FT reports that “South Africa on Monday expressed serious concerns about the transparency of the process to select the next head of the World Bank”
Pravin Gordhan, South Africa’s finance minister told reporters “From what I’m hearing there are serious concerns about the levels of transparency. And when we link that to the third element, which is has this process met the merit-based criteria, I think we are going to find that the process falls short,”
Nothing from Dr. Kim so far.
If, as expected, Dr. Kim is announced tomorrow as the new President of the World Bank, who do you suppose should be held responsible by the public, and history, for what promises to be an ineffective and tarnished presidency?
Is it the fault of Obama, who now seems to stand for ” a change no one should believe in”, the BRICS that turned out to be as soft as egg shells, or the board of executive directors which abandoned their responsibilities , according to the bylaws of the organization, and proved that they are simply little more than chess pieces for their Capitals?
If the process is now completely tarnished, who should be held responsible?
African telecoms billionaire and sponsor of prizes for good governance, Mo Ibrahim made – rather succinctly – some key arguments about why a flawed process is not in the interest of the Bank or even the US. Here’s what he had to say
“The world is changing. Continue reading
A great op-ed in the Guardian by fellow blogger (and former colleague) Peter Chowla – he’s perhaps too modest to post if for himself, so I’ve done that for him below. Also signs that the inevitable backlash against the winner’s legitimacy – given the lack of transparency of the process – has begun, with critical comments from Oxfam and Save the Children in this piece.
Here’s Peter’s op-ed Continue reading
None of us, including “A Bank Insider” know what happened in the executive session. None of us know for a fact that ‘only the African directors [spoke] for Ngozi’. Continue reading
Yesterday Russia joined the US, Canada, Mexico, Korea, and Japan in saying they will back Kim. They have only 1.7 per cent of the votes at the Bank, but they do have one of the 25 board seats. And they’re the first BRICS country to come out for him. Perhaps tellingly, their statement didn’t explain why they preferred Kim to his more experienced challenger, Okonjo-Iweala. I expect this is the route those backing Kim for (misguided) geopolitical considerations will go. Praise Kim, don’t mention the alternative, or how they decided his merits were better than Okonjo-Iweala’s. We shall see soon enough.
Sources tell me that despite the fact that the board met today for what was planned to be a discussion on the merits of the two remaining candidates, Jim Yong Kim and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, no such discussion took place, with only the African directors speaking for Ngozi. Ocampo hit the bull’s eye when he said in his withdrawal statement “… as we approach the final phase of this process, it is clear that it is becoming no longer a competition on the merits of the candidates but a political exercise.”
So the Obama who told the American people 4 years ago “yes we can”, is now telling the rest of the world “no, you really cant”. He may talk the talk, but he sure does not walk the walk.