Catalyst

Exit Wolfowitz: Drama or Farce?

The painful, bitter, pathetic (but hardly tragic) departure of President Paul Wolfowitz from the World Bank––widely unlamented––is marked by irony piled upon irony, but may hold out the hope that such a situation can be avoided in the future.

The first irony is that Wolfowitz, who had been criticized by some for having changed the Bank’s program emphasis from fighting poverty to fighting corruption, should be charged with one of the crudest forms of corruption, i.e., nepotism. The specific offense, of course, was the compensation package for Shaha Ali Riza, variously described as his woman friend, girl friend, companion, romantic interest, and even “neoconcubine.” Her secondment to the State Department, in accordance with Bank rules, paid her more, at $193,000 (up from her Bank salary of $133,000), than the Secretary of State; and it is tax free. A British citizen of Tunisian descent, she worked on Middle East issues under Vice President Cheney’s daughter at the State Department. Some Bank personnel felt that her salary was far out of line and was based on favoritism.

Was there a “clear breach of ethics” here? Did he, as some Bank people alleged, “place his own personal interests (including appeasing a very angry Ms. Riza) opposed to the interest of the institution?” Or, as another critic suggested, is it ”like getting Al Capone for tax evasion?” Was there a “smear campaign against” Wolfowitz? Was it all a “power play” by “craven European governments opposed to his efforts to cleanse a corrupt and hidebound institution?” Why did he hire a celebrity lawyer and allegedly search for a leadership coach? There will probably always be some questions, but as the Bank panel ambivalently concluded, “A number of mistakes were made by a number of individuals.” Will it ever be known whether the famous pay package, his past identification with the Iraq War, or his administrative style drove the final nail?

The second irony is precisely that “administrative style.” Wolfowitz made no secret of his disapproval of the “ entrenched culture of the Bank. He demonstrated this, in part, by bringing two young aides with him from the Defense Department, paying them high salaries, and relying on them to carry his messages and decisions––and sometimes orders–– to senior Bank officials. The hostility he provoked among the staff was so massive that during the process of his ouster thousands of bank workers wore blue ribbons (“for wisdom and honesty”) to express their “burgeoning collective venom.” He seemed to presume that people who opposed him were incompetent or corrupt and often failed to consult them before making decisions that affected their projects. Even some of his defenders did not see him as a model of good governance. One of them said that despite his intellectual gifts, “he couldn’t run a two-car funeral.”

The third irony applies more to the Bank than to Wolfowitz and has been rather lost sight of in the controversy. Critics have said that for Wolfowitz to leave the Bank would impair its reputation and its credibility. Others have worried that his staying on would have the same result. The underlying fact, however, is that although the 63-year-old institution, whose full name is International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), may have performed the first of these two processes effectively, reconstruction ended within a decade of its founding, leaving only development, not clearly defined, as its mission. That mission’s latest definition is the elimination of poverty, preferably through the application of a set of neo-liberal policies, led by privatization, deregulation, and total reliance on the “free market” to achieve a globalized economy in which all countries take part. This is the core of the so-called Washington consensus, which is the Bank’s prescription for ending poverty. Although accepted by most of the world’s economists, who have been educated in the industrialized North, the observation that relatively little of the more than $2.3 trillion devoted to development assistance (foreign aid) over more than a half century appears to have trickled down to the poor people who need it has begun to weaken the ranks of its supporters. (The United Nations continues to put the number of people who do not have access to an adequate human diet at about 850 million––about one seventh of the human race.) The poor are more numerous, hungrier, and more miserable––and the gap between them and the rich is greater than ever - and growing. The Bank may not be “a black hole of indolence and bureaucracy,” but it now begins to appear that its Washington consensus may have peaked and that more mainstream economists are moving beyond it.

The World Bank panel that handled the Wolfowitz case concluded that it had two questions to deal with: The first was whether Wolfowitz could continue to provide appropriate leadership for the institution; that one is now answered. The second conclusion was to “undertake a review of the governance framework of the World Bank Group with the aim of ensuring that it is capable of effectively dealing with the challenges raised for the institution.” One can hope that this second question will focus even more broadly on the Bank’s structure and operations. Where did the $2.3 trillion go, one might ask. From bureaucracies and consultants in the North to bureaucracies, often less competent and/or more corrupt, in the South. Do we call it corruption when less educated and experienced bureaucrats in the South deal with the phalanxes of bureaucracies from the North? Or when the donated funds are used to increase the profits of the North’s multinational corporations? Is it justice for an institution to fight poverty when more than 1,400 of its 10,000 employees earn more than the U.S. Secretary of State? Yes, indeed, there is reason, and perhaps opportunity now, to hold the World Bank to account.

