User:Altercari/sandbox

Anna Sorokin
Анна Сорокина
Born	Anna Sorokina (1991-01-23) January 23, 1991 Domodedovo, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union
Other names	Anna Delvey
Citizenship	German
Criminal status	NYSDOC #19G0366; released, February 2021
Conviction(s)	2019-04-15
Criminal charge	Grand larceny, second-degree larceny, theft of services
Penalty	4 to 12 years imprisonment, $24,000 fine, $199,000 restitution, deportation to Germany

Anna Sorokin is a Russian-born German convicted fraudster. Between 2013 and 2017 she pretended to be a wealthy German heiress under the name Anna Delvey in order to defraud banks, hotels, and wealthy acquaintances. She was convicted of multiple counts of attempted grand larceny, larceny in the second degree, and theft of services in relation to these offenses in 2019. As of 2021, television adaptions of her story are being developed by Netflix and HBO.

Early life

Anna Sorokin was born in Domodedovo, a working-class satellite town southeast of Moscow, in 1991. She was one of two children of the family. Her father worked as a truck driver, while her mother owned a small convenience store before becoming a housewife. The family relocated to Germany in 2007, when Anna was 16. She attended the gymnasium in Eschweiler and was described by classmates as a quiet girl who had a difficult time with the German language.

Sorokin graduated from high school in 2011 and relocated to London to attend Central Saint Martins, but quit and returned to Germany. She worked as an intern at a public relations company before relocating to Paris to begin an internship for the French fashion magazine Purple. At that time, she started calling herself Anna Delvey; her parents have said that they "do not recognize the surname".

Life as a fake heiress and fraud offenses

During the summer of 2013 Sorokin travelled to New York City to attend New York Fashion Week. Finding it easier to make friends in New York than Paris, she opted to stay, transferring to Purple's New York office for a brief time. Sometime after quitting Purple, she invented the idea of the "Anna Delvey Foundation" - a private members' club and art foundation - and proposed it to various wealthy members of the city's social scene, including Aby Rosen and Roo Rogers. Her proposal included leasing the Church Missions House as a multi-purpose events venue and art studio.

In 2015, Sorokin met Michael Xufu Huang, then a student at the University of Pennsylvania with plans to open a private art museum, at a dinner party. Upon learning that Huang planned to attend the Venice Biennale, Sorokin asked him if she could accompany him. Huang agreed, and booked a flight and hotel room for Sorokin on the understanding that he would be reimbursed. Upon their return to New York, Sorokin appeared to 'forget' the arrangement and failed to pay. Huang initially assumed that Sorokin was simply absent-minded. However, after Huang attended Sorokin's birthday party at Sadelle's in January 2016, the restaurant contacted him to ask if he had Sorokin's contact details. She had booked the event with an invalid credit card number and false contact details. At this time Huang theorized that Sorokin may be a con artist, and pressed her to pay. He was eventually repaid, but from a Venmo account by an unfamiliar name.

Having had little success in pitching her Foundation idea to investors, Sorokin decided to obtain the money required through alternative means. She created fake bank statements purporting to show that she had access to about €60 million stored in Swiss bank accounts, and in November 2016 submitted these as part of a loan application for $22 million to City National Bank. City National Bank refused to extend credit, and she took the loan application to another company, Fortress Investment Group. Fortress agreed to consider the application if Sorokin paid $100,000 to cover legal expenses relating to the application. To obtain this money, Sorokin returned to City National Bank and convinced an employee to grant her a temporary overdraft facility for that amount, on the promise that it would be repaid quickly.

A managing director at Fortress became suspicious of Sorokin's application owing to discrepancies in her paperwork - for example she claimed to be of German heritage, but her passport showed her as being born in Russia. When the director arranged to verify Sorokin's assets by meeting her bankers in Switzerland, she withdrew the loan application to prevent further scrutiny. The portion of the overdraft not spent by Fortress as part of the due diligence process, amounting to $55,000, was returned to Sorokin. Of this, the majority was spent on luxury clothing and hotel stays.

Sorokin checked into the 11 Howard hotel in SoHo in February 2017, and quickly became known by the hotel staff as a generous cash tipper, frequently giving staff hundreds of dollars for simple tasks. After management discovered that there was no credit card on file for Sorokin, they insisted that she settle her $30,000 bill. Sorokin had a bottle of 1975 Dom Pérignon champagne delivered to the concierge desk in an attempt to keep the staff on her side; however, hotel policy prevented the staff from keeping the gift.

