A new global job with a global responsibility

U.S. President George W. Bush has nominated deputy secretary of defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz, for the post of president of the World Bank. While a confirmation is almost a sure thing, the nomination has stirred controversy because of Wolfowitz's role in President Bush's global war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq. Wolfowitz, who served as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia in the late 1980s, received The Jakarta Post's correspondent in Washington, Yenni Djahidin, at his office in The Pentagon to talk about his new job. Here are excerpts of the interview:

Question: Why do you think you're the right person for the job?

Answer: I believe very passionately in the bank's mission. I have a lot of experience managing public sector organizations as well as one substantial academic organization. It's the kind of management experience that is particularly important in an institution like the World Bank. Having diplomatic experience is helpful because you are doing a lot of diplomacy to build consensus because that is the only way you can lead an organization like that.

Finally, and by no means least, thanks in no small measure to the time I spent in Indonesia both when I was ambassador, but also before (I) visited often when I was assistant secretary of state and again as dean of SAIS (School of Advanced International Studies) at Johns Hopkins University. I've seen first hand what poverty is like in a developing country. I've seen successful development policies, successful contributions from international donors and I've also seen some failures that are the result of bad governance.

I should hasten to say, because everybody knows how much I like Indonesia, (that) this is a global job with global responsibilities, and with a special priority for Africa because Africa depends so much on the bank, and the bank plays such a big role in Africa. In part, that's because some of the most horrible conditions of poverty in the world, compounded by the severe health epidemics, are to be found in Africa. But it is a global job and, as one of the Asian directors of the bank reminded me, there are still more poor people in Asia than anywhere else in the world.

How would eradicate poverty in the world?

There is no one specific solution. It's a matter of pulling together the different pieces that go into a successful strategy, and the different parts of development that you have to focus on. Since my nomination was announced, I am already getting an enormous education in the complexity of the problems that I didn't know a lot about before. The more you hear, the more you realize there's no "one size fits all solution".

What is your vision for the bank in the next 5-10 years?

A World Bank that can lead the world in achieving the very ambitious Millennium Development Goals. If I could contribute in even approaching that vision, I would feel very proud. It requires mobilizing the resources of the developed world. It requires applying those resources as effectively as possible with the developing countries. It requires an understanding of how important it is that successful development has to have indigenous roots.

How do you deal with corruption issue around the world?

Jim Wolfensohn has done a remarkable job in his 10 years as president of the bank, and he has set some very important, new directions, and one of them has been his focus on transparency, accountability, good governance.

You have experienced first-hand in Indonesia what damage it can do when people don't pay attention to that part of the development equation. It's also a very complex problem, and there are different kinds of corruption; different degrees of corruption. I don't know of a country that doesn't have corruption problems, including my own. And it's not something you can expect to eliminate entirely, but I certainly think it has to be a major concern of a development assistance institution like the World Bank to reduce it as much as possible.

How do you make sure that aid is not corrupted?

I know they (World Bank officials) have been thinking of how you can do it and I frankly want to get a much better idea of where they are at and how they think it can be done and see if I can take them further. Too often we've seen where the world has been generous to countries with economic assistance and none of that has gotten to the people it's intended for because it's been basically drained off by inadequate institutions. What you have to do is get people to understand that if they want their countries to grow and succeed, it's not going to be international assistance that's going to make it possible. They are going to have to take some of the difficult policy decisions, political decisions, to control corruption. That part of it is persuading key officials in the relevant countries that it's much better to provide the conditions in which the whole pie can grow and everybody to benefit from it rather than to think that the best way to benefit is to grab a piece of the pie for themselves. The good thing is that there seems to be a consensus now that I don't think existed 10 years ago that this is not a minor problem and it is not just a political problem, but it is central to successful economic development.

How independent will you be from the Bush administration?

If I am confirmed, I will be an international civil servant. I will be the president of a multilateral organization with 184 member nations. I am very aware that I am accountable to a different group of people than I am in my present job. Most of my career has been in the U.S. government, accountable ultimately to the President and the Congress. On the other hand, I spent seven years as the dean of an academic faculty where someone said the organization chart is the faculty reports to the dean, who reports to the faculty. It is, in a small version, consensus- oriented institution. The job of the president of the bank is to pull together the most effective possible consensus in support of the goal that everyone agrees on, which is reducing poverty and promoting economic development.

And that's a good thing, that you start from a general agreement on a common goal. It doesn't mean there's not a lot to argue about, but it's a very important starting point. You can always bring people back to ask the question, "are you really arguing for something you believe is going to help the poor people of the world or does it just happen to support your own political agenda." And I would say that to my own, to the U.S. government, as well as to other governments. I would not take this job if I didn't think I could serve all the clients of the bank.

Will you use your new position to promote democracy around the world?

I think people know what I think on that subject, but I think I'll be more effective if I concentrate on those things that lead to poverty reduction and economic development. At the same time, you can't make a simple distinction when you get to the area of corruption, you are talking about problems that affect democracy and economic development. So the institutional basis of economic development is important, but I think the things that the World Bank president can advocate for most effectively are getting the donor countries to be more generous, getting the developed countries to open their markets, getting the developing countries to strengthen their own institutions against corruption, so aid is used effectively. Those are the kinds of things that if I can focus on as president of the World Bank and really make a difference. Those things will have a positive effect on other things that I care about. But my experience over and over again is if you want to lead an organization effectively, you have to figure out what its comparative strengths are and what its mission is and focus on accomplishing those things, not do everything that's good for the world.