And what can we expect from the central character in this farcical drama? Why is he staying until the end pf the fiscal year, if he is not going to make policy or personnel decisions, or attend meetings? Will he return to academe (e.g., Johns Hopkins) and fade away? Or revive PNAC (Project for the New American Century)––the neocons’ jihad? Or write the books and make the speeches about Iraq and Middle East policy that the Bank would not permit him to publish? Or perhaps manage a one-car funeral?

Posted by Martin McLaughlin, Adjunct Associate, Food Security Project.

Darfur Mothers: Caught in the Conflict

How does one begin to understand the plight of mothers who are living in areas of conflict, war, great poverty?  How does one truly relate to a mother who has no food to give her crying, starving baby?  How does one stand in solidarity with a mother who can be prosecuted if she gives birth to a child that resulted from rape by her enemy, but who bravely births and then cares for her child?  In Darfur we find many of these mothers.

The Darfur mother may be a member of the semi-nomadic cow herding Arab Hotia tribe or the nomadic Arab Abala tribe.  For centuries these tribes lived in harmony with one another.  Then in February 2003, rebels took up arms against the Sudanese government, complaining that almost none of Sudan’s wealth was being distributed to the Darfur region.  In response, the government mobilized Arab militias, called Janjaweed.

Thus the lives of so many Darfur women changed.  The Darfur mother  is often confused by the politics and cannot relate to human rights organizations who fired the first shot.  Following murderous attacks on her village in which huts, animals and household belongings are torched, men are killed, and women are often raped, the Darfur mother treks, with her children,  many days across the barren desert, fleeing the enemy and arriving at a refugee camp where upwards of 15,000 are often gathered.  Thus she joins  the 2.5 million people who have been displaced during the past four years.

The Darfur mother at the refugee camp must start with scraps of plastic and cloth to construct a new home, which is not much more than shelter from the hot burning sun.  She awaits the arrival of trucks that bring basic food rations to feed her family, but even these trucks are often ambushed.  She can no longer rely on a few chickens or goats nor even a few vegetables from a garden plot to feed her family.  She has lost all she has and now is completely reliant on humanitarian aid for survival.  Water is a scarce commodity that also implies danger.  To access water, she must often go outside the relative safety of the refugee camp in order to go to a river or well.  Along the way, she may be captured by enemy forces, raped and branded.  The 12 liters per day that she is strong enough to carry is enough only for basic drinking and cooking, not for washing clothes nor bathing away the sweat of the day.

The Vatican, U.S. Catholic Bishops and world leaders have called on the Sudanese government to allow peacekeepers to enter the region.  As a result of these negotiations Sudan has agreed to an expansion of a small peacekeeping force of the African Union.  Special UN envoy to Sudan, Jan Eliasson reports that the regional government of southern Sudan plans to bring together Darfur rebel factions for a meeting in preparation for future peace talks with Sudan’s central government.  Eliasson at the same time expressed concern about three developments:   “land grabs, infighting among Sudanese tribes, and a radicalization and taking up of arms by refugee camp residents.  The U.S. government is considering the expansion of an airfield in Chad which borders the Darfur region.  [For more information refer to www.washingtonpost.com/world]

As the governments of the world consider their next steps, the women and children of the region remain vulnerable.  Perhaps putting a face on the situation – entering into solidarity with the Darfur mother – can quicken the process of intervention, which has been painfully slow and unproductive for many, especially the very real people being impacted each day by our delay.

Sources: ”Talks May Help Unite Rebel Forces in Darfur”, Nora Boustany, The Washington Post, May 17, 2007;  Oxfam America, Human Rights Watch, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights.

Posted by Sr. Janet Cashman, SCL - Intern, Center of Concern

Undocumented Immigrants are People Too

I spend Tuesday evenings at a community organization teaching a class on citizenship and advocacy to Latino immigrants in preparation for their naturalization exams. Recently, we had a class discussion about one of the most important responsibilities of a citizen—using one’s time to make positive changes in his or her community. I asked the students, “What do you want to change in your community?” Some of their answers included:

“I want to get the trash on our streets cleaned up.”
            “I want my neighborhood to be safer and quieter.”
            “I want to help people who don’t know English.”
            “I want people to be able to get jobs who need them.”
            “I want there to be more special classes at school to help kids with disabilities.”
            “I want to help older persons in my community.”