During April 2017, Sorokin deposited $160,000 worth of fraudulent checks into a Citibank account, of which she was able to retrieve $70,000 in usable funds. She then wired a portion of these funds to 11 Howard to pay the outstanding bill. However, as she still refused to provide a credit card, the hotel evicted her. The next month, she successfully convinced charter flight booking service Blade to allow her to book a return flight to Omaha, Nebraska, without paying the $35,390 fee upfront. Sorokin sent Blade a forged wire transfer confirmation slip, purportedly from Deutsche Bank as part of the scheme. Blade were convinced to extend credit partly because Sorokin had met company CEO Rob Wiesenthal at a party, and the executive team believed that she represented an acceptable lending risk. Wiesenthal reported her to the police in August 2017 after repeated failure to pay.

Sorokin invited three friends on a supposedly "all-expenses-paid" journey to Marrakesh, Morocco in May 2017, supposedly because she needed to 'reset' her Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). A few days after arriving at La Mamounia, hotel staff said that they had been unable to charge Sorokin's credit cards, and demanded an alternative form of payment. Sorokin eventually convinced one of her companions, Rachel DeLoache Williams, to pay the $62,000 bill for their stay, with a promise to reimburse her via wire transfer. Williams later paid for other expenses during the trip, including items purchased by Sorokin and a visit to the Majorelle Garden. Despite repeated promises from Sorokin, no wire transfer occurred.

Upon returning from Morocco during May, Sorokin relocated to the Beekman Hotel, again managing to book without leaving a credit card on file. Around three weeks later, having accumulated a bill of $11,518 and failing to pay despite repeated promises, the Beekman also evicted her. She then stayed at the hotel W New York Union Square where she attempted a similar scam. However, she was evicted again after only two days. The Beekman and the W hotels pressed charges against Sorokin for theft of services. At this time Sorokin was also being investigated independently by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for the instances of bank fraud.

Indictment and arrest

A grand jury was convened in August 2017 to consider the charges against Sorokin. It eventually indicted her on two counts of attempted grand larceny in the first degree, three counts of grand larceny in the second degree, one count of grand larceny in the third degree, and one count of misdemeanor theft of services. The most serious charge related to the fraudulent loan application made to City National Bank and Fortress Investment Group, with the other larceny charges relating to the instances of check fraud and the incident in Morocco. The theft of services charge related to Sorokin's failure to pay hotel and restaurant bills.

Sorokin was arrested on October 3, 2017 in a sting operation planned by Michael McCaffrey, a police officer working with the Manhattan District Attorney's office. At the time, Sorokin was staying at Passages Malibu, an addiction treatment facility in Los Angeles County, California. Officer McCaffrey had Rachel Williams, Sorokin's former friend, arrange a lunch meeting at a restaurant near the facility in order to convince Sorokin to leave. When Sorokin left the facility, she was arrested by officers from the Los Angeles Police Department.

On October 26, 2017, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. formally announced the indictment against Sorokin, and asked for any other victims to make themselves known.

Trial and conviction

On December 18, 2018, Sorokin appeared in New York City Criminal Court and rejected a plea deal that offered three to nine years in prison; a March 20, 2019 trial date was initially set by Judge Diane Kiesel.

Sorokin's defense attorney, Todd Spodek, arranged for a professional stylist to source outfits for her court appearances, stating that "it is imperative that Anna dress appropriately for the trial". In response, the prosecutor said Sorokin "showed more concern for her attire than the emotions of those she hurt", and seemed to "revel at the plight of her victims". On the Friday of the trial, Sorokin refused to enter the courtroom because she didn't want to appear in her prison-issued clothing and her civilian outfit for the day "had not been pressed". Judge Kiesel ordered Sorokin to appear, stating "This is a trial. She is a defendant in a criminal case. I am sorry if her clothing is not up to her standards [...] but she’s got to be here". Throughout the trial, Spodek attempted to humanize his client, claiming that she had been trying to pay back all the debt. He further attempted to describe her as an entrepreneur and even compared her to Frank Sinatra, claiming they both created a "golden opportunity" in New York.

After deliberating for two days, a jury found Sorokin guilty of eight charges, including grand larceny in the second degree, attempted grand larceny, and theft of services on April 25, 2019. Sorokin was found not guilty of two other charges: one of attempted grand larceny in the first degree (relating to the original loan application with City National Bank), and one of larceny in the second degree (relating to the alleged theft of $62,000 from Rachel Williams in Marrakesh).

Sentence

On May 9, 2019, Sorokin was given a sentence of 4 to 12 years in state prison, fined $24,000, and ordered to pay restitution of about $199,000.

Sorokin was incarcerated at Rikers Island during the trial. After the trial, Sorokin, New York State Department of Corrections #19G0366, was initially housed at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility before being transferred to Albion Correctional Facility.

Post-release

Sorokin was released from prison on February 11, 2021. In March 2021, she was taken back into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for overstaying her visa. She is currently being held in a New Jersey state prison awaiting deportation to Germany.

