[lbo-talk] (Fwd) Sharks smell a wounded Wolf's blood

[Patrick Bond]

(And looking at the press conference transcript, below, I'm afraid I was 
correct that no journo wanted to ask the obvious question: what did 
Shaha Riza do at State that was worth so much WB money?)

Wolfowitz Apologizes for Role in Staffer's Promotion

By William McQuillen and Christopher Swann

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz apologized
for his role in the promotion of a woman with whom he was romantically
involved, while the lender's Staff Association demanded he quit.

Wolfowitz told a press conference in Washington today that he's
prepared to accept whatever ``remedies'' the bank's board proposes.
Minutes later, he addressed a staff gathering in the atrium of the
lender's headquarters, where colleagues shouted ``resign, resign.''

The former U.S. deputy secretary of defense has taken responsibility
for the temporary transfer of Shaha Riza to the State Department after
he arrived at the lender in June 2005. Her move took place under bank
rules that forbid one partner to report to another, though Riza got a
pay raise that was twice as large as bank rules allow, according to
the Staff Association.

Wolfowitz, 63, today said he initially tried to avoid involvement and
finally intervened because of the ``legal risk'' associated with an
``involuntarily reassignment'' of a staffer.

``I made a mistake, for which I am sorry,'' he said at the press conference.

The Staff Association, which represents about 13,000 World Bank
employees, hasn't called for the resignation of a president before,
according to Alison Cave, who heads the group. She is pressing the
board to release all documents related to Riza's pay increase and
transfer.

`Impossible' to Move Forward

``It seems impossible for this institution to move forward with any
sense of purpose under the present leadership, especially in our
endeavor to assist governments and their people in improving their own
governance,'' Cave said in a statement that she read at today's meeting.

The board's probe of Riza's promotion is overshadowing the semi-annual
meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Wolfowitz's press conference opening the meeting was dominated by the
issue. He was asked only a handful of questions about the bank's
lending program.

Tim Adams, U.S. Treasury undersecretary for international affairs,
today declined to speculate about Wolfowitz's future, citing the
review by the bank's executive board.

``There is a mechanism in place, and I am going to allow that
mechanism to work rather than inject myself into the middle of it,''
Adams, who represents the U.S. as the largest shareholder of the bank,
said at a press conference at the Treasury Department.

Effect on Meetings

Ted Truman, a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury between
1998 and 2001, said the controversy will crowd out any other issue at
the semi-annual meetings.

``This reflects badly on the institution and on Wolfowitz and will
undermine the effectiveness of the Bank,'' Truman said. ``It will make
it very hard for Wolfowitz to talk about the issues.''

``I am not sure whether he will survive,'' Truman added.

Riza's promotion came with a pay increase that was more than double
the amount allowed by staff rules, according to Cave. She later
received an annual increase of 7.5 percent, also larger than rules
allow.

Wolfowitz's tenure was already marked by discord. He raised hackles
among staff members over plans to beef up the bank's presence in
Baghdad, and his drive to fight corruption among the bank's borrowers
has prompted concern that aid intended to help the poor might be halted.

The World Bank was founded in 1944 to provide financing for the
reconstruction of Europe after World War II, and it has since changed
its mission to focus on fighting poverty. It lends about $23 billion a
year.

The bank's president is nominated by the White House for a five-year
term and must be a U.S. citizen. The IMF's managing director,
currently former Spanish finance minister Rodrigo de Rato, has always
been a European.

Cave implored the board to launch a ``global merit-based search'' for
a new leader.

To contact the reporters on this story: William McQuillen in
Washington at bmcquillen at bloomberg.net ; Christopher Swann in
Washington at cswann1 at bloomberg.net

Last Updated: April 12, 2007 14:42 EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVHjb1UUX8y4&refer=us

***

Paul Wolfowitz: Opening Press Conference at the WB/IMF Spring Meetings 
2007, April 12, 2007, Washington, DC

Mr. Hanlon: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome, and thank you 
for joining us this morning. President Wolfowitz will begin with a 
statement. After that, we will be pleased to take your questions. I 
would ask you to please identify yourself and your organization, if you 
could, please. Also, if you could limit it to one question so we could 
get around the room as much as possible.

This briefing is, of course, on the record. I will now turn to President 
Wolfowitz.

President Wolfowitz: Thanks, Carl.

