When I first interviewed for my current position, I had to do so at Starbucks. This was not a fortuitous accommodation of my addiction to milky coffee, it was an acknowledgement that I was a risk, a threat until proven otherwise. Why was I so suspect? Well, for once, this had nothing to do with my pumpernickelish skin or brown subcontinental roots; I was risky business because I wasn’t cleared. And until I was, I would not be allowed more than five feet beyond the very beginning of a large lobby which contained a metal detector, an x-ray machine an imposingly high desk and several cameras. Five feet from the doors I had entered, that’s where I waited for almost 20 minutes, to meet the hiring manager who would sheepishly later ask if I minded conducting such an important interview at…Starbucks.
While I waited for aforementioned manager, my nerves invaded my stomach, from where it staged a coup attempt on the rest of my body. I felt like I was going to suddenly reacquaint myself (and everyone else in this very busy, very important lobby) with the protein shake I had chugged for breakfast. Horrified, I turned to one of the four guards and beseeched him to edify me regarding the location of the closest bathroom.
“Can’t do that, miss. You’re not allowed past this line.â€
“But I think I’m going to be sick…â€
“Yeah, you don’t look so good…hold on—Jay!â€
“What’s goin on’…is she all right?â€
“No. Do you think we can let her use the bathroom…â€
“I don’t know man…she ain’t allowed back there-“
“But she’s going to get sick right here!â€
“True, true…all right, just this once. Miss! Come with me.â€
And with that I was escorted past two different checkpoints, down a hallway, to a door I have never been happier to see.
Once inside, I washed my hands. It’s a reflexive thing, in part because I’m a clean-freak, partially because I find the sound and texture of water soothing. I tried to be mindful, to focus on the bubbles and the hand-wringing and everything else, to distract myself from my hyper-anxious state. It was starting to work. I took deep breaths. I felt a bit better. I checked myself out in the mirror—I looked horrid. Well, might as well touch-up my makeup since I’m—
“MISS! PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE ENTERING THE BATHROOM-“
“Damnit, where is Sadie? Oh, there she is…Sadie, you go in there, I hate goin in the women’s’ room!â€
What on earth? And just then, the door exploded open and a very irate woman accosted me.
“What are you doing in here?â€
“I…I was just putting on…lipgloss?â€, I stammered.
“You are NOT even allowed to be back here.â€
“Oh, well, I thought I was going to puke, so—“
“I am aware of the situation! You have taken too long—if you were going to get sick, it would’ve happened already.†“I…I’m sorry?“
She grabbed my elbow and brusquely escorted me back to the metal detector I had already gone through. Twice.
“You NEED to stay here.â€
I was shocked at the dramatic overreaction to my use of the bathroom, and at the way I was getting glared at by all five security personnel. Then I remembered that since I was brown, I look like a terrorist, so I mentally threw my hands up in the air. And then I waited. Thankfully, it was only a few more minutes before my interview began. At Starbucks. Because I wasn’t allowed on my future worksite.
Because I wasn’t cleared.
That’s a big deal in Washington, whether or not someone has a security clearance. A very. Big. Deal.
Wolfowitz’s girlfriend problem: Not only did the World Bank president find his companion Shaha Ali Riza a cushy job in the State Department, but she received a security clearance — unprecedented for a foreign national.
Wolfowitz’s World Bank scandal over his girlfriend reveals many of the same qualities that created the wreckage he left in his wake in Iraq: grandiosity, cronyism, self-dealing and lying — followed by an energetic campaign to deflect accountability…
Superficially, Wolfowitz’s arrangement for his girlfriend of a job with a hefty increase in pay in violation of the ethics clauses of his contract and without informing the World Bank board might seem like an all-too-familiar story of a man seeking special favors for a romantic partner. Wolfowitz has tried to cast the scandal as a “painful personal dilemma,” as he described it in an April 12 e-mail to outraged employees of the World Bank, who have taken to calling the neoconservative’s girlfriend his “neoconcubine.” He was, he says, just attempting to “navigate in uncharted waters.” But the fall of Wolfowitz is the final act of a long drama — and love or even self-love may not be the whole subject.
