The crisis that brought down Paul Wolfowitz from the presidency of the World Bank has laid bare a chasm existing between the United States and European countries since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Wolfowitz (63) was deputy defence secretary and one of the principal architects of the Iraq war in the administration of US President George Bush before he took the helm of the World Bank in June 2005.
Even at that time, European countries opposed to the war felt badly about the choice made by Bush, but resigned themselves and went along with it.
“Wolfowitz’s departure may have been justified, but his leaving had more to do with the bureaucracy’s resentment of his role in the Iraq war and his internal reform initiatives than about his lapse of ethics,” said Ian Vasquez, director of the Centre for Global Liberty and Prosperity at Cato Institute, a Washington think tank.
Wolfowitz himself felt he was a victim of an urge for revenge that fired up some of his opponents.
As early as April 12, when the crisis sparked by charges of favouritism first erupted, he declared to his critics that he did not work for the US government any more and represented only the bank and its 185 members.
Wolfowitz announced on Thursday he would resign on June 30 after a bank panel found he had violated the organisation’s code of conduct by arranging a hefty pay and promotion deal for his girlfriend, a fellow bank employee.
“I think a lot of agendas converged in taking down Paul Wolfowitz,” argued Steve Clemons, an expert with the New America Foundation.
“I think there was residual resentment of Wolfowitz’s treatment of Europeans and the whole kind of international process that lay just beneath the surface of much of this. But it wasn’t the determining factor,” he said.
By tradition, the president of the World Bank is chosen by Americans while the head of the International Monetary Funds (IMF), the sister institution, is selected by Europeans.
A number of voices, including those coming from NGOs and some governments, rose in favour of abandoning that unwritten rule.
Dutch Development and Cooperation Minister Bert Koenders pointed out on Friday that qualifications criteria should prevail in the selection of a future bank president over nationality.
But that approach would probably mean that Americans would ask Europeans to renounce their claim to leadership at the IMF, a request the latter would most likely find “unpalatable”, insisted Devesh Kapur, author of a history of the IMF.
Holding 16,38% of the bank’s shares, the US is its principal stakeholder, followed by Japan (7,86%), Germany (4,49%), France and Britain (4,3% each).
Japan kept away from the fray sparked by the Wolfowitz controversy, but the Germans, French and British have made it clear that they favoured his departure.
His decision to resign has helped avoid a vote by the bank’s 24-member board of directors that could have resulted in his dismissal.
Such a vote would have put the US in a minority as a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said in the middle of the crisis: “An abstention is out of the question.”
As a result, Bush’s Republican administration has suffered a setback and now will have to choose Wolfowitz’s successor.
White House spokesperson Tony Fratto said on Friday that the Bush administration wanted “to move swiftly in this process”.
Asked if Bush might nominate someone who was not a US national, Fratto said: “Potentially, sure.”
The spokesperson also recalled: “Traditionally the American nominee has become the World Bank president.”
The Europeans will have therefore to accept Bush’s choice as they did two years ago with Wolfowitz.– AFP