct, seeking a delay that could also give the Bush administration time to negotiate his voluntary resignation.

Two days after a special bank committee found Mr. Wolfowitz guilty of violating conflict-of-interest rules in 2005, the administration sent mixed signals on how strongly it was supporting him against growing demands among United States allies in Europe that he resign.

Officially, the White House continued to back Mr. Wolfowitz’s efforts to remain as bank president, saying that he still had the confidence of President Bush to do the job.

But the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, also deferred to the Treasury Department for guidance, saying, “They’re the ones who are fronting this.”

Mr. Paulson, according to a spokeswoman, Brookly McLaughlin, feels Mr. Wolfowitz “deserves a fair process rather than a rush to judgment.” But Ms. McLaughlin’s statement stopped short of saying he deserved to remain president of the bank.

European officials, asking not to be quoted by name because of the delicacy of the matter, say they believe that Mr. Paulson is sympathetic to their concern that Mr. Wolfowitz has been so wounded by the furor over charges of favoritism that he can no longer lead the bank or work with its board of directors.

They say that the Treasury chief has listened to proposals that Mr. Wolfowitz be allowed to resign in return for European backing for the United States to nominate his successor, but that he has not begun negotiations to advance such a deal.

Administration officials say Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, the president’s top political adviser are, for now, adamant that Mr. Wolfowitz not be ousted."

Give me a break. It's beyond obvious that large chunks of the World Bank staff, not to mention its directors, have lost confidence in Paul Wolfowitz. Whether this is fair or unfair is beside the point: in either case, it means that he cannot run the Bank effectively. Moreover, he will have a very hard time insisting that other countries sign up for his anticorruption campaign when he broke the Bank's rules. And I don't think many people will trust him after this revelation from last weekend:

"Paul Wolfowitz yesterday backed away from earlier claims that the World Bank's ethics committee had been kept informed of his handling of the pay and promotion of a colleague with whom he was romantically involved.

The president of the bank said in a letter to a special committee investigatingallegations against himthat earlier assertions that the bank's board was kept informed referred to an anonymous e-mail it had been sent by an angry member of staff."

Because when I say that an oversight body has been kept informed of my doings, I always mean that some anonymous whistleblower has been sending them emails. Of course.

Moreover, this is no longer just about Wolfowitz. The Washington Post reports today that some countries' donations to the Bank may be jeopardized if Wolfowitz stays. If so, then the price of his keeping his job would be less money for alleviating global poverty and promoting development. And then there's this:

"Leading governments of Europe, mounting a new campaign to push Paul D. Wolfowitz from his job as World Bank president, signaled Monday that they were willing to let the United States choose the bank’s next chief, but only if Mr. Wolfowitz stepped down soon, European officials said.

European officials had previously indicated that they wanted to end the tradition of the United States picking the World Bank leader. But now the officials are hoping to enlist American help in persuading Mr. Wolfowitz to resign voluntarily, rather than be rebuked or ousted."

Personally, I don't see why the US should get to name the head of the World Bank (or, for that matter, why Europe should get to name the head of the IMF.) But if we're going to give up this prerogative, we should at least get something for it. (I suggest a deal in which we and the EU cut agricultural subsidies, and this is thrown in to sweeten it.) We shouldn't just give it up to keep Paul Wolfowitz in a position in which he can no longer be effective.

Any normal person would have resigned some time ago, rather than ask his friends and allies to go through this charade. And any normal administration would not be tempted to insist that he stay. (Leave aside the question whether any normal administration would have appointed so divisive a figure in the first place.) It was one thing for Wolfowitz to insist on toughing it out when neither donations to the Bank nor significant American interests were at stake. By now, both are. The longer he tries to keep his job, the clearer it becomes that his primary concern is not the US, the World Bank, or the poor whom it is his job to try to help, but just his own ego. And that is reason enough for him to lose his job.

Comments

[Joseph Thomas]

The Washington Post reports today that some countries' donations to the Bank may be jeopardized if Wolfowitz stays. If so, then the price of his keeping his job would be less money for alleviating global poverty and promoting development.

Funny, I'd always been under the impression that the job of the World Bank & IMF was to keep third world countries in massive debt so that they'd stay dependent on the West (for the U.S., for instance, twice as much money in debt payment flows to the USA as money in aid flows from us). Read John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hit Man for a really scary insider's look at the way international money for development works (as distinct from purely humanitarian aid).

[Katherine]

OT: does this mean no habeas in an appropriations bill? Because I vaguely remember hearing Levin wouldn't do it either...is there a possibility of an amendment?

I love the "oh, we think it should be its own bill" cop out. Translation: "we don't actually care if it passes". Well, that's the Congressional Democrats for you. Better than they used to be, better than the GOP, and yet it many ways--still not much good.

[Katherine]

or maybe there's still a shot? I'm out of the loop, and too tired to post, but it might be worth people calling.