Wolfowitz’s girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, is a Libyan, raised in Saudi Arabia, educated at Oxford, who now has British citizenship. She is divorced; he is separated. Their discreet relationship became a problem only when he ascended to the World Bank presidency. Riza had floated through the neoconservative network — working at the Free Iraq Foundation in the early 1990s and the National Endowment for Democracy — until landing a position in the Middle East and African department of the World Bank. The ethics provisions of Wolfowitz’s contract, however, stipulated that he could not maintain a sexual relationship with anyone over whom he had supervisory authority, even indirectly…
Riza was unhappy about leaving the sinecure at the World Bank. But in 2006 Wolfowitz made a series of calls to his friends that landed her a job at a new think tank called Foundation for the Future that is funded by the State Department. She was the sole employee, at least in the beginning. The World Bank continued to pay her salary, which was raised by $60,000 to $193,590 annually, more than the $183,500 paid to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and all of it tax-free. Moreover, Wolfowitz got the State Department to agree that the ratings of her performance would automatically be “outstanding.” Wolfowitz insisted on these terms himself and then misled the World Bank board about what he had done…
Riza, who is not a U.S. citizen, had to receive a security clearance in order to work at the State Department. Who intervened? It is not unusual to have British or French midlevel officers at the department on exchange programs, but they receive security clearances based on the clearances they already have with their host governments. Granting a foreign national who is detailed from an international organization a security clearance, however, is extraordinary, even unprecedented. So how could this clearance have been granted?
State Department officials familiar with the details of this matter confirmed to me that Shaha Ali Riza was detailed to the State Department and had unescorted access while working for Elizabeth Cheney. Access to the building requires a national security clearance or permanent escort by a person with such a clearance. But the State Department has no record of having issued a national security clearance to Riza.
State Department officials believe that Riza was issued such a clearance by the Defense Department after SAIC was forced by Wolfowitz and Feith to hire her. Then her clearance would have been recognized by the State Department through a credentials transmittal letter and Riza would have accessed the State Department on Pentagon credentials, using her Pentagon clearance to get a State Department building pass with a letter issued under instructions from Liz Cheney.
But State Department officials tell me that no such letter can be confirmed as received. And the officials stress that the department would never issue a clearance to a non-U.S. citizen as part of a contractual requisition. Issuing a national security clearance to a foreign national under instructions from a Pentagon official would constitute a violation of the executive orders governing clearances, they say.
Given these circumstances, the inspector general of the Defense Department should be ordered to investigate how Shaha Ali Riza was issued a Pentagon security clearance. And the inspector general of the State Department should investigate who ordered Riza’s building pass and whether there was a Pentagon credentials transmittal letter.
You think? No, I’m not bitter at all. Why would I be? I’m an American citizen with the sort of spotless record only ex-debate dorks who nerdily dream of future Senate campaigns have. Every day of high school and college, my Father barked at me to remember, “Kunju– one day you will be before a Senate confirmation committee! And they will ask you about your useless adolescent fun. And you will not be able to lie and you will be humiliated by your past! And then I will be humiliated! And I came to this country with EIGHT DOLLARS, EIGHT DOLLARS, so you think of that before you smoke the pot/sleep with any boys/go to the mall/or do anything else criminal! DON’T FUCK UP YOUR FUTURE.”
No pressure, Daddy. Yeesh.
But there was a wee bit of truth buried in all his screaming and frothing at the mouth. There are consequences to our choices. Then again, this was back in the day, y’all– when smoking marijuana DID seem like an act so naughty, it would end all political aspirations.
