Top Wolfowitz Postings Went to Iraq War Backers

[-]

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=342

Top Wolfowitz Postings Went to Iraq War Backers
Globalism; Posted on: 2007-04-15
[ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]


Embattled neocon faces questions on appointments

by Emad Mekay
with Jim Lobe



Of the top five outside international appointments made by embattled
World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz during his nearly two-year tenure,
three were senior political appointees of right-wing governments that
provided strong backing for U.S. policy in Iraq.

The latest appointment came just last month when former Jordanian
Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher was named senior vice president
for external affairs.

Muasher served as King Abdullah's ambassador here in Washington in the
run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and reportedly played a key role in
ensuring Amman's cooperation in the March 2003 invasion.

During and after the invasion, when he served first as foreign
minister and then as deputy prime minister, he was considered among
Washington's staunchest supporters in an increasingly hostile Arab
world.

Muasher's appointment came nine months after Wolfowitz named former
Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio as the Bank's senior vice
president and general counsel. As foreign minister, she was an
outspoken proponent of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, to which her
government, led by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, contributed
1,500 troops.

Also in June 2006, Wolfowitz named former Salvadoran Finance Minister
Juan Jose Daboub as one of the Bank's two managing directors. In
addition to his financial post, Daboub served as chief of staff to
former President Francisco Flores when, as a charter member of the
U.S.-led "Coalition of the Willing", he sent nearly 400 Salvadoran
combat troops to Iraq, more than any other developing country.

Wolfowitz is currently fending off growing calls, particularly from
Bank staff, non-government organizations and a number of former senior
Bank officials, for his resignation over charges that he improperly
negotiated a promotion and compensation package for his romantic
partner, career Bank staffer Shaha Riza, who was subsequently seconded
to the U.S. State Department.

Wolfowitz, who became the Bank's president in June 2005, has long
insisted that his own role as deputy defense secretary under U.S.
President George W. Bush, in which he was a key architect of the Iraq
war, would never influence his decisions at the Bank.

As recently as Thursday, as finance and development ministers began
gathering here for the annual Spring Meetings of the Bank and its
sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Wolfowitz
again denied that his connection to the Iraq war has played any role
in his work at the Bank and suggested that the calls by staff for him
resign were motivated at least in part by antiwar sentiment.

"For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my
previous job," he said, "I am not in my previous job."

But persistent efforts by Wolfowitz to recruit a new country manager
for Iraq despite concerns over staff security there - as well as the
Bank's attempts last month to suppress reports about an incident in
which a Bank employee was injured in Baghdad, apparently to avoid
derailing his recruitment efforts - have lent credence to critics'
charges that he has been more than eager to line up the institution
and its resources behind U.S. policy there.

The fact that Wolfowitz also took with him to the Bank several key
right-wing Republican aides - none with any development experience -
who had worked closely with him on Iraq-related issues while he was at
the Pentagon also bolstered that impression.

There have been reports of elaborate off-the-record efforts on
Wolfowitz's part, during his tenure at the Bank, to persuade prominent
journalists that the administration's prewar allegations of an
operational link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda
were indeed true.

It is in that context that Wolfowitz's appointments of non-U.S.
individuals who were not already working for the Bank to top posts
appear significant.


Continue
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/mekay.php?articleid=10817

Pressure Grows on Wolfowitz to Resign
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=322


News Source: AntiWar.com



2007 European Americans United.

 

[lo yeeOn]

I never believe that the World Bank and the IMF are meant for serious
charitable purposes. It's even questionable as to whether lending
money to poor countries under the terms of the wealthy nations which
sponsor these organizations is a good thing. It has certainly made
Argentina and other Latin American countries resent us.

Those organizations are part of the US foreign policy to have some
control over what third world countries do and say while at the same
time provide a way to help the middle bankers in the US and their
cronies in friendly countries to make some hefty profits, using the
taxpayers' money. That's why our presidents always choose the bank's
presidents and why Bush put his disgraced Iraq war architect in there
in the first place. ( )

( ) It's true that the staff at the World Bank where Wolfowitz is
president resents him beyond his (personal) nepotistic acts.

No doubt he also sounds extremely arrogant.

But the real trouble is the accusations that he's been installed at
the World Bank to further serve the Bush administration's war agenda.

The people who suspected him have now found a pile of evidence for it.