[spartikus]

Funny, I'd always been under the impression that the job of the World Bank & IMF was to keep third world countries in massive debt so that they'd stay dependent on the West

Along those lines - "Let the ship go down with the captain", says Naomi Klein, in The Nation.

[Guest]

Stalling tactic? An allegation made the rounds a week or so ago that Wolfowitz was due for a large ($400K) bonus on June 1. Anyone know anything about it?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002098.php

[johnt]

Hilzoy, you are at the top of your game.
"Whether this is fair or unfair is besides the point", which would lead one to search for various possible alternative points. Still, one of the great lines in moral philosophy, a purely consequentialist approach, which highlights a fallacy or flaw in consequentialism, who gets to pick the desired consequences?

Wolfowitz received a letter notifying him that two emails had been received within the bank from the courageous "John Smith", evidently a very ethical person himself.

The letter goes," The Ethics[?] Committee decided that the allegations regarding bank staff do not appear to pose ethical issues appropriate for further consideration by the Committee", [Ethics that is}. "The committee also decided that the allegation relating to a matter which had been PREVIOUSLY considered by the committee did not contain new information warranting any further review by the committee".

From who? One Ad Melkert, mentioned prominently in your link and doubtless as ethical a person as "John Smith".

And when? Oh, just a little over a year ago.

Keep trucking Hilzoy. And I'm sorry to see that Wolfowitz has lost the confidence of such as these.

[cleek]

the courageous "John Smith", evidently a very ethical person himself.

very clever, "johnt".

[OCSteve]

spartikus: Good link. I remembered bits and pieces, but that is a pretty damning summary.

[hilzoy]

johnt: I am not, as it happens, a consequentialist. I do not, for example, believe that it is OK to violate someone's rights, or lie, or beat people up, etc., just because doing so would produce good consequences.

However, we are not talking about someone's rights here. We are talking about whether or not Paul Wolfowitz should remain in charge of the World Bank. That is not a position that he has a right to retain. If he himself is asking himself whether or not to resign, his rights are plainly beside the point: he can waive them. (This is why, when someone throws himself on a handgrenade to save his or her comrades, we call it heroism rather than self-murder: no one else has the right to throw him on that handgrenade, but he himself can voluntarily waive his rights in that regard.) If the administration is asking whether or not to force him to resign, again, it should not proceed on the assumption that he is entitled to stay: he plainly is not.

Any serious moral theory will hold that consequences matter in some circumstances. Consequentialists differ from nonconsequentialists (to oversimplify) in holding that those circumstances are: all the time, whereas nonconsequentialists hold that there are some things we should not do even if they would produce good consequences -- some rules we just have to follow, be the consequences what they may. But both kinds of theories agree that when rights or entitlements or obligations are not in question, it's fine to look to consequences. This is why, for instance, when you're deciding which of two jobs to take (and you haven't already committed yourself to one, etc.), you can ask yourself what the results of taking one rather than the other would be, and use that information in making your decision, whether or not you're a consequentialist.

[Nell]

Katherine, thanks for the heads-up on habeas. Digby has picked up the call; I hope Atrios will, since two of the Philly-area Congressmembers he helped get elected are on the committee (Murphy and Sestak).

I'm trying hard not to get stuck on the bleakness of conditions represented by the idea that restoring habeas corpus is now considered politically risky. Hey, that's when the tough get going, they say...

[Katherine]

it's not really that risky when the freaking Secretary of Defense agrees that Guantanamo should be shut down. It's just an ingrained habit at this point.

[Jay C]

"The longer he tries to keep his job, the clearer it becomes that his primary concern is not the US, the World Bank, or the poor whom it is his job to try to help, but just his own ego."

The usual fine, cogent post, hilzoy: but I will have to disagree with the conclusion in your penultimate sentence. I think that the "primary concern" - at least as far as the Bush Administration is involved, has gone beyond Paul Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank, and moved on to being a (possibly) significant issue of prestige for the Administration as a whole.

One: Paul Wolfowitz has been a loyal soldier for The Cause for years, he is a thorough Neocon Insider with no lapses (so far); one thing the Bush regime does value is "loyalty"; and Wolfowitz is highly-placed enough that his ouster will bruise too many White House egos to be easily let pass. The unsurprising revelation that "Bush, Cheney and Rove are adamant that he should stay" should say it all.

Two: Allowing Wolfowitz to be (or seem to be) forced out by a staff revolt (abetted by the Bank's European contributors) is probably an intolerable affront to the hardcore Neocons. Their - and, sadly, the whole country's since 2001 - foreign policy has been founded on a near-absolute contempt for any "international" institution not firmly under American (i.e. Neocon) control. To let (or seem to let) a bunch of effete furriners challenge this doctrine - and win - is too much for them to deal with.

And Three: L'Affaire Wolfowitz manages to hit the negative trifecta for the Bushies: it highlights three vulnerable issues (cronyism/nepotism, corruption and hypocrisy) which have proved PR and electoral poison for the Administration and Republicans in general. The Adminstration's prestige is tottery enough: The last thing they need is a big public hit over the World Bank. Whatever Paul Wolfowitz's ego issues are, I think that he, and his White House backstops, knows that there is far more at stake.

