Global Development: Views from the Center

Tobias is not the first, and unfortunately, will not be the last to succomb and be drawn into the underbelly of the world's oldest profession. At least he and the Bush Administration had the sense to take him out quickly and Tobias resigned. Unfortunately, this was not the case with ex-President Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinski affair, nor was it the case with Rep. Barney Frank whose companion and roommate was running a gay call-boy for sex escort service from Frank's residence, nor was it the case with former Congressman Gary Studds and his meeting underage pages....the list just goes on and on. Unfortunately, given Tobias' global leadership position and profile, his only option was a quick exit. The Tobias scenario reminds me of my first HIV/AIDs and TB conference that I attended in Botswana in 1995: some of Africa's top leadership from various ministries of health and regional WHO offices with oversight responsibilities for public health issues were in attendance....and the sex workers in the conference hotel lounge were doing a brisk business with the HIV/AIDs and TB conference public health officials who were in attendance at the meeting! Go figure.

"By comparison with that sorry performance, Tobias, by knowing when to leave, looks like a hero."

That's a bit of a stretch. The importance of recognizing that personal behavior is incompatible with organizational philosophy and published standards is certainly undeniable. The incident that led to cries for Wolfowitz' resignation isn't quite in the same league, although is obviously also quite unacceptable - the argument that he was an idiot and has acknowledged it and learned could have more merit perhaps than would the case for Tobias if he had taken the same approach. I'm not defending either of course, but acknowledging there is room to admit stupidity (we all have to at times) if the main job can still be legitimately carried out - that could the case for Wolfowitz arguably, but probably not for Tobias.

There's an interesting NY Times OpEd piece today defending Wolfowitz based on perceived real impact on Nigerian corruption (clearly not finished yet!) which gives at least a minority view on his role. See: Why Wolfowitz Should Stay http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01ribadu.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Human weaknesses overtakes even the best of people from time to time. In these circumstances our integrity and commitment to principles face their greatest challenge. Acceptance of our mistakes and the paramount concern of the good of the institutions we serve must be the primary considerations. Attempts at prevarication and using influence merely demean us and make things more difficult for all concerned. Ambassador Tobias has done the right thing to resign.

"It’s hypocrisy. Tobias had the good sense to understand all of this in the space of a few hours and to quickly resign." Too bad he didn't have the "good sense" not to even use the service.

Why is it that time and again someone has to reveal such matters of hypocrisy and corruption before action is taken? Isn't it all a political game? Shouldn't people for such high and important positions be screened better and politically independent? I am sure the people unmasked are just a tip of the iceberg.

From their inception in the early 1980's, HIV/AIDS programs have naturally attracted persons, including leaders, who are themselves at comparatively high risk of sexually transmitted HIV infection. This is no secret. Indeed, people who are not drawn to or do not themselves explore risky behavior may be least-prepared to understand issues and work effectively in HIV risk-reduction programs. Tobias resigned swiftly; he shouldn't be further condemned based on what's been revealed so far. We may never know but perhaps he was trying to learn more about the 'business' so he could be a more informed leader...better not to throw stones in glass houses.

That said, the Bush Admin policy banning USG work with 'prostitutes' and sex workers is as idiotic as their conviction that 'abstinence' is use-effective as a program cornerstone. Poor Mr. Tobias had to represent these policies in order to be in his post. His shortcoming was that he wasn't standing up for rational and humane HIV control policies, knowing what he evidently knew.

The blog posting asks, "What's wrong with this picture?" In my own mind, what's wrong with this picture is the notion that by leading with the sensational and political angle, everyone is losing sight of the bigger issues. If only we were equally captivated by figuring out how to fix foreign aid to better serve the world's poor.

Sex -- we all have it. OK, usually legally, but still.

Hypocricy -- I imagine we've all been hypocrits at some point in our lives. Ideally, we learn as we grow that we need to have integrity to stand for our values no matter the cost. And to realize that some positions demand the highest of integrity. Perhaps Tobias anguished in his hypocrisy every day but still worked tirelessly to change a system to save more lives and create more economic opportunities in poor countries. At least he had the decency to resign.