It's not his girlfriend's promotion, although that could be the ground
for his dismissal. (For one thing, it shows that he was arrogant as
well as ethics-challenged at a store where the rich and powerful
pretend that they are good and upright people among beggars. That
make our European partners nervous!)

It's his record of bringing in all these pro-Iraq war bureaucrats who
have a credibility problem to begin with in a situation where they
would've already been looked at with skepticism plus his current
effort to hire a staff to ``manage'' the disgraced US-led Iraq
re-construction.

Without even knowing that there has been a lot of corruption from the
reconstruction projects involving Halliburton, Bectel, or Senator
Diane Feinstein's husband's business as well as other US companies,
reasonable people would ask why do we have to destroy that country in
the first place? A country which would not have needed the World Bank
to lend it money to rebuild had we left it alone. (In fact, it was
able to quickly rebuild itself after George Bush's father bombed the
hell out of Baghdad and other part of the country in the early 1990s.
Iraq had the oil revenue to finance its own reconstruction. And it
ought to still have the oil revenue to finance its reconstruction if
we would just leave it alone.)

Now clearly the credibility, or rather the lack of it, of the Bush
administration, makes the link between the World Bank and the Iraq
re-construction projects hugely questionable. Henceforth, Wolfowitz's
position at the World Bank becomes a huge conflict of interest in the
part of the US as the biggest shareholder. Should the world now look
upon the World Bank and the IMF once and for all as a war-on-terror
operation which would be called to install some cosmetic change to a
country our firepower has just destroyed while allowing some cronies
of the warmongers in Washington to profiteer from the World Bank pot?

In fact, from a US taxpayer's point of view, the money George Bush and
his neocons' have plundered from our national treasury has not been
just what has been spent on military budget, but also the money we've
spent on what is call foreign aid.

There is a gigantic conflict of interest in our government's role at
the World Bank and the IMF. And Paul Wolfowitz is the symptom. If
the World Bank shall have any credibility, it must be totally
dissociated from the Administration while it is still waging a series
of aggressive wars around the world.

While Wolfowitz disingenuously and lamely protested that he was no
longer associated with the Iraq war effort,

"For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my
previous job," he said, "I am not in my previous job."

he is in fact still in that job helping Bush to push his war agenda
forward in a surreptitious, and completely unacceptable, way.

Our Congress should look into this matter and try to clean up another
mess the Bush administration has created.

lo yeeOn
========

>"For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my
>previous job," he said, "I am not in my previous job."
>
>But persistent efforts by Wolfowitz to recruit a new country manager
>for Iraq despite concerns over staff security there - as well as the
>Bank's attempts last month to suppress reports about an incident in
>which a Bank employee was injured in Baghdad, apparently to avoid
>derailing his recruitment efforts - have lent credence to critics'
>charges that he has been more than eager to line up the institution
>and its resources behind U.S. policy there.
>
>The fact that Wolfowitz also took with him to the Bank several key
>right-wing Republican aides - none with any development experience -
>who had worked closely with him on Iraq-related issues while he was at
>the Pentagon also bolstered that impression.
>
>There have been reports of elaborate off-the-record efforts on
>Wolfowitz's part, during his tenure at the Bank, to persuade prominent
>journalists that the administration's prewar allegations of an
>operational link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda
>were indeed true.

 

[lo yeeOn]

I never believe that the World Bank and the IMF are meant for serious
charitable purposes. It's even questionable as to whether lending
money to poor countries under the terms of the wealthy nations which
sponsor these organizations is a good thing. It has certainly made
Argentina and other Latin American countries resent us.

Those organizations are part of the US foreign policy to have some
control over what third world countries do and say while at the same
time provide a way to help the middle bankers in the US and their
cronies in friendly countries to make some hefty profits, using the
taxpayers' money. That's why our presidents always choose the bank's
presidents and why Bush put his disgraced Iraq war architect in there
in the first place. ( )

( ) It's true that the staff at the World Bank where Wolfowitz is
president resents him beyond his (personal) nepotistic acts.

No doubt he also sounds extremely arrogant.

But the real trouble is the accusations that he's been installed at
the World Bank to further serve the Bush administration's war agenda.

The people who suspected him have now found a pile of evidence for it.

It's not his girlfriend's promotion, although that could be the ground
for his dismissal. (For one thing, it shows that he was arrogant as
well as ethics-challenged at a store where the rich and powerful
pretend that they are good and upright people among beggars. That
make our European partners nervous!)