Let me start by just saying a few words about the issue that I know is 
on everyone's mind.

Two years ago, when I came to the Bank, I raised the issue of a 
potential conflict of interest, and I asked to be recused from the 
matter. I took the issue to the Ethics Committee of the Board, and after 
extensive discussions with the Chairman, the Committee's advice was to 
promote and relocate Ms. Shaha Riza.

I made a good‑faith effort to implement my understanding of that advice, 
and I did so in order to take responsibility for settling an issue that 
I believe had the potential to harm this institution. In hindsight, I 
wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the 
negotiations. I made a mistake for which I am sorry.

But let me also ask for some understanding. Not only was this a painful 
personal dilemma, but I had to deal with it when I was new to this 
institution, and I was trying to navigate in uncharted waters. The 
situation was unprecedented and exceptional. This was an involuntary 
reassignment, and I believed there was a legal risk to the institution 
if it was not solved by mutual agreement. I take full responsibility for 
the details of the agreement, and I did not attempt to hide my actions 
or to make anyone else responsible.

I met with the Board this morning, and I proposed to them that they 
establish some mechanism to judge whether the agreement reached was a 
reasonable outcome. I will accept any remedies they propose.

In the larger scheme of things, we have much more important things to 
focus on. For people who disagree with the things they associate with me 
in my previous job, I'm not in my previous job. I'm not working for the 
U.S. Government. I'm working for this institution and its 185 
shareholders. I believe deeply in the mission of this institution, and I 
have a passion for it. I think the challenge of reducing poverty is of 
enormous importance, not just to us, but to our children and 
grandchildren. I think the opportunities in Africa today are potentially 
historic.

We have really been able to call attention to the progress that's 
possible in Africa and not just the despair and misery. I think together 
we have made progress in enabling this institution to respond more 
effectively and rapidly both in the poorest countries and the 
middle‑income countries to carry on the fight against poverty.

And I also believe more strongly now than when I came to this job that 
the world needs this institution, an effective multilateral institution, 
that can responsibly and credibly manage common funds for common 
purposes, whether those purposes are to fight poverty or to deal with 
climate change or to respond to the danger of avian flu, and I ask that 
I be judged for what I'm doing now and what we could do together, moving 
forward.

And in that spirit, let me say a little bit about what is on the agenda 
of the Development Committee. We are going to be focused principally on 
the Global Monitoring Report, the Aid Architecture Paper, and the Africa 
Action Plan.

We will also be having an informal discussion, as we usually do in the 
Development Committee lunch, and three important side events, one to 
address the issue of Congo River Basin, another to address the challenge 
of providing water for the poor, and the third to talk about the 
challenge of recovering stolen assets.

As you're aware, the Bank's key strategy for Africa is the Africa Action 
Plan. As I said in my earlier remarks, I think this is a moment of 
historic opportunity for Africa. We are seeing in many parts of the 
subcontinent remarkable growth. Roughly a third of the countries', 
nonoil‑producing countries, with roughly a third of the population have 
been growing at 4 percent or better over the last 10 years‑‑that's a 
pretty good record‑‑and it's leading to progress in education and health 
and in closing the gender gap. We are seeing increasing efforts at 
business reform in no small measure spurred by the Bank's Doing Business 
Report. And the Bank is helping Africa with the resources to meet its 
challenges. Our lending levels are achieving record volumes, quality, 
and, most importantly, innovation.

Our support for Africa comes largely through IDA, the International 
Development Association. IDA is on track to deliver on its commitments 
to Africa with lending expected to reach another level this year after 
last year's record of 4.7 billion, we are looking at numbers 5 billion 
or higher.

We are doing our part, but it's clear the international community needs 
to do more to help Africa. There is now real uncertainty about whether 
the promise of the Gleneagles Summit to double aid to Africa by 2010 
will be realized. According to a recent report by the OECD‑DAC, official 
development assistance last year fell by some 5 percent to 104 billion 
in 2006.

It would be a tragic mistake if the promises of increased aid were not 
delivered. Let me just mention to you a couple of the challenges that 
are identified in the Global Monitoring Report that will be discussed by 
the Development Committee. To date, according to the Report, there is 
not a single example of a country case where aid is being sufficiently 
scaled up to help reach the MDGs‑‑that's the Millennium Development 
Goals‑‑by 2015. What these countries need is long‑term predictable 
financing; IDA can provide that.

