Some say that Wolfowitz will be remembered by many, not as a fighter for the poor but as a lover of Libyan-born Shaha Riza. He has lost his job as the president of the World Bank because of his girl friend.

He had engaged an expensive Washington lawyer, Bennet, to plead his case, but to no avail. It seems that he believes he is right when everyone thinks he was totally wrong in his actions toward the fantastic pay rise to Riza on transfer from the Bank to the US State Department, when he took over the presidency in 2005.

This is the fault of the man who started as an academic, was an ambassador to Indonesia during the Suharto regime, and became a neo-conservative with a missionary zeal to reform the world, specially the Middle East region, without considering the realities of the social and economic conditions of that part of the world.

Wolfowitz was one of the chief architects of the flawed Iraqi war. He appears to have a fatal flaw, which is not being able to see the consequences of his judgments. For example, his publicity of bogus intelligence about WMD, and a nonexistent 9/11-Saddam connection; his assurance to the world that Iraq's oil money would pay for reconstruction, and his public humiliation of General Eric Shinseki after the General dared tell Congress correctly that seven hundred thousand troops would be needed to secure Iraq after the invasion, are instances in point.

His departure leaves deeper issues

It does not matter to the world that he will be gone, disgraced, on June 30. But the concern is that the World Bank needs to be relevant in the current international economic architecture. Two core issues need to be considered:

• How relevant is the Bank?
• How is the Bank run?

Relevance of the Bank
The World Bank was established in 1944, along with the International Monetary Fund, to restore international economy when the whole world was in a bad shape following the Second World War. The World Bank was supposed to rebuild Europe, and reduce poverty elsewhere with loans and grants.

When the Bank was established, the number of independent countries was a little over fifty. Now the number of sovereign states is about two hundred, of which one hundred ninety-two are UN members.

The economic scenario was totally different from the present one. Japan, Germany and China have become economic powers, and a dozen middle-income countries play a key role in economic and trade matters in an increasingly globalised world.

Against this background, Robert Rubin, a former US Treasury secretary and now chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup, reportedly stated that the Bank had become outmoded. Eckhardt Deutscher, a senior German development official who serves as the dean of the Bank's Board of Directors, called for the re-examination of the roles of all the international financial institutions including the World Bank.

In 2000, an advisory commission created by the US Congress and headed by Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, recommended stopping loans to middle-income countries and converting loans to the poorest countries into grants. The recommendations were put aside.

It is reported that middle-income countries are now getting more from the Bank than the poorer countries. Last year, more than $14 billion went to middle-income countries and only $9.5 billion to poorer ones. One of the reasons appears to be that the middle-income countries keep their commitments to repay the loan.

World Bank figures reportedly show that the Bank's own contribution to the poorest countries amounts to 7% of the government-backed aid they get from 230 agencies.

It seems that private charity foundations are providing more funds to the poorest countries than the World Bank. In the light of these records, the relevance of the World Bank is being questioned, and it should seek a new identity.

How is the Bank run?
The victors of the Second World War divided the booty amongst themselves. As a result, the US nominates the president of the World Bank, while the European powers nominate the head of the International Monetary Fund. This most undemocratic system has been in practice in the world's two biggest financial institutions for more than sixty years.

Although voices have been raised by various member countries, including Japan (the second economy in the world), on the restructuring of the institutions, both the US and the European powers remain complacent about the method of appointment of the heads of the two influential organizations. This is because the current method favours them, to the exclusion of others.

Reforms
Deeper questions as to the fragile structure of current governance are being raised, including whether the post-war settlement, under which the Bank and the IMF are led by the US and European powers, is past its sell-by date.

For example, the sharing of the heads of the Bank and IMF by the US and European nominees should go, giving chance to competent candidates of other countries. The existing system of appointment does not reflect the realities of economic power in the world.

The World Bank needs drastic reforms. The scandal has provided an opportunity for the member-states to carry out the necessary reforms in the voting system of the Bank, including the method of appointment of the president.

The common perception is that World Bank is being run for American interests, rather than for the broader interests of the world as a whole. It is not good for the image of the World Bank. It should be seen as a strategic partner for poor countries, and move into 21st century.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen suggested in 2001 that there was a need for changes to reduce poverty across the world, a strong case for a far-reaching re-examination of the institutional structure of the international financial institutions.

It is surprising that such an undemocratic global institution is allowed to exist in the 21st century, when democracy is advocated by the US and European powers. Does it not constitute an example of flagrant double standards?

With regard to the current situation of the World Bank, it seems appropriate to quote US author and humourist Mark Twain (1835-1910) who once said: "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.