The point is, my record is like Outkast–so fresh and so clean. And it took me two months to get my clearance, after filling out more paperwork than I have ever had to before. After finger prints and thumb prints and palm prints. And a second set of all of the above. That was after everyone in my immediate family was investigated and people who had known me for a required number of years were interviewed about me, extensively. It took two months for an expedited process, during which I wasn’t even sure I would qualify, even though I am a born-American citizen. My little sister is an Active Duty military officer. I have already been investigated, as part of the requirements for her to work at a certain role. And I had to wait, unlike a certain foreign national who didn’t have to jump through such hurdles.
Stupid, silly me. Next time I’ll just sleep with Paul Wolfowitz. That way I won’t have to sit at home, agonizing over if I am going to get cleared and if so, when, when will that phone call come, because I couldn’t start a job I was so excited about until it did. Some people don’t have to worry about such things though. It’s good to be someone’s girlfriend, isn’t it?
‘Faraz and anyone else: Can we cut out the hot-or-not misogynistic bullshit please. Thanks.’
Guys that say stuff like this are SO hot. Swoon.
Agreed! And there is nothing wrong with being a male feminist, we need more of you!
Completely off-topic (maybe not completely..)
Two other towering lines I’ve heard from desi dads – 1. I used to walk 3 miles, catch a bus, walk 2 miles to get to school….one way. 2. I used to swim across the river to and from the school. (and we’re talking the river Narmada, around Jabalpur. Important to know because its at least 1/2 a mile wide around there)
We’ll keep our eyes peeled on c-span for the conf hearing then!
he did ? but didnt he say “”He that wants money, means, and content is without three good friends.” ?
Does this mean we can never have a hot-or-not type discussion again? How about if we all agree that when the post has nothing to do with someone’s looks*, we desist…but then every few days you guys (the bloggers) deliberately post something where we can go wild with it (with the focus being mostly on women of course).
*That being said, if we are talking about sexual scandals, then I think hot-or-not becomes a legitimate talking point…
To quote Stephen Colbert, Paul Wolfowitz has stated that corruption is the enemy. And he believes in fighting fire with fire.
Seriously, all accounts other than Salon’s that I’ve seen so far indicate that Shaha Riza is competent and accomplished (so, I find the use of the word “sinecure” to describe her World Bank position belittling to her). The wrongdoing seems to be primarily on Wolfie’s part, aided by a board which initially seemed confused about how to handle the situation. Well, what else can you expect from the second dumbest man in Washington? (Feith, by unanimous consent being #1).
Speaking of desi dads…if you look at the life stories of most of our dads, they really did work their asses off, and often had to really struggle, even as youngsters. My dad’s father died when my dad was 19, he had 4 younger siblings including three sisters he had to marry off (sorry if that sounds offensive but that was the culture)…not only that he had to live with his mama/mami (maternal uncle/aunt) while in college, and his mami (the aunt) used to make him feel bad just for eating their food…all in all not a happy place for a 19 or 20 year old. He worked hard, had ambition, and got the hell out of there. Made quite a success for himself in America (yes, same $8 story). But what’s surprising is how many of our dads have some variant of this story in their backgrounds…and then of course the first 5-10 years of life in this country, which was also heroic in its own way (as the Namesake showed pretty well I think).
oh my! i just realized the salon article was written by, of all people, Sidney Blumenthal. i would like to criticize him for blatant hypocrisy, but i’m too impressed by his chutzpah
Manju is right about Wolfowitz. He is non-religious. Wolfowitz is for the most part a man of principles. I dont agree with him always but he really believes in the democracy crusade. Wolfowitz was against the US supporting/enabling Iraq in the 80s. He also got booed by a Zionist crowd in DC for talking about the suffering of the Palestinians. Here is Hitchens take on the controversy.
Oh, puh-leeze, don’t quote Hitchens. I don’t know what’s become of him, but his wilfully contrarian take on things, which was sometimes interesting in the 90s, has been reduced to a blathering, frothing, unbuttoned apologia ever since the Iraq war started.
Well, Osama believes in his “crusade” too. As does Fred Phelps. That doesn’t make their actions even remotely acceptable. Wolfowitz has been wrong about everything since day zero. And now he’s proved himself to be corrupt, to boot.
