Wolfowitz no longer a credible voice
Bridget WelshPublished: Apr 19, 2007 1:39 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
The Bush administration and its key officials are under siege for ethical scandals. First, it was Scooter Libby, who was convicted for leaking confidential information. Second, it was Karl Rove who allegedly reviewed the leak, but has avoided testifying to his role. Third, it was Alberto Gonzales for firing government civil servants who questioned the investigations of contracts allocation to businesses with close ties to the administration for Iraq. Congressional hearings are now ongoing.
This past week it has been Paul Wolfowitz, acclaimed fighter for corruption and democracy promoter, who has become embroiled in providing favours for his girlfriend and 'cabal' of political appointees. This comes on the heels of long-standing reports about links between Vice-President Cheney and the massive government contracts that were given to his former firm, Halliburton. Scandals galore!
The litany of serious ethical issues comes as no surprise. The Bush administration has pushed the limits of ethical and moral boundaries since it came into office. No where is this more obvious than in its policy towards Iraq, where lives of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have paid the price for a misguided policy couched in 'morality' They have operated under the rubric that 'the ends justify the means', and ethics have gone out the window.
Lucrative contracts, high salaries for unqualified people, and rough-shodding revelations by power holders of confidential information that leave long-lasting negative impacts on weaker parties have become par for the course. This unethical stampede in the good name of 'democracy promotion' conducted with hubris and self-righteousness has finally come to roost.
The Bush administration and its appointees have forgotten the important lesson that how something is done is as important as the commendable goals it professes. Democracy in Iraq was impaired from the onset, since it was imposed through an invasion and an unwillingness to engage in dialogue.
Similarly, Wolfowitz's valuable call for a cleaner government and less corruption has been seriously comprised by his approval of pay increases for his girlfriend that violated practices in the World Bank and favours that were allocated to his appointees. He no longer is a credible voice for cleaner government. By leaving the principles of process behind, they have comprised outcomes.
Over the past few months, especially since the November 2006 election, the tide has turned in Washington. Americans spoke out decisively for change in Iraq. While the US Congress has yet to deliver on this promise (and to date the Democrats appear rudderless to do so), the new questioning climate has drawn attention to the fundamental divergence between policy claims and policy implementation in the Bush administration.
It has fostered an environment where people outraged by the unethical actions of Bush appointees can raise concerns. The fact that the staff in an institution as conservative as the World Bank has acted as it has by calling for Wolfowitz's resignation speaks volumes.
Defenders of Rove, Gonzales and Wolfowitz say this is partisan behaviour and settling of old scores. While there is an element of truth in this claim since partisanship continues to polarise decision-making in the US - the main issue is not about personality, parties or even the goals of policy. It is about consistent abuses of power in process.
This week the World Bank an institution that represents over 180 countries has an opportunity to show that these abuses should stop, that ethical standards should be fairly applied across countries that US appointees should be held to the same standards it applies in allocating funds to governments. The on-going review process by the World Bank board will reveal whether the mechanisms in place to check abuses of power are adequate.
If Wolfowitz stays in office, this will be clear sign of the inability of the international institution to effectively police itself, to practice what it preaches. The time is ripe to send a clear message that how something is done matters and that everyone, no matter where they are from, should be held to the same standards of ethical behaviour.
This past week it has been Paul Wolfowitz, acclaimed fighter for corruption and democracy promoter, who has become embroiled in providing favours for his girlfriend and 'cabal' of political appointees. This comes on the heels of long-standing reports about links between Vice-President Cheney and the massive government contracts that were given to his former firm, Halliburton. Scandals galore!
The litany of serious ethical issues comes as no surprise. The Bush administration has pushed the limits of ethical and moral boundaries since it came into office. No where is this more obvious than in its policy towards Iraq, where lives of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have paid the price for a misguided policy couched in 'morality' They have operated under the rubric that 'the ends justify the means', and ethics have gone out the window.
Lucrative contracts, high salaries for unqualified people, and rough-shodding revelations by power holders of confidential information that leave long-lasting negative impacts on weaker parties have become par for the course. This unethical stampede in the good name of 'democracy promotion' conducted with hubris and self-righteousness has finally come to roost.
The Bush administration and its appointees have forgotten the important lesson that how something is done is as important as the commendable goals it professes. Democracy in Iraq was impaired from the onset, since it was imposed through an invasion and an unwillingness to engage in dialogue.
Similarly, Wolfowitz's valuable call for a cleaner government and less corruption has been seriously comprised by his approval of pay increases for his girlfriend that violated practices in the World Bank and favours that were allocated to his appointees. He no longer is a credible voice for cleaner government. By leaving the principles of process behind, they have comprised outcomes.
Over the past few months, especially since the November 2006 election, the tide has turned in Washington. Americans spoke out decisively for change in Iraq. While the US Congress has yet to deliver on this promise (and to date the Democrats appear rudderless to do so), the new questioning climate has drawn attention to the fundamental divergence between policy claims and policy implementation in the Bush administration.
It has fostered an environment where people outraged by the unethical actions of Bush appointees can raise concerns. The fact that the staff in an institution as conservative as the World Bank has acted as it has by calling for Wolfowitz's resignation speaks volumes.
Defenders of Rove, Gonzales and Wolfowitz say this is partisan behaviour and settling of old scores. While there is an element of truth in this claim since partisanship continues to polarise decision-making in the US - the main issue is not about personality, parties or even the goals of policy. It is about consistent abuses of power in process.
This week the World Bank an institution that represents over 180 countries has an opportunity to show that these abuses should stop, that ethical standards should be fairly applied across countries that US appointees should be held to the same standards it applies in allocating funds to governments. The on-going review process by the World Bank board will reveal whether the mechanisms in place to check abuses of power are adequate.
If Wolfowitz stays in office, this will be clear sign of the inability of the international institution to effectively police itself, to practice what it preaches. The time is ripe to send a clear message that how something is done matters and that everyone, no matter where they are from, should be held to the same standards of ethical behaviour.
View Comments0