More on the Wolfowitz scandal....

World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz waiting for the start of the inaugural meeting of the Reformers Club in Washington. Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

I'm just reading through the latest New York Times article on the Wolfowitz scandal:

WASHINGTON, April 13 — The World Bank’s executive board was deliberating today what action to take regarding its president, Paul D. Wolfowitz, amid new evidence that he had not been entirely candid about his role in giving his girlfriend, a World Bank employee, a raise and transfer.

Documents released today by the executive board called into question Mr. Wolfowitz’s earlier assertions that bank ethics officials had been kept informed about the new post for his companion, Shaha Ali Riza. The papers also indicated that Mr. Wolfowitz was more involved in securing the new post for his companion than he has let on.

In August 2005, for instance, Mr. Wolfowitz wrote a memo to the bank’s vice president for human resources in which he virtually dictated the kind of job Ms. Riza should be given. “I now direct you to agree to a proposal which includes the following terms and conditions,” Mr. Wolfowitz wrote. “You should accept immediately her offer to be detailed to an outside institution of her choosing while retaining bank salary and benefits.”

The executive board said ethics officials had not talked with Ms. Riza. “Neither did it find that the terms and conditions of the agreement had been commented on, reviewed or approved by the ethics committee, its chairman or the board,” the executive board added.

If I'm reading this right, Wolfowitz practically demands that the VP for human resources give Riza exactly what type of job he wants for her, demands that the VP accepts Riza's conditions for her employment, and keep Riza on the Bank's salary. Even more the World Bank's ethics officials never examined, or approved, of Riza's employment agreement.

But it gets better. Continuing with the Times article:

In July 2005, just after becoming bank president, Mr. Wolfowitz wrote to the bank’s ethics committee about his desire to “avoid a conflict of interest, real or apparent” and at the same time to see that “a loyal professional employee” is treated with “respect and fairness.”

Mr. Wolfowitz wrote that the need to avoid the appearance of conflict meant that Ms. Riza was blocked “from many professional opportunities in the bank.” Ms. Riza speaks Arabic, French, Italian and Turkish and has considerable experience in Africa and the Middle East.

Shaha Riza, shown in 2003, is still on the World Bank payroll. World Bank File Photo.

The executive board documents released today, while cautious and almost cryptic in their tone, would not seem to strengthen Mr. Wolfowitz’s hopes of holding on to his job. “The executive directors will move expeditiously to reach a conclusion on possible actions to take,” the board said. “In their consideration of the matter, the executive directors will focus on all relevant governance implications for the bank.”

On Thursday, the World Bank’s 24-member executive board, the body that elected Mr. Wolfowitz to the job after he was nominated by President Bush in 2005, held hurried meetings amid mounting speculation that it might reprimand Mr. Wolfowitz or ask him to resign.

More hypocrisy here on Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz wants to “avoid a conflict of interest, real or apparent” and at the same time to see that “a loyal professional employee” is treated with “respect and fairness.” And yet, Wolfowitz virtually dictated the kind of job Ms. Riza should be given. Talk about a conflict of interest here. It is no wonder that the World Bank is releasing the documents on this scandal that is pretty much destroying Wolfowitz's chance of remaining employed at the World Bank--Wolfowitz lied to the bank directors and the staff:

What drove the anger at the bank was not that Mr. Wolfowitz had denied earlier that he had sought Ms. Riza’s transfer, but that he had been less than fully candid in discussing it until documents surfaced showing his direct role. Even before the release of the documents today, his earlier insistence that he had consulted with ethics officials was disputed by some of them, who say they were not involved in the salary aspect of discussions.

This brings up the big question--will Wolfowitz resign? The Bush administration would like nothing more than to keep Wolfowitz at the World Bank. Here is the latest Bush PR-spin on Wolfowitz:

At the White House, Tony Fratto, a spokesman, said: “Of course, President Wolfowitz has our full confidence” and in dealing with the controversy over his involvement with Ms. Riza, “he has taken full responsibility and is working with the executive board to resolve it.”

But the real problem here is that the Bush administration has painted themselves into a corner over the past seven years on foreign policy. In foreign policy, the Bush administration practiced an extreme policy of unilateralism, where the United States was considered as the sole superpower and the rest of the world must follow its dictation. And according to Sheriff Bush, if you don't like what the U.S. tells you, then git outta town! This unilateralist, and imperialistic, approach to U.S. foreign policy has inflamed a lot of world anger against both the United States, and the Bush White House. The world's foreign ministers may just want to demand Wolfowitz's head.

And if the world's finance ministers demand that Wolfowitz should resign, that will cause even more problems for the Bush administration in finding a replacement for Wolfowitz. Any Bush replacement of Wolfowitz with another hard-lined neocon is going to generate a lot of criticism with the congressional Democrats, however such a nomination does not require Senate confirmation. The nomination to the World Bank President does require approval by the 184-nation board of the World Bank. And with the Bush White House as weakened as they are now, in both foreign and domestic politics, any nomination by President Bush is going to be held under intense scrutiny by the board. Are the world's foreign ministers willing to confront the Bush administration over Wolfowitz, perhaps knowing that Bush has a habit of pushing a confrontational stance?

The second option is to keep Wolfowitz on as president of the World Bank, but to push him into a much weaker position in his office. Here we are looking at reprimands and other disciplinary actions that the board may take against Wolfowitz, short of forcing him to resign. In this situation, Wolfowitz would remain at his position, but he would be held under a short leash of an intensive board scrutiny. The idea here is that Wolfowitz would serve out his term until 2010, or resign when a new U.S. president takes office in 2009.

We'll know more about Wolfowitz's fate when the annual spring session of the finance ministry officials meet in Washington, which is sponsored by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.