It's his record of bringing in all these pro-Iraq war bureaucrats who
have a credibility problem to begin with in a situation where they
would've already been looked at with skepticism plus his current
effort to hire a staff to ``manage'' the disgraced US-led Iraq
re-construction.

Without even knowing that there has been a lot of corruption from the
reconstruction projects involving Halliburton, Bectel, or Senator
Diane Feinstein's husband's business as well as other US companies,
reasonable people would ask why do we have to destroy that country in
the first place? A country which would not have needed the World Bank
to lend it money to rebuild had we left it alone. (In fact, it was
able to quickly rebuild itself after George Bush's father bombed the
hell out of Baghdad and other part of the country in the early 1990s.
Iraq had the oil revenue to finance its own reconstruction. And it
ought to still have the oil revenue to finance its reconstruction if
we would just leave it alone.)

Now clearly the credibility, or rather the lack of it, of the Bush
administration, makes the link between the World Bank and the Iraq
re-construction projects hugely questionable. Henceforth, Wolfowitz's
position at the World Bank becomes a huge conflict of interest in the
part of the US as the biggest shareholder. Should the world now look
upon the World Bank and the IMF once and for all as a war-on-terror
operation which would be called to install some cosmetic change to a
country our firepower has just destroyed while allowing some cronies
of the warmongers in Washington to profiteer from the World Bank pot?

In fact, from a US taxpayer's point of view, the money George Bush and
his neocons' have plundered from our national treasury has not been
just what has been spent on military budget, but also the money we've
spent on what is call foreign aid.

There is a gigantic conflict of interest in our government's role at
the World Bank and the IMF. And Paul Wolfowitz is the symptom. If
the World Bank shall have any credibility, it must be totally
dissociated from the Administration while it is still waging a series
of aggressive wars around the world.

While Wolfowitz disingenuously and lamely protested that he was no
longer associated with the Iraq war effort,

"For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my
previous job," he said, "I am not in my previous job."

he is in fact still in that job helping Bush to push his war agenda
forward in a surreptitious, and completely unacceptable, way.

Our Congress should look into this matter and try to clean up another
mess the Bush administration has created.

lo yeeOn
========

>"For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my
>previous job," he said, "I am not in my previous job."
>
>But persistent efforts by Wolfowitz to recruit a new country manager
>for Iraq despite concerns over staff security there - as well as the
>Bank's attempts last month to suppress reports about an incident in
>which a Bank employee was injured in Baghdad, apparently to avoid
>derailing his recruitment efforts - have lent credence to critics'
>charges that he has been more than eager to line up the institution
>and its resources behind U.S. policy there.
>
>The fact that Wolfowitz also took with him to the Bank several key
>right-wing Republican aides - none with any development experience -
>who had worked closely with him on Iraq-related issues while he was at
>the Pentagon also bolstered that impression.
>
>There have been reports of elaborate off-the-record efforts on
>Wolfowitz's part, during his tenure at the Bank, to persuade prominent
>journalists that the administration's prewar allegations of an
>operational link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda
>were indeed true.

And now, this revelation about former Iraq war participants' roles in
the bank:

>The latest appointment came just last month when former Jordanian
>Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher was named senior vice president
>for external affairs.
>
>Muasher served as King Abdullah's ambassador here in Washington in the
>run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and reportedly played a key role in
>ensuring Amman's cooperation in the March 2003 invasion.
>
>During and after the invasion, when he served first as foreign
>minister and then as deputy prime minister, he was considered among
>Washington's staunchest supporters in an increasingly hostile Arab
>world.
>
>Muasher's appointment came nine months after Wolfowitz named former
>Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio as the Bank's senior vice
>president and general counsel. As foreign minister, she was an
>outspoken proponent of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, to which her
>government, led by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, contributed
>1,500 troops.
>
>Also in June 2006, Wolfowitz named former Salvadoran Finance Minister
> . . .

One must admits that one is naive if one thinks that Paul Wolfowitz
has quit the war.

