Needs outweigh scandal
WORLD BANK President Paul Wolfowitz is under fire for possibly violating World Bank processes, or at least improperly influencing a decision, affecting a promotion for a woman with whom he has had a personal relationship. Is this controversy the the latest game of "gotcha" that has come to typify Washington and international politics or is it driven by forces that never wanted Wolfowitz at the bank in the first place? Will this the controversy undermine the credibility of both Wolfowitz and the World Bank as it seeks to institute higher standards for its clients?
There does seem to be an element of "gotcha" to this controversy. In the 24-hour news cycle, something like this was a media scandal waiting to happen. Still, the bank may have managed the scandal differently if Wolfowitz had been more respectful and inclusive of career staff.
The issues of transparency and accountability loom large in this controversy. With Wolfowitz rightly making the corrosive impact of corruption on development the central focus of the bank, the question is to what extent does this controversy jeopardize this important principle. If he insists on a higher standard for bank clients, then there can't be another standard for him. Double standards don't work. How then should the bank board parse its way through this dilemma? Is more than a mea culpa required? Is his resignation (or firing) the only remedy?
It seems that Wolfowitz's greatest sin might be that he did the wrong thing for the right reason. His companion is an accomplished professional who worked for the World Bank well before Wolfowitz happened upon the scene. After his appointment, there might have been, at least, the appearance of a conflict of interest relative to her supervision. Wolfowitz concedes that others should have been handled the issue of her status at the bank; and that he should have been more forthcoming about his role in her promotion and raise.
While the bank board sorts out what it will do, there are a couple of related issues that need to be managed with care and concern. The first is the untenable position Wolfowitz's companion is in. Neither the move nor the raise was reportedly something she sought, or wanted. Though she has been subject to public scrutiny, she should not be subject to public ridicule. Great care should also be taken to make sure her career does not suffer and she becomes the "fall guy."
Second, the point of principle regarding corruption and transparency should not be sacrificed in the effort to be sensitive or fair to Wolfowitz. Nor should this important principle be exploited by Wolfowitz critics to further their own political agendas. Developing countries have been working hard to clean up their acts relative to how aid money and investments are managed by their governments.
It is worth adding that African leaders such as South African President Thabo Mbeki and Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade championed those standards well before Wolfowitz arrived at the bank. To have multilateral institutions like the World Bank as reliable and credible partners is critical if the efforts of leaders to encourage good governance are to succeed. The bank board should make sure that this principle of transparency is not killed in the crossfire generated by this controversy.
Finally, as the World Bank board decides how to deal with Wolfowitz, it should remember that the world needs good public servants. Likewise, it needs to mindful that there are no perfect public servants. People make mistakes. Having those that make mistakes become a part of the solution to the problems they sometimes create is critical to progress and maintaining civil society. It is possible to maintain high standards without double standards. That is the challenge in this case.
Former US Ambassador Charles R. Stith is director of the Africa Presidential Archives and Research Center and a professor of international relations at Boston University. 