Another observation - nearly two years after the Gleneagles Summit, the 
pledges made there and its subsequent broader meetings in 2005 for a 
substantial increase in new development assistance flows for Africa, we 
have yet to see evidence of significant new flows that translate into 
real resources for development programs on the ground.

So, the challenge is very real, and let's not forget, with discussions 
already underway on replenishing IDA 15, donors need to make good on the 
promises made at Gleneagles and then at the Annual Meetings of the World 
Bank and IMF here in the fall of 2005, to compensate IDA 
dollar‑for‑dollar for the lost debt payments resulting from the HIPC 
Initiative and the MDRI Initiative and to preserve IDA's capacity to 
finance programs and projects in the world's poorest countries.

I think this is an important meeting. It's a meeting to focus on the 
progress that is being made, progress that I think is in no small 
measure due to improved performance by the developing countries, and to 
focus on keeping the promises that have been made to help them develop them.

MR. HANLON: Thank you very much, sir.

We will have copies of the President's statement at the end of the news 
conference at back of the room for you, and we are now prepared to take 
your questions. Once again, if you could identify yourself and the name 
of your organization, that would be very helpful.

Yes, Fernando?

Question: Good morning. Fernando Supra Pinto from TVGlobo from Brazil.

If the Board is to decide to remove you, what would be your assessment 
of this episode in your tenure at the World Bank?

President Wolfowitz: The Board is deliberating on this issue now, and 
I'm not going to preempt the deliberations by speculating about where 
they're coming out.

I told you my view of the issue, and I told you what I proposed to them, 
and we will have to see what they have to say.

Question: Alicia Salgado from the El Financiero newspaper in Mexico.

Could you please tell us a little bit more about the middle‑income 
strategies that is going to present this week to the Development 
Committee, because Mexico is one of the countries that has a very low 
stand‑by with the financial lines with the World Bank, and there are 
some requests about the‑‑to change division with these countries, 
especially Mexico, Brazil, Chile, whatever. Could you respond about it.

President Wolfowitz: It includes a broad range of changes to how we do 
business; first of all, the design to lower the transaction costs of 
working with the World Bank, to make lending or borrowing from us, 
something that could take place more rapidly that is more competitive 
with the other sources of financing in countries like Mexico have access 
to in the commercial markets.

Secondly, to recognizing that for sophisticated countries like Mexico 
with a lot of access to commercial markets and other sources of funding, 
the interest in borrowing from the Bank stems perhaps more from the kind 
of knowledge and expertise that comes with that lending, and we need to 
figure out how to properly value those two different aspects of what we 
do. But also we need to move forward to keep up with the rapidly 
increasing sophistication of clients like Mexico. You can't‑‑the 
information that might have been useful to Mexico or China or Brazil 20 
years ago is not very useful to them now.

I think where we bring the greatest value is in, most of all, in 
programs targeted at poverty reduction, but I also saw in my visit to 
Mexico places where we were working with Mexico on things like housing 
finance in the private sector through the IFC, where we were working on 
some significant innovations in governance, including procurement 
reforms, and assisting with the really quite remarkable Freedom of 
Information procedures that Mexico had established.

And then finally, I think in Mexico, as in many other places, the Bank 
brings a great deal of expertise in the area generally of sustainable 
development, which means, most of all‑‑I mean, there are many aspects to 
it, but most of all in what I saw there, expertise about managing the 
environment in the context of development.

So, then one final thing, and it's particularly applicable in the case 
of Mexico, but this is part of the general middle‑income strategy, is to 
figure out how we can help countries develop their own systems for audit 
and control so that they don't have to go through sometimes what are 
viewed as our cumbersome systems, and that doesn't mean substituting 
less adequate safeguards for the safeguards of the World Bank. It means 
helping countries develop their own safeguards to a level where ours 
could be significantly simplified. And there is a lot of interest in 
that, and it would not only make it easier to deal with the World Bank, 
but I think it would have‑‑and there is some concrete examples, I know, 
in Mexico, where it has improved the procurement process not only on 
World Bank money but on Mexican Government money.

Question: Corbit Daily from Thompson Financial News.

President Wolfowitz, in your opening statement, you said you asked that 
you be judged by what you are doing now. I was wondering what you would 
say to your critics who say that you are turning the World Bank into 
something‑‑an arm of the U.S. administration and providing‑‑playing 
favorites with the development aid.