Development -- Aha! That's what we should be talking about. It is an open question whether Tobias' resignation will help or hurt on reforming a broken US aid apparatus to better serve the world's poor. I suspect it opens two gaping holes -- one for Congress to ignore the reform agenda and budget and plug numbers back into the old account structure (already in the works before Tobias resigned) and a second for State Department to assume utter control over foreign aid, including that for development (raises red flags for me). I hope the comments shift to reflections on that issue.

In development ethics, it is not good to have sexual affairs as these will infiltrate into biased decission policies. Just imagine, if the call girl to Tobias was running an HIV/AIDS project in one of the deloping countries, she would access lots of dollars for her project or her relatives, friends and in-laws being hired in this project.

On the other hand, Wolfowitz could not resist decissions that would please Shaha Ali meaning that Shaha could be 'used' as a channel to influence top intitutional policies let alone the hefty ammounts and allowances that Wolfowitz awarded her. In Emergency relief such sex related issues lead to automatic loss of job since at the worst end, in such a scenario, a relief worker will give much food rations to those s/he is having sexual affairs with. For such top global institutional heads, this is a very miserable situation and affirms what experts in developing countries have been fearing most 'sex related appointments', that getting a job in such institutions is linked to sex and know-who, very surprising indeed.

But logically how will either Tobias or Wolfowitz resist hiring persons presented to them by those who enjoy a private affair with them?. The qualifications may be right there, yes, but the ground will not be fair given that for instance Shaha Ali will have an upper hand on who get what, from where, how and why. Resignation is just one thing but the overall idea should be revisiting the process of allocating and approving projects and in any case, the project is linked to this sex scandal, that project should either be cancelled or not renewed at maturity. The world is watching Tobias and Wolforwitz,acknowledging their oustanding leadership but highly questioning their moral character and independent decission making ability.

Paul Mayende
Student,M.A International Relations
Makerere University, Kampala-Uganda

Earlier this year I spent weeks in Africa trying to help "new partners" (African NGOs receiving grants from Pepfar)to understand the Pepfar rules and regs, including abstinence, fidelity and the anti-prostitution pledge. Now some organizations in Africa are emailing me, asking if this current news will change Pepfar policy. Are we surprised that this hypocrisy makes them wonder? How can those of us who have had the task of explaining Pepfar (believing that it does bring some good despite its AB and anti-prostitution narrow-mindedness) have any credibility in speaking to African colleagues about prevention?

And as we talk to them about appropriate use of funds, there is the Wolfowitz case. Coming from the north, we simply have no credibility. The challenge now: How to repair? What action to be taken to turn things around??

Laurie Garrett of the Council of Foreign Relations has an excellent oped in the LA Times today about this topic and the "perils of mixing moralizing with foreign policy." See: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-garrett2may02,0,1817879.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

I'm concerned that you have misrepresented the nature of the prostitution pledge policy in the blog post. While it is indeed insidious, it does not require organizations to cut off specific activities, nor does it govern what they can do with other peoples' money. The Global Gag Rule, which governs US-funded international family planning programs (but not PEPFAR programs) fits both of these bills -- it prohibits recipients of US assitance from providing abortions or conducting abortion-related activity, including counseling that abortion is a legal option or advocating for the liberalization of abortion laws. And it prohibits organizations from doing this with either US funds OR funds from other donors.

When did anyone in the Bush administration every go away quietly?

Then why is Paul Wolfowitz still working at the World bank? Waiting to be fired or will he resign?

Another day another Bush Administration appointment scandal.

Tobias am sorry this came out but we all are aware of the weakness our unique nature holds. What is more imporatant here is the ability and willingness to resign and save the face of an honorable proffession like development.

Tobias sets a good example for the World bank president and others like him. I pray his family will forgive him and help him recover.

Tobias is a hero, a proffessional and indeed a man of ethics. You break the code and you judge yourself rightly.