Oh, puh-leeze, don’t quote Hitchens.
I was just giving a different viewpoint. I agree with you that Hitchens has come unhigned since the Iraq war started.
This issue is overblown. If you could use your influence to help get your girlfriend/spouse a raise/promotion, wouldn’t you do it? It doesn’t prove a conflict of interest, or even that he is corrupt. The only thing that can be said is that he played favorites, and I bet each of you will do the same thing in a similar situation. It is the reality we live in, so quit whining.
I respectfully disagree. I’m not as concerned with the money or the promotions or whatever your comment mentioned, because you’re right, favoritism exists everywhere– it’s the cavalier issuing of a security clearance that I think most of us should be disturbed by…
And if I may make a request–
does nothing to elevate or further this discussion. I understand you don’t think this is a big deal…but “quit whining” seems a bit harsh in this context. Would we be whining if we later found out she was a spy? That she jeopardized national security? I’m not insinuating that she has, I’m just saying that getting clearances isn’t easy– for a reason. Mock certain airport regulations if you must– I don’t think my lipgloss is THAT dangerous, that it must be thrown out or checked…but I could be wrong– but don’t you take the possibility of espionage seriously?
Oh, when a person who lectures all of the developing world on how they should run their countries in return for pulling their purse strings callously disregards his own sanctimony in a situation where the parties don’t even need the additional money, that’s not something to be concerned about.
But the fact that the girlfriend of the man who has been an architect of a misguided war and now heads up one of the world’s most influential financial organizations might have had an unjustly expedited clearance process, THAT’S a problem??? Well, even before she had a security clearance, I’d guess their pillow talk and answers to “Honey, how was your day at work today?” were not exactly innocuous or free for public consumption.
Rahul
Siddhartha fan, siddhartha fan, Chill Of course there is nothing wrong with being a male feminist. There is also lots of women who support the idea that the man should be head of the house etc (sorry I don’t have a nice word for that, I’m sure there is one.) Male dominance, male chauvinism or tradition female roles, something like that. Sorry I’m an inarticulate.
But both position are little funny to me, the women who support subjugation of themselves and men who are feminists. Also somewhat humorous to me, no woman said anything about my comments until our heroic Mr. Feminist did. (But that might be because male chauvinist pigs like me who are oppressing women and not letting them speak.)
Yes, I am sorry I do see women primarily as sex objects. I’m sorry, but why pretend? And if I was Wolfovitz I’d have chosen Haifa over Shaha.
I am sorry I do see women primarily as sex objects.
You live a sad existence brother.
Rahul,
Our experiences inform our values and our thought processes. I’m not going to speak to the things in your comment which obviously bother you greatly, even though I share several of your concerns. I will speak, in fact I did, by posting this, to whatever aspect of an issue which affects me the most, if only because that’s the only way I can write. I am writing what I know. Something has to touch me and then the post starts writing itself in my head. Outrage is not a zero-sum game to me; if I’m mad about her clearance, I can still get mad about the war et al.
So go ahead, mock me if you’d like, but if there are two things I’ve learned in the past week, they are:
1) I REALLY need to wrap my head around the fact that no matter how good my intentions are or how carefully I try and do something, someone will find fault with me, my views, my words, my actions, my priorities etc.
2) Life is too short for me to feel heartache over #1.
Can we please not make every disagreement personal, or insinuate ad hominem attacks whenever somebody does not concur? Because that will only make me want to disengage from this discussion (which I will after this post). I did not find fault with you, but I do strongly disagree with your opinion on this issue (as articulated in your response #63 – not as concerned by…, concerned by …), and I was under the (mistaken, I now realize) impression that we could actually hold opposing opinions without getting touchy about it. Which is why I explicitly signed with my name, and did not leave an anonymous comment.