He didn't even bother to change his spots. He just went there and
started the same act over again, only doing so in a more obscure
corner of the neocons' PNAC campaign stage.

lo yeeOn
========

In article <4622d738.89107609@news.isomedia.com>,
- <jazzerciser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=342
>
> Top Wolfowitz Postings Went to Iraq War Backers
>Globalism; Posted on: 2007-04-15
>
> Embattled neocon faces questions on appointments
>
>by Emad Mekay
>with Jim Lobe
>
>Of the top five outside international appointments made by embattled
>World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz during his nearly two-year tenure,
>three were senior political appointees of right-wing governments that
>provided strong backing for U.S. policy in Iraq.
>
>The latest appointment came just last month when former Jordanian
>Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher was named senior vice president
>for external affairs.
>
>Muasher served as King Abdullah's ambassador here in Washington in the
>run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and reportedly played a key role in
>ensuring Amman's cooperation in the March 2003 invasion.
>
>During and after the invasion, when he served first as foreign
>minister and then as deputy prime minister, he was considered among
>Washington's staunchest supporters in an increasingly hostile Arab
>world.
>
>Muasher's appointment came nine months after Wolfowitz named former
>Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio as the Bank's senior vice
>president and general counsel. As foreign minister, she was an
>outspoken proponent of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, to which her
>government, led by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, contributed
>1,500 troops.
>
>Also in June 2006, Wolfowitz named former Salvadoran Finance Minister
>Juan Jose Daboub as one of the Bank's two managing directors. In
>addition to his financial post, Daboub served as chief of staff to
>former President Francisco Flores when, as a charter member of the
>U.S.-led "Coalition of the Willing", he sent nearly 400 Salvadoran
>combat troops to Iraq, more than any other developing country.
>
>Wolfowitz is currently fending off growing calls, particularly from
>Bank staff, non-government organizations and a number of former senior
>Bank officials, for his resignation over charges that he improperly
>negotiated a promotion and compensation package for his romantic
>partner, career Bank staffer Shaha Riza, who was subsequently seconded
>to the U.S. State Department.
>
>Wolfowitz, who became the Bank's president in June 2005, has long
>insisted that his own role as deputy defense secretary under U.S.
>President George W. Bush, in which he was a key architect of the Iraq
>war, would never influence his decisions at the Bank.
>
>As recently as Thursday, as finance and development ministers began
>gathering here for the annual Spring Meetings of the Bank and its
>sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Wolfowitz
>again denied that his connection to the Iraq war has played any role
>in his work at the Bank and suggested that the calls by staff for him
>resign were motivated at least in part by antiwar sentiment.
>
>"For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my
>previous job," he said, "I am not in my previous job."
>
>But persistent efforts by Wolfowitz to recruit a new country manager
>for Iraq despite concerns over staff security there - as well as the
>Bank's attempts last month to suppress reports about an incident in
>which a Bank employee was injured in Baghdad, apparently to avoid
>derailing his recruitment efforts - have lent credence to critics'
>charges that he has been more than eager to line up the institution
>and its resources behind U.S. policy there.
>
>The fact that Wolfowitz also took with him to the Bank several key
>right-wing Republican aides - none with any development experience -
>who had worked closely with him on Iraq-related issues while he was at
>the Pentagon also bolstered that impression.
>
>There have been reports of elaborate off-the-record efforts on
>Wolfowitz's part, during his tenure at the Bank, to persuade prominent
>journalists that the administration's prewar allegations of an
>operational link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda
>were indeed true.
>
>It is in that context that Wolfowitz's appointments of non-U.S.
>individuals who were not already working for the Bank to top posts
>appear significant.
>
>
>Continue
>http://www.antiwar.com/ips/mekay.php?articleid=10817
>
>Pressure Grows on Wolfowitz to Resign
>http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=322
>
>
>News Source: AntiWar.com
>
>
>
>2007 European Americans United.
>

 

[lo yeeOn]

I've never believed that the World Bank and the IMF are meant for
serious charitable purposes. It's even questionable as to whether
lending money to poor countries under the terms of the wealthy nations
which sponsor these organizations is a good thing. It has certainly
made Argentina and other Latin American countries resent us.

Those organizations are part of the US foreign policy to have some
control over what third world countries do and say while at the same
time provide a way to help the middle bankers in the US and their
cronies in friendly countries to make some hefty profits, using the
taxpayers' money. That's why our presidents always choose the bank's
presidents and why Bush put his disgraced Iraq war architect in there
in the first place. ( )

( ) It's true that the staff at the World Bank where Wolfowitz is
president resents him beyond his (personal) nepotistic acts.

No doubt he also sounds extremely arrogant. (See article appended
below).

