Some call for US to cede right of choosing World Bank chief
WASHINGTON -- The departure of Paul Wolfowitz as World Bank president is prompting calls around the globe to revoke the traditional right of the United States to select the institution's leader.
As the White House asserted claims on picking Wolfowitz's successor, aid groups and former bank officials demanded that the next president be selected not in deference to the Bush administration, but on the professional merits.
Advocacy groups and development specialists took aim at an unwritten rule that has for six decades governed the financial institutions created in the aftermath of World War II: The US president picks the World Bank chief, while Europe selects the head of its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund.
"Paul Wolfowitz's problems at the World Bank stem in part from a widespread perception that he disproportionately represents US interests rather than objectives that command a global consensus," declared a letter signed this week by more than 200 people -- including heads of aid organizations -- and sent to the executive boards of the World Bank and the IMF.
It called for the traditional arrangement to be "abandoned and replaced with selection procedures that reflect two key principles: transparency of process, and competence of prospective leadership without regard to national origin."
Wolfowitz, forced out after weeks of ethical controversy, yesterday assured the bank's executive board he will have little to do with the institution between now and the time his resignation takes effect on June 30.
In a letter, Wolfowitz said he would "leave the day-to-day work of board meetings to the bank's managing directors," while deferring to them as well on policy issues.
Wolfowitz's letter was meant to resolve an argument surrounding the interim period.
The Bush administration has opposed the appointment of an acting president, fearing this might weaken its prerogative to name his successor.
The struggle over the bank's future is taking place as its relevance in the world is under attack.
The global development program, financed by wealthier countries, pumps billions every year into the economies of poor countries, either as low-interest loans or grants. It has historically been a lifeline in some of the world's poorest places.
Some argue that in a world newly flush with capital, the bank's lending to attack poverty is no longer as vital as it once was. But the bank remains a last resort in many places, lending urgency to the leadership question, analysts said.
The White House said yesterday that it would move quickly name a new World Bank president, asserting its traditional prerogative.
"Traditionally, the American nominee has become the World Bank president," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said at a news conference. "The president is going to try to select the individual he thinks is the best person for the job."