There’s a certain kind of community you build when there is an implicit or explicit expectation that everybody needs to agree, and that people who hold other (but reasonable – I’m not arguing for Schlussel or Schlussel-lites here) viewpoints are primarily identified as “finding fault” or “mocking”. It is your community after all, so it’s up to you to decide if that’s how you want to shape it.
In a preemptive bid to disengage from any flame war or wagon circling that might ensue, let me reiterate – This is my last comment on this post.
Even when I’m trying to be as neutral and polite as possible, I fail. Well, I’m disengaging from this post too, Rahul. Because I did feel like your temporary handle and tone were mocking me a bit and I thought that I had the right to respond without someone accusing me of what I loathe– the insinuation that I’m trying to play martyr or victim here and that everyone has to agree and kiss up to me. Because that’s wrong.
It is not MY community. It’s OUR community.
I’ve had a long week covering very difficult and emotional issues and I’m tired, so I am not at my best. I am apparently not expressing myself well if you feel the need to respond like that, so I’m sorry. Please, return to this conversation. I am removing myself from it. I’m considering NOT commenting anymore, as a general policy, because I’m sick of this…I’m not this evil bitch and as hard as it might be to believe, I do care more for this blog than me, me me. So please. Don’t leave. I will.
Did any of you click that “sartorial”/BBC link Vikram left here?? He has holes in his socks! My friends were always super-paranoid about socks, because they knew they’d have to take their shoes off whenever they came over to our house. To me, that’s about as standard a “growing up brown” experience as the whole “eight dollars” schtick.
*he of the hole-y socks = Wolfowitz. Sorry.
Yes, I’m concerned about national security. And your distress at the circumvention of due process is legitimate. But the likelihood of espionage here is as low/high as the president or one of his advisors or even the “gubernator” leaking out state secrets, i.e. it has nothing to do with citizenship. However, I’m heartened by your angst, as it only furthers my idea that public entities are innately inconsistent. Hence a case for small, minimally interfering govn bodies.
I’m sorry but my next comment does not further this discussion in any way. But it may surprise you, A N N A, nay even outrage you to know that I still love you. Even if some think you are Evil Bitch. And they turn out to be true. Please don’t remove yourself from anything.
While it might be convenient to denigrate Hitchens the man, there is some merit to his argument, particularly the notion of why the World bank felt that it couldn’t retain a staff member who had admitted to having a personal relationship with its President, who apparently didn’t work anywhere near the man, and when the President himself asked to be recused from any potential crossing of paths with the staff member in a work context?
And more importantly, what does it say that once again, a highly-competent woman by all accounts, has to be removed from her job and bear the brunt of the hassle, all for appearances. As Hitchens says, so much for worries about the glass ceiling.
Foreign nationals who work abroad for the USG are given varying levels of clearance — this generally means access to certain areas only, as opposed to information. It’s common practice. Anna, complaining about the length of the security clearance process is something pretty much everyone who works for the USG has done, and I’d submit that it actually goes pretty fast all things considered, and I’m somewhat amazed that it actually gets done in the first place on the scale that it does.
Hate Wolfowitz, hate the policies, hate the pay scales, but don’t ignore the facts.
“But both position are little funny to me, the women who support subjugation of themselves and men who are feminists. Also somewhat humorous to me, no woman said anything about my comments until our heroic Mr. Feminist did.”
Faraz, Comparing women who want to be submissive to men who value equality in their relationships is not an apt analogy what-so-ever. You are saying , “Why would a woman want to support chauvinism?” and similarily, “Why would a man want to respect a woman or want to treat her equally?” The former may hurt a woman in a relationship but the latter does not hurt the man.
And your observation that a man posted first is silly. It’s just probability not enough for you to extract some point about women feeling opressed. Plenty of women respond to this sort of stuff on their own. Don’t be so silly.
And, as to you seeing women as just sex objects, well, that’s what everyone was pointing out to begin. If you’re so proud of it I wonder why you doth protest so much.
And I had to wait, unlike a certain foreign national who didn’t have to jump through such hurdles.
