# Posted 11:49 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WOLFOWITZ UPDATE: I last posted about Paul Wolfowitz exactly one week ago. I ended that post with a vote of confidence in the World Bank president and former Deputy Secretary of Defense. I wrote that:

Looking at the big picture, I'm glad that Wolfowitz had made corruption a priority and is challenging the Bank to live up to his standards. I think that leadership from the top is the only way to get the Bank to take the issue seriously. Wolfowitz's predecessor took some critical first steps in that direction, but the fight against corruption has only just begun.

Since last week, further details have emerged that make Wolfowitz look quite bad. "Challenging the Bank to live up to his standards" now doesn't seem like a very effective call to arms.

Three questions come to mind. First, should Wolfowitz's actions be described as an instance of corruption? Second, should Wolfowitz resign? Third, should one connect the dots between this controversy and Wolfowitz's role in our early failures in Iraq?

With regard to the first question (and by extension, the second) the editors of the Financial Times write:

The answer is: an apparent violation of Bank rules; favouritism that borders on nepotism; and a possible cover-up. It is true Mr Wolfowitz and Ms Riza were put in a difficult position. Even so, what has come out would be bad in any institution. In an institution that spear-heads the cause of good governance in the developing world, it is lethal. (Hat tip: Anon)

Interestingly, the FT didn't use the word corruption. Or should one consider favoritism a form of corruption? I don't have a good answer to that question.

What may be most telling is that Wolfowitz chose to tell a series of half-truths about how the decision was made to give his significant other a promotion and and an unusual raise. If everything was on the level, why not be candid?

So, do I think Wolfowitz should resign? I could see a good case being made both ways. I guess I'll say this: if there were a strong candidate waiting in the wings who would make the fight against corruption his or her priority, then a new president may be the best thing.

On the other hand, I don't exactly buy the FT's argument that:

The president of the World Bank has one asset: his credibility...

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.

Given how many notoriously corrupt governments have received major loans from the Bank over the years, I'm not sure that Caesar's wife was ever that pure. And the corruption of those governments involves the systematic theft of billions, not a questionable raise and promotion of the kind Mr. Wolfowitz gave out.

And finally, to my third question. Some might suggest that Wolfowitz's behavior reflects a disturbing sort of arrogance, poor judgment and inability to consider the opinions of others. Those same critics might then say those things are exactly what one should expect from Wolfowitz, because those are the same traits that he exhibited at the Pentagon and that contributed to our early (and perhaps ultimate) failure in Iraq.

More broadly speaking, when romantic attachments at the office result in a serious lack of professionalism, should one say that the culpable party is unfit to lead? Or should one say that the culpable party deserves a measure of forgiveness because we all make mistakes when romance is involved?

These seem to be the exact same questions we were all asking in the Clinton years, except that liberals and conservatives now have an incentive to contradict the answers they gave last time around.

Labels: Paul Wolfowitz, World Bank

(16) opinions -- Add your opinion