President Wolfowitz: I have yet to see any evidence on that point, 
frankly. I mean, we are doing development aid as we did it before I came 
here. The IDA money is allocated on the basis of this performance‑based 
allocation system, which is‑‑some people might say it's too rigid, but 
it's a very objective system. We are not playing favorites with anybody. 
We are trying to put money where it does the greatest good for poverty 
reduction and trying to move it more rapidly and with better safeguards 
around it.

I think strengthening the emphasis that was started, really, under my 
predecessor, recognizing that governance and corruption are part of the 
agenda, and frankly I think the United States and other developed 
countries have obligations to do more, not just to point the finger at 
poor countries, and say that corruption is their problem if the people 
who are stealing assets from those countries are putting them in 
American banks or European banks or other assets in the developed world, 
the developed world needs to help them recover it.

Then, finally‑‑and I think I have been very clear about this‑‑all the 
development assistance we may provide and all the things countries will 
do on their own to increase output are going to be of greatly reduced 
benefit to the poor if they don't have places to sell their goods, and I 
think the agricultural subsidies in particular in the United States as 
well as Europe and Japan are really a scandal‑‑I have said so‑‑I think 
they benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, and that's not an 
American position. It's my position as the head of an institution whose 
main responsibility is to the poor.

Question: As someone coming from the former Soviet Union, I'm mostly 
interested in that region. For me, a case in point of what the previous 
reporter asked you was Uzbekistan. There was a shift from full support 
when Uzbekistan was considered to be a major ally of the United States 
in the region, and there was a denial of support after it stopped being 
a major ally in the region. People charged that it came from your direct 
instructions. What do you respond to that?

President Wolfowitz: The issue had nothing to do with Uzbekistan 's 
relationship with the United States; and in my previous job, I must say 
that Uzbekistan was seen, and I'm sure is still seen, as of enormous 
strategic importance.

The question for the World Bank is, given the substantial human rights 
violations that were taking place prior to that decision, we had real 
concerns about whether we could get transparency about where our money 
was going, because transparency does require that people be reasonably 
free to say what's going on, and our goal is not to disengage from 
Uzbekistan. Our goal is to find ways to engage and to engage more 
effectively.

And I could tell you that it had nothing to do whatsoever with the state 
of Uzbekistan 's relations with the United States.

Question: Jose Esquivel from Proceso Magazine of Mexico.

My question has to do with corruption. As a leader of the fight on 
corruption and the right of favoring people, my question to you is: What 
will be your advice on the Finance Minister of Mexico, who you know very 
well, who hasn't been responding clearly to the Mexican people and to 
the Mexican media if he's going to investigate his predecessors or who 
has been involved in -this scandal during his tenure he favored many 
people and many people close to him, especially families close to people 
who were working close to him. What will be your advice to the 
Mexican‑‑and many people in poor countries believe that leaders never 
say something when the finance minister is involved in an investigation, 
and that's not fair. What do you say to the Mexican people?

President Wolfowitz: I'm not familiar with the case that you're 
describing, so I can't comment on the details. I do think that a general 
solid principle is, if there is a problem, be transparent about it, 
disclose everything you know, and figure out what are the appropriate 
remedies. I think it really is true that transparency is the key, 
absolute key, here to good governance and in fighting corruption.

Question: I have two questions: Do you have any plans to resign from 
your job?

And secondly, the Board that is deliberating today, is its deliberations 
focused on removing you from your job, or is it looking at a wider range 
of remedies, and what are those remedies, please?

President Wolfowitz: As I said in answer to a previous question, I'm not 
going to speculate on what the Board is going to decide. I made it clear 
to them, and I made it clear to you, that I was trying to make a 
judgment about what was reasonable in a difficult and unprecedented 
circumstance. And if they come to some way of concluding whether or 
not‑‑whether it is reasonable, I will abide by whatever remedies are 
available to deal with that.

This was not in any way an attempt to protect personal interest. It was 
an attempt to resolve an issue that I thought had real risk for the 
institution, and my real regret is I did not more forcefully keep myself 
out of it.

Let me make clear, I never volunteered to get involved in it.

Question: Simon Cox of The Economist.

Were you afraid that Ms. Riza would sue the institution if she wasn't 
happy with the deal she would get?

President Wolfowitz: I'm sorry?