Security clearance is never/ was never an “equal opportunity” endeavor. It all depends on who you are, what you bring on the table, and who vouches for you.
Classic examples are all these phoren scientists (a lot of them were not US citizens at that time) for Manhattan project were given given highest level of security clearances to make the bomb. Why? They had the expertise that no one had, and were needed badly at that time to succeed. Even today, if you are a Ruski nuclear scientist working closely with American counterparts, and someone vouches for you, you will be given security clearance in an hurried way if your presence is badly needed. They maybe some added technical hoops for non-American citizens. Also, it depends on how your mother country is viewed by USG at that time, and what is the working relationship.
Also, it depends what security clearance you had before – stepping up the ladder is easier if there is an established record.
Wolfie’s girlfriend Ms. Ali is vouched by a very powerful person, and she brings quite a bit on the table.
Well, an organization can vouch for you and take you on their own responsibility with an interim clearance. Which means while OPM is processing all the data on your background, if the org. feels it’s ok to allow you access, you’ll be given clearance on an interim basis. It has limitations though.
NOW, MANY job positions require a clearance, but that DOES NOT MEAN you will be working with classified stuff. You have one in case you’re in a position where you need to know. So, a clearance and the investigation behind it depends on the following:
If she got cleared on an interim clearance, well, you can’t really do anything about that. If she got a permanent security clearance, either OPM rushed her application, didn’t do all the work necessary, or took a very public figure’s word for it (and if they were smart, they documented the high profile reference).
I don’t think many politicians, including the last two Presidents have had security clearances before they became President. Or were they cleared prior somehow? Is it necessary to have a clearance when you’re a governor?
There is a reason why our government is very leaky. Nature of the beast. I had to go through an OPM investigators interview and everything else. Wasn’t a big deal. Actually it went through just fine. A fellow co-worker is a retired Marine, a freaking MASTER GUNNERY SERGEANT, and OPM fumbled his clearance for TWO years. There are a shit ton of people in DOD with no need of a clearance who hold one. You could spit in any direction and hit someone with a secret clearance. They give that shit out like jelly beans.
Usually what gets flagged in a clearance is financial mismanagement, inconsistent references, etc. Unless you’re applying to work for the CIA, NSA, or some other super secret squirrel org needing a TS. You get the polygraph then, along with everything about your background documented and turned over.
By the way Wolfowitz also supported one of the worst mass murderers of the post WWII period, General Suharto (responsible for what the CIA called one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century, which killed between a quarter million to a million people, chiefly landless peasants suspected of being communist sympathizers in about 6 months; see U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Research Study: Indonesia — The Coup that Backfired, 1968). I think his wikipedia entry quotes his support for Suharto (at least thats what the fellow who edited the entry told me).
In case anyone’s interested in the nominal topic of ANNA’s post, a detailed profile of Mr. Wolfowitz appeared recently in the New Yorker.
In re Faraz’s self-confessed inarticulation, a philosophical question: does every contentious thread birth a Prema? Or am I confusing causation with correlation?
In case anyone’s interested in the nominal topic of ANNA’s post, a detailed profile of Mr. Wolfowitz appeared recently in the New Yorker. (Among other things, the profile mentioned the open-toed socks incident. Personally, I don’t think those are really grounds to attack the man on. There’s plenty of more meaningfully fertile territory.)
In re Faraz’s self-confessed inarticulation, a philosophical question: does every contentious thread birth a Prema? Or am I confusing causation with correlation?
Oh and some citations and links, for those interested in the larger history of the coup that put Suharto in power (esp. the role of the U.S; these are admittedly tangential to the issue at hand, i.e. Wolfowitz’s ‘principles’, but the state department did contain many ‘principled’ people such as him even in 1964):
Peter Dale Scott, “The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967”, Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985, pages 239-264 (if you have access to jstor and this link to an article that appeared inter alia in the Washington Post details the role of the state department.
