16 Apr Defending Wolfowitz from a World Bank Smear
The WSJ editorial page has a predictable but still quite powerful defense of Paul Wolfowitz today based on the documents recently released about his case. The upshot: Wolfowitz is the target of a smear campaign aided and abetted by media organs like the NYT. (UPDATE: Prof. Ruth Wedgwood has a similarly outraged defense of Wolfowitz in the LA Times here. BTW, I’m still waiting for a rebuttal from those seeking Wolfowitz’s resignation). Here is the crux of the defense:
The paper trail shows that Mr. Wolfowitz had asked to recuse himself from matters related to his girlfriend, a longtime World Bank employee, before he signed his own employment contract. The bank’s general counsel at the time, Roberto Danino, wrote in a May 27, 2005 letter to Mr. Wolfowitz’s lawyers:
“First, I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Wolfowitz has disclosed to the Board, through you, that he has a pre-existing relationship with a Bank staff member, and that he proposes to resolve the conflict of interest in relation to Staff Rule 3.01, Paragraph 4.02 by recusing himself from all personnel matters and professional contact related to the staff member.”
[snip]
[The Bank then asked him to get back involved, even despite his recusal. Thus,]the record clearly shows [Wolfowitz] acted only after he had tried to recuse himself but then wasn’t allowed to do so by the ethics committee. And he acted only after that same committee advised him to compensate Ms. Riza for the damage to her career from a “conflict of interest” that was no fault of her own.
Based on this paper trail, Mr. Wolfowitz’s only real mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith. Yet when some of these details leaked to the media, nearly everyone else at the bank dodged responsibility and let Mr. Wolfowitz twist in the wind.
This sounds pretty persuasive, especially given that the NYT reports I’ve seen have pretty much ignored the paper trail, focusing on the animus of World Bank employees complaining about Wolfowitz’s anti-corruption policies. But I’m sure our readers have some new info I’m missing?
*Crickets chirping*
I’m don’t think this “paper trail” is enough to establiish that Wolfowitz’s “only mistake was in assuming that everyone else was acting in good faith.” The man has apologized for errors in judgment, which suggests that he committed serious mistakes in connection with Ms. Riza.
But even were that not the case, it is pretty clear that dissatisfaction with Wolfowitz at the World Bank extends far beyond the allegations connected with Ms. Riza. Reports (including a lengthy New Yorker profile) indicate widespread dissatisfaction both with Wolfowitz’s policies and with his management style. Those substantive complaints provide more persuasive grounds for his removal, and then the question becomes whether the employees of the bank should be permitted to demand the head of their leader.