Having worked with (and lived in the same neighborhood as) immigrants for several years, I sometimes reflect on how these hard-working people, who often overcame significant struggles in their homelands be fore arriving in the U.S., are such inspiring symbols of hope for a country that prides itself on being a land of opportunity.

Different perceptions about immigrants are revealed through the words spoken by various parties. When the Catholic Church talks about immigrants, it talks about persons, filled with dignity and deserving of respect. In the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Justice for Immigrants Campaign literature, one of the 5 principles that the bishops say should guide immigrant reform is respect for human dignity: 

Persons who enter a nation without proper authorization or who over-stay their visas should be treated with respect and dignity. They should not be detained in deplorable conditions forlengthy periods of time, shackled by their feet and hands, or abused in any manner. They should be afforded due process of the law and, if applicable, allowed to articulate a fear of return to their home before a qualified adjudicator. They should not be blamed for the social ills of a nation.

Clearly, the focus is on the fact that above all else, the immigrant is a person, made in God’s image. Three out of the other four principles also focus on the immigrant as a person: persons have a right to find opportunities within their homeland; persons have a right to migrate to support themselves and their families; and refugees and asylum seekers should be given protection. The final principle, that sovereign nations have a right to control their borders, is tempered by the notion that they also have “an obligation to the common good” and that “nations should seek to accommodate migration to the greatest extent possible.”

The bishops urged Congress to consider these five principles above all when they begin discussions on compromise immigration legislation the week of May 14. In the case that the negotiations fail, there will be two options on the table about which the bishops have made their position clear.

The STRIVE Act (The Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007) allows undocumented persons an eventual path to residency and later, citizenship; provides visas for a temporary worker program; legislates wage and worker protections for some industries; reduces the huge backlog of applications for family members to come to the U.S.; provides more legal assistance for the detained; and requires the U.S. to assist Mexico in addressing some of the root causes of why immigrants come. The bill is not perfect: none of these improvements could be made before border security is strengthened, and punishments against the undocumented and those who assist them would be stricter, are two examples.

But STRIVE seems golden when compared to the White House plan, which creates a prohibitive cost burden for immigrants who want to apply for work permits and later, citizenship; does not provide enough visas; has no labor protections for workers; and stipulates the creation of the 370-mile border fence on the southern border before any changes can be made. 

For this reason, the bishops are urging principles of comprehensive immigration reform to be considered in negotiations next week. But if those fail and the choice is between STRIVE and the White House plan, the former wins out by a long shot.

Complicating the situation is that radical anti-immigrant organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) use fear of the "other" as a main component their anti-immigrant website rhetoric and are trying to scare congresspersons into security-only immigration reform. The worst part is that they pretend to represent a majority of the public when they make assertions that:

• More immigrants means more violent crime.
• “Illegals” are an “enormous drain on public funds."
• Their presence in the U.S. “furnishes an opportunity for terrorists to blend into the same shadows while they target the American public for their terrorist crimes.”
• There are three major components of immigration control: “deterrence, apprehension and removal,” and these must be strengthened “if effective control is ever to be reestablished.”

The striking thing about this type of literature is the absolute inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to recognize undocumented immigrants as real persons with real needs. And of course, there is no acknowledgment of the root causes of immigration. (See my Nov. 2006 blog for a discussion of aid, trade and debt policy as structural factors that need to be addresses in any real immigration debate.)

Interestingly, recent polls of actual public opinion in the U.S. show that FAIR’s ideas of reality are not how most Americans see things. Here are some interesting results from polls posted on the National Immigration Forum website:

• In a Washington Post/ABC News poll in April, 62% of respondents thought undocumented immigrants should be allowed to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status, as opposed to being deported.
• A New York Times/CBS poll in March showed 59% of respondents agreeing that the undocumented should be allowed to keep their jobs and apply for legal status.
• In a Gallup/USA Today poll, also in March, 59% answered that the undocumented should be able to stay if they meet certain requirements over a period of time.

The results of these polls reveal that most Americans, like the U.S. bishops, actually do see immigrants as real persons. They, perhaps, would not be so surprised to enter my Tuesday night class and see Latino immigrants eagerly raising their hands to answer questions about U.S. history, Constitutional rights, and the duties of citizens. I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to help more of the immigrants in my community move out of the shadows and into a space where they can fulfill some of their dreams for better schools, cleaner streets, and safer neighborhoods—as citizens. Join with the bishops and call your congressperson today to ask for comprehensive—not fear-driven—immigration reform.

by Jill Rauh, Senior Program Associate, Education for Justice