I just checked out her website and it’s, like, ensconced in swarovski crystals. Although I’m not sure that’s actually physically possible. (Okay, I just checked with some sources and evidently this is not possible on the internets.)
Re; Wolfie. So what can brown do for you? Evidently get your ass fired. It’s called karma people! Mwah ha ha!
I know! Wolfowitz is Gaius Baltar! The cylons are coming!
Tsk. Tsk.
…
Sigh! That’s an unfair characterization made without defining what you mean by “supported,” because your comment implies that Wolfowitz is personally responsible for Suharto’s abuses. It’s also a misreading of the Wikipedia entry, which states in the 2nd para under the heading of “Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia”:
It’s clear that in the Wikipedia entry there are many who thought he didn’t say enough or do enough about human rights in Indonesia. As you say, a tangential issue, but you’re not portraying Wolfowitz fairly by spinning it this way.
Yes there was. Made in 1967 with Raj Kapoor and Rajshree. In 1966 India had a big devaluation of the rupee so I imagine controlling the flow of foreign currency was a huge concern at the time.
Ok lets do a mental experiment: how would you react to someone who says the following about Stalin: (a)praises his “strong and remarkable leadership”, (b)”The tragedy for Mr.[ Stalin ] and his country is that he would have been widely admired by his countrymen if he had stepped down 10 years ago.” (c)”achieving peace among a population so diverse [as the Soviet Union] requires a strong leader and a unified military.” By the way all these statements would hold equally for most great political leader cum mass murderers.For example at least Stalin was partially responsible for high initial economic growth in the USSR, though he achieved it partially by murder. Wolfowitz did make a few mild statements disapproving of the more egregious acts of the military, but did absolutely nothing. In fact most of the latter were almost afterthoughts and few and far between, scattered among his more laudatory statements. Furthermore irrespective of what he said, his actions uniformly were supportive of Suharto and his regime. Finally since U.S support for the regime was crucial to its repressive actions, Mr. Wolfowitz cannot be completely absolved of all responsibility (think about what we would say if one of the Politburo functionaries in the former USSR supported repression in Hungary or the former Czechoslovakia). By the way here’s an article by Jeffery Winters (Indonesia expert at Northwestern), and another newspaper article (Asia Times) sketching out Mr. Wolfowitz’s ‘human-rights’ credentials. Consequently I stand by exactly what I said.
Or how about this experiment: How would you react to someone who says the following about Saddam Hussein: Says he “can do business with him.” Oversees a $10 billion dollar scandal in the selling of Oil-for-food and says mildly, “It is highly possible that there has been a lot of wrongdoing.” Refuses to publicly criticize Hussein for the deaths and human rights abuses commited in his name and at his direction? Further than what he said, Annan’s actions (and inactions) as UNSYG were generally supportive of the Hussein regime.
And we could go on and on, picking out an Ambassador here, a leader there.
My point in these ridiculous examples is only that we need all the information before judging someone. You condemn Wolfowitz by bringing up his role and support for Suharto. Fine. But at the same time I think it’s incumbent on you to present other contexts or aspects that may have bearing on how we judge him, before we judge him. I’m not a fan of Wolfowitz by any stretch (and am a Kofi supporter, as an aside), but I do respect some of the things Wolfowitz has accomplished and dislike others. If only the world was black and white.
And, to get back to the topic of this post, I don’t believe that his actions in Indonesia, nor the US policy there, should impact on whether one believes there is a conflict of interest at the World Bank in his case.
Completely agree. I don’t think too highly of Annan’s moral qualities. But unlike Wolfowitz he had considerably less power to actually affect action (remember that the Secretary General of the U.N doesn’t really have much power beyond coordinating between various diplomats and moral suasion).
Agree, and didn’t imply it was
Never said it did; was reacting purely to AMD’s comments about Wolfowitz (see #78)
See above; I was talking about one specific context (in the context of the comment about him being “principled”, and a believer in “democracy”, which may or may not have bearing on his WB position)