But the real trouble is the accusations that he's been installed at
the World Bank to further serve the Bush administration's war agenda.

The people who suspected him have now found a pile of evidence for it.

It's not his girlfriend's promotion, although that could be the basis
for his dismissal. (For one thing, it shows that he was arrogant as
well as ethics-challenged at a store where the rich and powerful
pretend that they are good and upright people among beggars. That
makes our European partners nervous!)

It's his record of bringing in all these pro-Iraq war bureaucrats who
have a credibility problem to begin with in a situation where they
would've already been looked at with skepticism plus his current
effort to hire a staff to ``manage'' the disgraced US-led Iraq
re-construction.

Without even knowing that there has been a lot of corruption from the
reconstruction projects involving Halliburton, Bectel, or Senator
Diane Feinstein's husband's business as well as other US companies,
reasonable people would ask why do we have to destroy that country in
the first place? A country which would not have needed the World Bank
to lend it money to rebuild had we left it alone. (In fact, it was
able to quickly rebuild itself after George Bush's father bombed the
hell out of Baghdad and other parts of the country in the early 1990s.
Iraq had the oil revenue to finance its own reconstruction. And it
ought to still have the oil revenue to finance its reconstruction if
we would just leave it alone.)

Now clearly the credibility, or rather the lack of it, of the Bush
administration, makes the link between the World Bank and the Iraq
re-construction projects hugely questionable. Henceforth, Wolfowitz's
position at the World Bank becomes a huge conflict of interest in the
part of the US as the biggest shareholder. Should the world now look
upon the World Bank and the IMF once and for all as a war-on-terror
operation which would be called to install some cosmetic change to a
country our firepower has just destroyed while allowing some cronies
of the warmongers in Washington to profiteer from the World Bank pot?

In fact, from a US taxpayer's point of view, the money George Bush and
his neocons' have plundered from our national treasury has not been
just what has been spent on military budget, but also the money we've
spent on what is call foreign aid. (It has been said that foreign aid
is the process whereby the poor people in rich countries are taxed to
help the rich people in poor countries.)

There is a gigantic conflict of interest in our government's role at
the World Bank and the IMF. And Paul Wolfowitz is the symptom. If
the World Bank shall have any credibility, it must be totally
dissociated from the Administration while it is still waging a series
of aggressive wars around the world.

Wolfowitz has disingenuously and lamely protested that he was no
longer associated with the Iraq war effort:

"For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my
previous job," he said, "I am not in my previous job."

But in fact he is still in that job helping Bush to push his war
agenda forward in a surreptitious, and completely unacceptable, way.

And now, given the revelation that Wolfowitz has since systematically
brought over former high-level participants in the Iraq war to the
World Bank to work for him, one must admits that one has to be naive
if one thinks that Paul Wolfowitz has quit the war.

He didn't even bother to change his spots. He just went there and
started the same act over again, only doing so in a more obscure
corner of the PNAC playground.

Our Congress should look into this matter and clean up the mess---
another one the Bush administration has created that the Congress is
forced to clean up.

lo yeeOn
========

>"For people who disagree with things they associate with me in my
>previous job," he said, "I am not in my previous job."
>
>But persistent efforts by Wolfowitz to recruit a new country manager
>for Iraq despite concerns over staff security there - as well as the
>Bank's attempts last month to suppress reports about an incident in
>which a Bank employee was injured in Baghdad, apparently to avoid
>derailing his recruitment efforts - have lent credence to critics'
>charges that he has been more than eager to line up the institution
>and its resources behind U.S. policy there.
>
>The fact that Wolfowitz also took with him to the Bank several key
>right-wing Republican aides - none with any development experience -
>who had worked closely with him on Iraq-related issues while he was at
>the Pentagon also bolstered that impression.
>
>There have been reports of elaborate off-the-record efforts on
>Wolfowitz's part, during his tenure at the Bank, to persuade prominent
>journalists that the administration's prewar allegations of an
>operational link between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda
>were indeed true.
>
>The latest appointment came just last month when former Jordanian
>Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher was named senior vice president
>for external affairs.
>
>Muasher served as King Abdullah's ambassador here in Washington in the
>run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and reportedly played a key role in
>ensuring Amman's cooperation in the March 2003 invasion.
>
>During and after the invasion, when he served first as foreign
>minister and then as deputy prime minister, he was considered among
>Washington's staunchest supporters in an increasingly hostile Arab
>world.
>
>Muasher's appointment came nine months after Wolfowitz named former
>Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio as the Bank's senior vice
>president and general counsel. As foreign minister, she was an
>outspoken proponent of the U.S.-led Iraq invasion, to which her
>government, led by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, contributed
>1,500 troops.
>
>Also in June 2006, Wolfowitz named former Salvadoran Finance Minister
> . . .

