Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
So Wolfowitz is out and opponents of the Iraq war are rejoicing around the world, having collected at least one scalp off the architects of the debacle. It’s an unsatisfying bit of schadenfreude, though, considering how obvious it is that the reasons the staff of the World Bank went after him have more to do with what he represented to them than anything he did for his girlfriend.
This is important for reporters to remember, especially as they cover the appointment of Wolfowitz’s successor. As The New York Times reminds us today, Wolfowitz arrived at the Bank, “determined to shake up the status quo by rooting out what he saw as corruption and waste, and demanding measurable results from the bank’s many aid programs.” And he did do a lot of shaking, including forcing poor countries that requested loans to submit to more transparency and avoid corruption if they wanted money. Remember, too, that it was mostly the leaders of African countries who applauded Wolfowitz’s efforts and called for him to stay. “He has been a visionary,” the finance minister of Liberia told the Times last month.
The World Bank needs fixing on numerous fronts. Wolfowitz’s many sins notwithstanding, he understood this. Now that the Europeans have forced him out, there will be a temptation for the U.S. to propose someone who will be acceptable to the status quo powers within the bank. This would be a mistake. It may fall to the press to keep this issue front and center in the debate over who’s next.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
