'Job' for the girl.

Na altura foi vista como a nomeação do 'sage'.

Uma espécie de Ramos Horta dos EUA, Wolfowitz era para Bush aquilo que Horta é para 'Xanana' Gusmão: o cérebro. Bush actua hoje com a sua fiel [?] Rice, e Wolfowitz tramou-se com a 'namorada'.

Aliás, Horta disse, na nomeação de Wolfowitz, que 'Those who have suspicions and reservations should not have them because Wolfowitz is very humane and sensitive'.

É curioso que um 'cérebro' como Wolfowitz se trame assim e sobretudo que, sendo 'ultra-conservador' judaico e israelita tenha 'namoradas', tendo-se aliás separado em 2001 e tendo 3 filhos. Mas enfim, não é esse o tema da discussão.

Nem a sua famosa e democrática frase 'you can't wait until you have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt'.

O que se discute é a nomeação da sua namorada para um cargo cujo salário líquido excede o de Rice [acima dela na hierarquia, uma vez que está no Banco apenas em secondment], num Banco que supostamente serve para ajudar os pobres.

Mas como se sabe -- pelo menos quem tem amigos no Banco Mundial ou candidatos a este -- o factor C não é novidade.

Daí que esta notícia sobre a namorada de Wolfowitz não seja novidade nenhuma. Pelo que paramos por aqui.

Apenas achamos que como responsável pela comunicação externa do Banco, ela seja tão pobre numa declaração pessoal tão importante como a deste momento:

'I have now been victimised for agreeing to an arrangement that I have objected to and that I did not believe from the outset was in my best interest'

Ora bem. Se objectou, porque aceitou? E se aceitou porque vem dizer que se não era do seu melhor interesse? Sinceramente não há paciência.

detalhes [extracto do FT de dia 13.4.2007]:

'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 Dañino, the bank’s then senior legal officer, or the ethics committee.'