Two memos lie at the heart of the charges

By Krishna Guha in Washington

Published: April 13 2007 23:22 | Last updated: April 13 2007 23:22

Two memorandums lie at the heart of the charge that Paul Wolfowitz, the
World Bank president, was guilty of a serious failure of corporate
governance when he secured an attractive secondment package for a bank
official with whom he was romantically involved.

The memorandums, dated July 27 2005 and August 11 2005, were among
about a hundred pages of documents relating to the Shaha Riza affair
released at the instruction of the bank's board on Friday.
Advertisement

In the first memorandum of July 27 2005 (presented in draft form) the
ethics committee of the board tells Mr Wolfowitz that under bank rules
his relationship with Ms Riza "constitutes a de facto conflict of
interest".

It goes on to reject Mr Wolfowitz's proposal that Ms Riza should be
allowed to stay on at the bank, with Mr Wolfowitz recusing himself from
personnel decisions relating to her, stating: "The EC does not consider
recusal sufficient."

The ethics committee advises Mr Wolfowitz to ensure "that the staff
member will be relocated to a position beyond (potential) supervising
influence by the president".

It recommends that Ms Riza should be compensated for having to withdraw
her application for a more senior job within her existing department
with an "in-situ promotion" - that is, a promotion in her current job -
to compensate her for the "potential disruption" to her career
prospect. The wording implies a single-grade promotion within the
bank's very structured seniority system.

Two weeks later, in the second memorandum of August 11 2005 - the
existence of which was first revealed by the Financial Times - Mr
Wolfowitz orders Xavier Coll, the bank's vice-president for human
resources, to offer Ms Riza a secondment package with specified
benefits that go far beyond the simple promotion suggested by the
ethics committee.

There is no ambiguity as to who has decided which terms to offer Ms
Riza.

Mr Wolfowitz wrote to Mr Coll: "I now direct you to agree to a proposal
that includes the following terms and conditions."

The bank president tells Mr Coll to offer Ms Riza an initial promotion
to H (manager) grade "at a mid-point salary level of $180,000" free of
tax - significantly more than the normal maximum increase associated
with such a promotion.

Mr Wolfowitz then instructs Mr Coll to offer Ms Riza "annual increases
which will approximate 8 per cent" - much higher than the average for
bank staff - by agreeing in advance that she would be awarded automatic
outstanding performance ratings while on secondment.

The guaranteed 8 per cent annual increase meant that by 2010 her salary
would be $244,960 free of tax, about $35,000 more than if she was given
annual raises based on the average performance grade, though this
information was not contained in the memo.

Finally, Mr Wolfowitz orders Mr Coll to put in place arrangements
likely to lead to a near-automatic further promotion of one or even two
further ranks for Ms Riza on her return to the bank.

The bank president tells Mr Coll it was "reasonable to grant her
request to be guaranteed the right to return at an I level" (director
level) if Mr Wolfowitz leaves after a single five-year term.

He adds: "Should I stay on to serve a second term, she should return at
J level" - vice-president level, the most senior career staff grade at
the bank.

Mr Wolfowitz said the further promotion or promotions for Ms Riza on
her return should be "contingent upon a review of her work".

But he ordered Mr Coll that the review should be done by a committee
"appointed by mutual agreement between Ms Riza and HR" - in other
words, one whose members she could veto.

The memorandum acknowledges that Mr Coll, the bank's senior human
resources officer, opposed at the very least the arrangements for Ms
Riza's promotions.

Mr Wolfowitz writes: "I understand your preference would be to offer
her a financial settlement" that would compensate her for lost
opportunities related to her forced departure.

However, Mr Wolfowitz overrules Mr Coll, stating: "I direct you to
provide her a choice between her proposal and your alternative of
financial compensation."

Mr Wolfowitz says the initial promotion "should be included in either
alternative". The board findings make clear that the terms and
conditions Mr Wolfowitz ordered Mr Coll to offer Ms Riza were not seen
or approved by either Roberto Da