[Jay C]

"The longer he tries to keep his job, the clearer it becomes that his primary concern is not the US, the World Bank, or the poor whom it is his job to try to help, but just his own ego."

The usual fine, cogent post, hilzoy: but I will have to disagree with the conclusion in your penultimate sentence. I think that the "primary concern" - at least as far as the Bush Administration is involved, has gone beyond Paul Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank, and moved on to being a (possibly) significant issue of prestige for the Administration as a whole.

One: Paul Wolfowitz has been a loyal soldier for The Cause for years, he is a thorough Neocon Insider with no lapses (so far); one thing the Bush regime does value is "loyalty"; and Wolfowitz is highly-placed enough that his ouster will bruise too many White House egos to be easily let pass. The unsurprising revelation that "Bush, Cheney and Rove are adamant that he should stay" should say it all.

Two: Allowing Wolfowitz to be (or seem to be) forced out by a staff revolt (abetted by the Bank's European contributors) is probably an intolerable affront to the hardcore Neocons. Their - and, sadly, the whole country's since 2001 - foreign policy has been founded on a near-absolute contempt for any "international" institution not firmly under American (i.e. Neocon) control. To let (or seem to let) a bunch of effete furriners challenge this doctrine - and win - is too much for them to deal with.

And Three: L'Affaire Wolfowitz manages to hit the negative trifecta for the Bushies: it highlights three vulnerable issues (cronyism/nepotism, corruption and hypocrisy) which have proved PR and electoral poison for the Administration and Republicans in general. The Adminstration's prestige is tottery enough: The last thing they need is a big public hit over the World Bank. Whatever Paul Wolfowitz's ego issues are, I think that he, and his White House backstops, knows that there is far more at stake.

[Jay C]

Oops, sorry about the double post.
Not my fault: the robot ate my gotcha check!

[AndyK]

>>We shouldn't just give it up to keep Paul Wolfowitz in a position in which he can no longer be effective.

As a general rule, that's *exactly* the kind of position we should try to keep him in.

[johnt]

Hilzoy. in all seriousness thanks for a response both detailed and articulate. I owe you one or two.

There is a question however of consequentialism vis a vis your first post. If as you say fairness is not the point then any proceeding conditionals are eliminated, and if consequentialists maintain that in all circumstances consequences matter then any grounding in a non-consequentialist moral base is irrelevant.

The point I was making, too quickly, was that such a philosophical approach then teeters over to pragmatism at best, opportunism at worst.

As for Wolfowitz's just deserts I offer my little quote as an offering that there is more at work here then the alleged or real turpitude of the accused. But having trod that ground before I will refrain from wearing out the path.

Again thanks for a good response, slightly askew but still good.

[johnt]

cleek, and pretty clever yourself you old fox,
"cleek"

My quote key works more than once a day, I guess yours does also. Other than that you are either obscure or negligible to the point of invisibility.

[russell]

"you are either obscure or negligible..."

Maybe it's just me, but I thought cleek's point was clear as day.

[hilzoy]

johnt: Thanks for your response to my response (to your response...)

I think that the crucial point here is to note that what's not fair in the original post is: people at the WB having lost confidence in Wolfowitz. If I were talking to those people, and I thought it was unfair, I would say: hey, stop it. You're being unfair.

But I wasn't. I was (admittedly implicitly) considering both what Wolfowitz should do, and what the administration should do. From their points of view, the fairness or unfairness of other people is just a fact, not something under their direct control. And when they consider what to do (in this situation), whether the fact that people at the WB who have lost confidence in W. are fair or unfair is beside the point.

Likewise: suppose you and I are getting to be friends when all of a sudden you take a dislike to me for some reason I think is unfair. (Maybe you find out something you don't like about my ethnicity.) (Needless to say, "you" in this example are fictional; I don't suppose you would do any such thing.) I say to another friend of mine: this is so unfair. I'm not going to let (fictitious) johnt stop being my friend for such an unfair reason!

If someone were talking to you, that person might well say: (fictitious) johnt, stop being so unfair! When conversing with you, your unfairness would not be at all beside the point. But if someone (my other friend) were talking to me about what I should do, she might well say: look, you can't make someone be your friend if he doesn't like you, and apparently (fictitious) johnt doesn't like you. Whether he's being fair or unfair is beside the point. -- And this friend would be right: you couldn't be a good friend of mine as long as you don't actually like me, and as far as how I should respond is concerned, whether your dislike is fair or unfair really is beside the point.

[AndyK]

>>Maybe you find out something you don't like about my ethnicity.

Oh, we're on to you chocolate-eating tulip lovers and your plans to saw all our doors in half!

[dutchmarbel]

I had no idea the Swedish culture was *that* similar.

[AndyK]

Hilzoy is a woman of many ethnic parts.