May 18, 2007
Wolfowitz and the War
Or, "Freedom Loses One."
The forces of darkness and anti-modernity do not lie peacefully, whether in the caves of Afghanistan or the capitals of Europe, They are active and are bound to win a few.
That said, I am still disappointed in the World Bank scandal. The scandal being, of course, that a good man who was trying to clean up a corrupt institution such that it could actually do some good was run out by the thugs who profit from corruption. The Wall Street Journal has a well written recap of what transpired, so I will link and excerpt, not summarize it.
We've said from the beginning that the charges against Mr. Wolfowitz were bogus, and that the effort to unseat him amounted to a political grudge by those who opposed his role in the Bush Administration and a bureaucratic vendetta by those who opposed his anti-corruption agenda at the bank. That view was vindicated by yesterday's statement, which showed how little the merits of the case against Mr. Wolfowitz had to do with the final result.
[...]
In a better world, the bank would shrink to perform only its core mission of helping the world's poorest nations. That's not going to happen, however, so the best that President Bush can do now to minimize the damage of the Wolfowitz putsch is by replacing him with someone who shares his agenda and will clean the place up. No European should have a chance to do that given what has transpired, not even Tony Blair. Nor should he name another well known member of the Council on Foreign Relations seminar circuit whom the Europeans and staff can quickly capture.We've suggested former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who saw first-hand how these institutions function while investigating the U.N.'s Oil for Food scandal. But whoever it is, the core task of Mr. Wolfowitz's successor should be to clean the World Bank stables, or shut it down.
I'm glad that the European economies are doing better and that a new crop of leaders show some fondness for capitalism. L'Affaire Wolfowitz shows, however, that there is a fundamental difference between Europe and America in each's tolerance for corruption.
Europe stood still as the Oil for Food corruption undermined the only chance the world had to avoid the Iraq War. It wasn't WMDs, it was the fecklessness of Europe to enact and enforce tough sanctions and to demand thorough inspections Now we are repeating the same errors in Iran, with a corrupt Europe having been expanded to include corruption in Moscow and Beijing.
Bill Bennet wrote a book about President Clinton's troubles where he discussed European bemusement at Americans' caring so much about a trivial matter. Bennet, whom I've disagreed with on a thousand things, got off one of the great lines ever. I quote from memory: "Europe has much to teach us about wine, culture, and cuisine. America, however, has much to teach Europe about morality in government."
The players have all changed, but that part remains true. Europe doesn't seem to care that the UN or many of its satellite NGOs are corrupt, incompetent, and counter-productive. There may be friendlier G-8 meetings with Sarkozy, Merkel and Brown. But a huge gap remains in the tolerance for corruption in NGOs that must be addressed. And it will have to be addressed by America.