U.S. Needs to Take Responsibility
Board Members reject U.S. proposal "they need to take responsibility for their man"
Washington D.C., May 16, 2007 -- World Bank board members expressed their irritation today at attempts by the White House to cut a back room deal yesterday in the Wolfowitz debacle and said that the Bush administration needed to step up and take responsibility for their appointee.
Board members said the attempt, via phone calls with G7 Finance Ministers Tuesday, to cut a behind the scenes deal was "completely unacceptable".
"We have acted in good faith and undertaken a thorough review of the facts with extensive due diligence. That review has been presented in the report of the ad hoc committee. The evidence is utterly damning. He acted inappropriately and attempted to cover it up by concealing it from the Bank's general counsel," said the board member.
"We are not going to undo this lengthy process now and bow to pressure to cut some back room deal," the board member said.
Board sentiment among all members has considerably hardened since the release of the report, which gives copious evidence of wrong doing on the part of Wolfowitz. The tone of the report and its summary also indicated growing frustration with Wolfowitz's lack of respect for the institution. Armed with this evidence, board members from developing countries are understood to be less reluctant than before to take a stand against the United States and call for Wolfowitz's resignation.
"They (the United States) need to take responsibility for their man. They appointed him. He has done wrong and they need to call on him to go," another board member said.
2 comments:
PW should also take responsibility. He seems to blame others for all his woes. Even his latest piece yesterday asserts that he acted in good faith, he was just misled. Has he not read the Ad-Hoc Group's report? Paragraph 140 sums up thoughtful opinion on him, "...Mr Wolfowitz believes that the blame for the current situation involving Ms Riza rests with others.... The Ad Hoc Group finds this posture troubling for what it says about the leadership the Bank could expect from the man who had been selected to head a global institution with the central mission of fighting poverty. The Group finds the submission [from Mr Wolfowitz] notable for the absence of any acceptance by Mr Wolfowitz of responsiblility or blame for the events that transpired.....[The] Group concludes that in, actuality, Mr Wolfowitz fromthe outset cast himself in opposition to the established rules of the institution. He did not accept the Bank's policy on conflict of interest.... [The] Group sees this as a manifestation of an attitude in which Mr Wolfowitz saw himself as an outsider to whom the established rules and standards did not apply. It evidences questionable judgement and a precoccupation with self interest over institutional best interest."
Um... Point of information:
It was incredible that this is written by diplomats.
Noted the use of terms, dismay, disappointed, regret, etc....
"crisis of leadership" in diplomatise would be used to describe situations like governance in worst places than Iraq?
I was actually almost expecting the words "cannot be indifferent", or "will not sit idly by", to be used.
For those reading who don't know what that means.... that is diplomatise for "we are about to go to war over this".
Post a Comment