Wolfowitz Statement - please read and help me answer

[Raven]

these questions:

What is this business of an "involuntary reassignment"? Was the girlfriend forced out of the WB? Did Wolfowitz have to get her into a better paying job to shut her up?

What was the "legal risk"? Was she threatening to sue?

What was this "mutual agreement"?

Are we supposed to applaud this guy because he didn't try to "make anyone else responsible" for the mess he created?

I think this thing stinks to high heaven. Oh, and why hasn't the MSM chased the girlfriend down for a comment?



Statement by Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank Group
WB/IMF Spring Meetings 2007


Available in: Spanish


April 12, 2007

Video


Audio

Statement by Paul Wolfowitz,
World Bank President (MP3)



Paul Wolfowitz: Let me just say a few words about the issue on everyone’s mind. Two years ago, when I came to the Bank, I raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest and asked to be recused from the matter. I took the issue to the Ethics Committee and after extensive discussions with the Chairman, the Committee’s advice was to promote and relocate Ms. Shaha Riza.


I made a good faith effort to implement my understanding of that advice, and it was done in order to take responsibility for settling an issue that I believed had potential to harm the institution. In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations. I made a mistake, for which I am sorry.



Let me also ask for some understanding. Not only was this a painful personal dilemma, but I also had to deal with it when I was new to this institution and I was trying to navigate in uncharted waters. The situation was unprecedented and exceptional. This was an involuntary reassignment and I believed there was a legal risk if this was not resolved by mutual agreement. I take full responsibility for the details. I did not attempt to hide my actions nor make anyone else responsible.



I proposed to the Board that they establish some mechanism to judge whether the agreement reached was a reasonable outcome. I will accept any remedies they propose.



In the larger scheme of things, we have much more important work to focus on. For those people who disagree with the things that they associate me with in my previous job, I’m not in my previous job. I’m not working for the U.S. government, I’m working for this institution and its 185 shareholders. I believe deeply in the mission of the institution and have a passion for it. I think the challenge of reducing poverty is of enormous importance. I think the opportunities in Africa are potentially historic. We have really been able to call attention to the progress that’s possible in Africa, and not just the despair and misery in the poorest countries. I think together we’ve made some progress in enabling this institution to respond more effectively and rapidly both in poor countries and in middle income countries to carry on the fight against poverty. I also believe—even more strongly now than when I came to this job—that the world needs an effective multilateral institution like this one that can responsibly and credibly manage common funds for common purposes, whether it is fighting poverty or dealing with climate change or responding to avian flu. I ask that I be judged for what I’m doing now and what we can do together moving forward.

[stellanoir]

1. I'm still completely puzzled by how the guy who predicted that the Iraq War

would pay for itself ended up in charge of the World Bank in the first place.

The weirdest part is to see that a Neocon actually has apologized for anything. I thought they were somehow strangely genetically impaired from even being verbally capable of doing so.

Yup it does have an "odor most foul" for sure.

[Eugene]

2. The transfer was standard procedure. The whopping pay raise was not.

Wolfowitz's romance with Ms. Riza caused a potential conflict
of interest. It has been standard practice at the World Bank
for one partner in such a couple to leave. Giving Ms. Riza
a promotion and a pay raise is unheard of.

A Guardian article explains staff reaction:

Wolfowitz email backfires

-snip-

That response has unleashed a barrage of email criticising Mr
Wolfowitz on the staff noticeboard. "People are just furious,"
said a senior World Bank staffer. "There are plenty of other
couples in the bank that have faced similar situations and
whoever had to move was not compensated or promoted."

Additionally, the World Bank's executive board ruled this morning
that Wolfowitz personally arranged Ms. Riza's promotion and
$61,000 pay raise, failed to consult the ethics committee about
it, and then misled everybody about the whole thing.

World Bank board probe fingers Wolfowitz in pay row - AFP

[Raven]

3. Thanks for the info. So he didn't follow SOP at the Bank. Why

am I not surprised. What do you think he meant by the "legal risk"?

[Eugene]

4. The "legal risk" would be an unfair termination suit by Ms. Riza.

And so, to avoid an obvious and messy conflict of interest
situation, he committed two even bigger offenses: nepotism
and lying about it.

[Raven]

5. Ok, but I'm still not sure I get it...these two are lovers, aren't they?

Why would she sue?

[Eugene]

6. Wolfie is being disingenuous.

If Wolfie fired his girlfriend, she might turn on him.
It was unlikely, but it makes a plausible excuse.
Wolfie committed gross breaches of ethics in the name
of doing the ethical and responsible thing.

[Mist]

7. I have to wonder if there's much more to this than Wolfowitz over-

compensating his girlfriend. The World Bank is an exploitive, nearly-criminal outfit; I don't think they were so upset over this salary thing. I wonder what's at the root of this.

[Hamlette]

8. what do you mean "The World Bank is an exploitive, nearly-criminal outfit" n/t

[Mist]

10. The World Bank okays loans to large first world engineering and building firms

to build roads, bridges, etc. in Third World countries, in spite of the fact that many of those countries need hospitals and schools far more, but such projects wouldn't have as big a payout as large engineering projects. The countries that are "gifted" with expensive roads and bridges are basically in debt for years, which negatively impacts their economies, and prevents them from true economic growth.

[Hamlette]

9. I don't get why a State Dept manager is paid by the World Bank and why it is tax free

the article in the Times today says its tax free because she is a diplomat. What does THAT mean? Maybe a diplomat from another country works tax free but do US diplomats at the State Dept work tax free?

And how many people do we have in government service who are being paid, and are thus loyal, to some other entity?

I will say, in Wolfowitz' defense, in the books on the Iraq war he was the only one I thought had a conscience. I can't remember now exactly what he did that led me to that thought (or which book for that matter...Assassin's Gate or Woodward's early books I suspect) but I remember thinking he was a step above the others.

[soothsayer]

11. she's detailed (read: on loan) to the State Dept, and still works for

the WB.