Question: You mentioned the legal risk to the institution. You were 
afraid that Ms. Riza would sue the World Bank if she did not get the 
deal that she was happy with?

President Wolfowitz: I think I would be speculating and I would be 
prejudging what the Board needs to determine or find a mechanism to 
determine, but when you're in uncharted waters and you're imposing an 
involuntary solution on staff members, there are risks; there is just no 
question. There are risks.

Question: Jean Paul with Reuters News Agency.

If I understand correctly, the topic of energy was removed from the 
official agenda and may be discussed during the supper, and I was 
wondering why that's the case, and whether it has anything to do with an 
inability to reach consensus on how to deal with this issue?

President Wolfowitz: No, it wasn't removed from the agenda. One of the 
problems is there is not enough time to discuss all of the important 
issues that are present at these meetings. I believe we have something 
like seven different background papers, some of which are there to be 
read because there isn't time to discuss them.

So, we have a rather intensive debate about what could go on the agenda, 
formal agenda, of the Development Committee. There are only two agenda 
items, but we managed to squeeze in a third paper, which is the Aid 
Architecture Paper. It's a very important paper that came out of the IDA 
Deputies Committee, and let me just give you two sentences on that 
because it's a really critical issue. It emphasizes the point that while 
the appearance of many new donors including what are called "vertical 
funds" that focus on specific diseases or specific programs, big 
foundations, new emerging donors, all of that is a good thing, but it 
puts a challenge on the development system as a whole and particularly 
on the weakest countries for how to sustain the basic systems in the 
country like the ones that train teachers. It's very important, as we 
are trying to do, to increase primary school enrollment, but if you do 
that without increasing teacher training, then that's a problem. So, the 
Aid Architecture Paper identifies those kind of issues.

And the Africa Action Plan, of course, is the other item.

Then we get to this informal, you mentioned, dinner; it's lunch. It's a 
formal meeting of the Development Ministers, which is very informal, 
without staff. And there are two main topics on that agenda, and one of 
them is the clean energy framework. We had clean energy on the formal 
agenda in the fall, and it may well come up again this coming fall. It's 
a major focus of the Bank's work, and it might well be the principal 
focus of the Bank 10 or 15 years from now. We are seeing a situation 
where, on the one hand, the poorest countries who are our principal 
customers are, frankly, often the ones most affected by climate change, 
partly because many of them are tropically located, but also just 
because if you are living on the edge already, a little disturbance 
pushes you over the edge.

So, just figuring out how to help them adapt is crucial, but also when 
it comes to what is called "mitigation," which is how to reduce carbon 
emissions, clearly one of the ways‑‑a major way, or maybe the major way, 
that that's going to happen is for investments to come from the 
developed countries, from the rich countries, to help the poor countries 
reduce carbon emissions either reducing deforestation or increasing 
their dependence on fossil fuels or increasing the efficiency with which 
they use fossil fuels. It's a big subject. It's not lack of interest. 
It's not lack of consensus, although there are some tough issues here. 
Everyone agrees that's important, and that work is going to go forward.

I think the discussion at the lunch should finally help that work go 
forward with a clear understanding of what the Ministers feel are the 
outstanding issues.

Question: Barry Wood, Voice of America.

Mr. Wolfowitz, hasn't the Bank lost in Africa the initiative on HIV/AIDS 
to the Gates Foundation? And what is your assessment of the impact of 
the Gates Foundation approach on Bank operations?

President Wolfowitz: You know, the idea that we have lost the initiative 
to somebody else is‑‑kind of suggests that we are competing with 
Microsoft. We are not. We are in the same business together, and the 
fact that the Gates Foundation is out in the front with HIV/AIDS is a 
wonderful thing, and one of the things it does tend to mean is countries 
want to see the Bank fill some of the needs not filled by the Gates 
Foundation. Actually, we are also looking at some, I think, very 
successful examples of cooperation, for example, in fighting malaria. We 
have some joint efforts with the Gates Foundation in Zambia.

So, this goes back to the point of aid architecture and the fact these 
new donors are filling very important gaps, which is something to be 
welcomed. I think one of the very important places for this institution 
to focus when it comes to health is that‑‑sustaining the overall health 
systems of countries. You know, if you focus too much on a single 
disease, you may provide a lot of AIDS medicines, but you may not have 
the electricity to run the refrigerators to keep those medicines, or you 
may not have the other medicines for other diseases that keep people 
healthier and, therefore, less susceptible to the diseases which are 
usually the approximate cause of death from AIDS debilitation.

