The scandal was merely the tip of an iceberg. The departure of Wolfowitz, nonetheless, was inevitable as revolt against him was brewing within the Bank for quite some time. He was widely despised as an architect of Iraq war and when President Bush foisted his nomination on the Bank for appointment as its president, he was fiercely opposed. Ever since, rage and resentment within and without simmered and had been building up against his high handed, arrogant and unilateral management style and arbitrary and selective loan giving criteria based on political consideration and not economic needs and performance.

Without consulting the Board he filled up senior staff positions in the Bank management by his former colleagues from the Pentagon and the State Department regardless of their lack of managerial experience in finance or development credentials. It soon became apparent that he used the Bank as an instrument to promote Bush foreign policy. His anti-corruption and good governance campaign in determining aid giving to developing countries was merely a ploy and a cover to attain his hidden agenda to serve US foreign policy interests by rewarding the “coalition of the willing” and punishing the recalcitrants unwilling to support US policies.

He suspended loan to Bangladesh, Chad, Kenya, Cambodia, Uzbekistan and Congo Brazzaville -- countries he considered corrupt. But he expanded aid to Iraq Trust Fund and made exceptions of Indonesia, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Democratic Republic of Congo -- considered US allies -- their corruption notwithstanding. He could not possibly forget that his former boss Rumsfeld returned home empty handed from his visit to Bangladesh requesting for troops contribution to Iraq. Uzbekistan suffered his wrath for giving ultimatum to Bush Administration to wind up US military bases from there. Emphasis on programmes to combat climate change and global warming and reproductive health and family planning received a short shrift by his conservative leanings.

Wolfowitz balked at the annual G 8 summit decision to double aid to Africa by 2010 and write off $40 billion in debt to 18 African countries. However, the role of World Bank is poverty reduction of the poor countries and not to be the world policeman. Also it does not make sense to penalise the poor for the wickedness of the corrupt governments. It is a pity that instead of expiating his sins as a war monger by devoting to the service of the poor countries, he remained a compulsive errant sinner, a cerebral neo-con founding member of “Project for a New American Century” to promote American foreign policy goals by espousing unilateralism and policy of preemption.

The World Bank also known as Bretton Woods Institution which took shape in 1945 in the wake of ravages of second world war began its work as a bank for reconstruction of post war Europe. The Bank's role, focus of attention and emphasis have shifted over a passage of time towards economic development and reduction of poverty of the developing countries, motivated by a blend of idealism and real politik. Even under the best of circumstances, the bank has never been perfect falling short of expectations of poor countries.

In the 50s its strategy was to help countries to contain the spread of communism. In the 60s under its President Robert McNamara, former defence secretary of President Lyndon Johnson Administration the Bank concentrated on infrastructure development, explorations of oil and not renewable energies often with disastrous consequence for ecological balance and dispossession of population in the developing countries. In the 70s and 80s it turned to what it described as structural adjustment of economic activities by advocating free market economy, privatisation, liberalisation of trade and investment giving rise to suspicions of reducing the developing countries to producers of primary commodities and serving the interest of manufacturing industrial West and multinationals.

In the 90s and to date, although the lexicon of aid has changed to lofty aims of promotion of human rights and rule of law, poverty reduction, education, health, sanitation and prevention of AIDS/HIV, empowerment of women, environment, combating corruption and poor governance, there has been little difference in the content and style of the programmes with the result of no substantial improvement in the standard of living of poor people or distributive justice in the society regardless of so-called rise in economic growth rate.

There is a general perception that the World Bank and IMF conditional loans have done more harm than good to the developing countries by fostering corruption, perpetual debt repayment trap and a vicious cycle of dependency syndrome.

The Bank which channels about $25 billion loan a year suffers from a deep malaise of credibility loss due to the manner in which it operates and needs a thorough review and overhaul with structural reforms. It is losing its legitimacy due to its flawed governance structure. The ground rules for choosing a president of World Bank should be changed immediately. America, the biggest share holder of the bank holding 17 percent of shares, traditionally has chosen an American national as the president of World Bank. The deeply flawed selection process has produced Wolfowitz debacle. The selection should be open worldwide based on merit, quality and appropriate qualification.

Wolfowitz episode has also turned focus on the operation of bank privileged with lavish pensions, tax-free high salaries and subsidised private school fees the staff enjoy. The president of the bank draws a staggering annual salary close to $355,000. This is highly immoral for a bank which is supposed to work for the poor. The Bank urgently needs winnowing of its bloated 13,000 bureaucracy and appended array of coddled consultants, unsustainable perks and institutional intransigence.

Abdul Hannan is a former press counselor at Bangladesh UN mission in New York.