So, no, I don't view it as a problem at all. I view it as part of this 
aid architecture problem of how do we‑‑where do we put our comparative 
advantage and where do we put our money.

Question: Scheherazade Daneshkhu, the Financial Times.

Mr. Wolfowitz, you have made good governance the flagship issue of your 
presidency at the World Bank, and given your statement this morning, 
what do you say to people who say that‑‑who won't see these as personal 
mistakes but as a serious error of corporate governance?

And in that regard, do you not feel that whatever the Board decides that 
your credibility and ability to continue in this job is compromised?

President Wolfowitz: Let's see what the Board decides before I decide on 
what the Board decides, but I could tell you about my own actions. I 
didn't volunteer to get involved in this. I didn't get involved for any 
personal reasons but rather to resolve something that I think posed 
institutional risk. I didn't hide anything that I did, and as I said, 
I'm prepared to accept any remedies that the Board wants to propose.

Question: Mr. Wolfowitz, could you address the complaints of World Bank 
staff members, professional staff, who say that you have shielded 
yourself too much behind a small group of advisors‑‑the name Robin 
Cleveland seems to come up a lot, sometimes also Suzanne Folsom‑‑and not 
consulted with or not listened to the counsel of veteran professional 
staff people?

President Wolfowitz: Let me say, first of all, the part of that that I 
will accept as having some validity, which is I came in here as I think 
any new CEO would, needing some people that I was familiar with already. 
I brought in two, sometimes it sounds like it's an army of Bush 
administration retreads. It was Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems. 
Suzanne Folsom was here already with Mr. Wolfenson, and she's running 
her own part of the shop. She's not in my inner office in any sense 
whatsoever.

But I have heard concerns from Board members, from staff members, that 
that's fine in the beginning, but the role of my two advisors needs to 
be more structured, and I actually agree with that, and I'm going to 
find a way to put them in the structure better.

So, having said that, let me also say I think this criticism is a little 
bit stale. I mean, I brought in a New Zealander and an El Salvadoran as 
Managing Directors, neither of whom I knew before I came here. I 
recruited from outside an Italian CFO, a Swedish Executive Vice 
President of the IFC, a Jordanian Senior Vice President for External 
Affairs whom I didn't know before, a former Spanish Foreign Minister as 
General Counsel.

Then two more that I'm particularly pleased about more recently, two 
African women, former Minister of Health from Botswana and former 
Assistant Director General‑WHO, Joy Phumaphi, who is our new Vice 
President for Human Development‑‑a fantastic woman‑‑and coming soon as a 
new Vice President for Africa, the Nigerian Minister of Education, 
Obiageli Ezekwesili.

And almost all of these people are not only obviously not from the Bush 
administration‑‑most of them are people I didn't know before‑‑but most 
importantly to me, I have gotten to know numbers of terrific staff. I 
recruited a Chief of Staff, Leticia Obeng, who is a bank professional 
from Ghana. Her deputy, Auguste Kwame, another terrific bank staffer 
from Ivory Coast. And I could go on and on. It starts to get a little 
boring, but what to me is sort of surprising is I could still be 
surrounded by these two people who keep all of those other folks away 
from me. It's just not true.

But I accept the point as I said in the beginning, which is it's time to 
get the structure clear and the lines question.

Mr. Hanlon: A final question, at the back of the room.

Question: Kathy Shockwood, National Public Radio.

Will there be any changes, or have there been any changes, in the Bank's 
policies on reproductive health and family planning?

President Wolfowitz: Absolutely not. I have seen rumors about that. Let 
me make it very clear. Our policy hasn't changed. We have a new health 
strategy going to the Board which I think makes it very clear, and I 
want to make it clear, personally: I think reproductive health is 
absolutely crucial to what I have said over and over again is a major 
part of the development agenda, which is making sure that women can 
contribute equally with men; and healthy women, women who married at a 
reasonable age or had reasonable numbers of children, they could keep 
healthy, not only take better care of their girl children, they take 
better care of their boy children and contribute better to society as a 
whole. It is a development issue. The policy of this institution, I 
think, was very clear before I got here, and will remain very clear.

Mr. Hanlon: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Once again, there 
will be a statement at the back of the room for you as you leave. Thank you.