Media representation

In 2019, the New York Attorney General's office sued Sorokin using the state's Son of Sam law, which prohibits those convicted of a crime from profiting from its publicity. Netflix and Shonda Rhimes had by this time acquired the rights to Sorokin's profile in New York magazine, intending to create a television series. As a result of the suit, the state Office of Victim Services (OVS) froze a $140,000 advance paid to Sorokin by Netflix, allowing two banks defrauded by her to pursue recovery action. City National Bank claimed $100,000, and Citibank the other $40,000. Netflix agreed to send future payments to an escrow account managed by Sorokin's lawyer, Todd Spodek, and monitored by the OVS.

Julia Garner was eventually cast as Sorokin in Netflix's series, titled Inventing Anna. Garner visited Sorokin at Rikers Island to prepare for the part.

My Friend Anna, a book written by Rachel Williams, was published in July 2019 by Gallery Books (an imprint of Simon & Schuster), as well as by Quercus in the UK and Goldmann in Germany. In it Williams details her experiences with Sorokin, including how the incident in Marrakesh affected her financially and mentally. HBO acquired the television rights to Williams' story; as of February 2021 the project is still in development, with Lena Dunham reportedly acting as main screenwriter.

A partially dramatized podcast series about Anna Sorokin with the title Fake Heiress was presented by BBC Radio 4 in December 2019.

References

1. Click   [[File:WMF-Agora-Settings_000000.svg   Language settings|   Language settings]] or click the next to the 'Languages' heading in the sidebar

Unilateralism

"Unilateral" redirects here. For other uses, see Unilateral (disambiguation).

"Unilateral engagement" and "Unilateral disengagement" redirect here. For other uses, see Engagement (disambiguation) and Disengagement (disambiguation).

Unilateralism is any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided action. Such action may be in disregard for other parties, or as an expression of a commitment toward a direction which other parties may find disagreeable. Unilateralism is a neologism which is already in common use; it was coined to be an antonym for multilateralism, which is the doctrine which asserts the benefits of participation from as many parties as possible.

The two terms together can refer to differences in foreign policy approached to international problems. When agreement by multiple parties is absolutely required—for example, in the context of international trade policies—bilateral agreements (involving two participants at a time) are usually preferred by proponents of unilateralism.

Unilateralism may be preferred in those instances when it is assumed to be the most efficient, i.e., in issues that can be solved without cooperation. However, a government may also have a principal preference for unilateralism or multilateralism, and, for instance, strive to avoid policies that cannot be realized unilaterally or alternatively to champion multilateral solutions to problems that could well have been solved unilaterally.

Typically, governments may argue that their ultimate or middle-term goals are served by a strengthening of multilateral schemes and institutions, as was many times the case during the period of the Concert of Europe.

Unilateralism by country

United States

Unilateralism has had a long history in the United States. In his famous and influential Farewell Address, George Washington warned that the United States should "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world". Many years later, this approach was labeled (by its opponents) as "isolationism", but some historians of U.S. diplomacy have long argued that "isolationism" is a misnomer, and that U.S. foreign policy, beginning with Washington, has traditionally been driven by unilateralism. Recent works that have made this argument include Walter A. McDougall's Promised Land, Crusader State (1997), John Lewis Gaddis's Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (2004), and Bradley F. Podliska's Acting Alone (2010).

Debates about unilateralism came up with the Iraq War. While over 30 countries have supported the U.S. policy, some previous American allies, such as France, Germany and Turkey, were not participating. Many opponents of the war have argued that the United States was "going in alone" in Iraq without the support of multilateral institutions—in this case NATO and the United Nations.

Advocates of U.S. unilateralism argue that other countries should not have "veto power" over matters of U.S. national security. Presidential Candidate John Kerry received heavy political heat after saying, during a presidential debate, that American national security actions must pass a "global test." This was interpreted by Kerry opponents as a proposal to submit U.S. foreign policy to approval by other countries. Proponents of U.S. unilateralism generally believe that a multilateral institution, such as the United Nations, is morally suspect because, they argue, it treats non-democratic, and even despotic, regimes as being as legitimate as democratic countries. Proponents also point out that the unilateralist policy of having the United States control Japan after World War II was more of a success than multilateral policies such as those used in post-war Germany. Japan took only 5 years before adopting its constitution while Germany was divided into West Germany and East Germany for 45 years and was controlled by the United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union before being reunited, although Japan, unlike Germany, was not center-stage during the early stages of the Cold War.

Critics of American unilateralism point to the ethical implications of engaging in armed conflicts that may inevitably draw in combatants from other nations, as well as the undermining of the international ability to protect small nations from aggressors. Unilateralism, it is argued, can be considered nothing more than a positively sold version of the very actions that would earn other states the title of aggressor or rogue nation. Opponents of unilateralism say it rejects the essential interwoven nature of modern global politics and perhaps underestimates the extent to which a conflict in one country can affect civilians in others.

Proponents of multilateralism argue that it would provide a country with greater resources, both militarily and economically, and would help in decreasing the cost of military action. However, with divided responsibility inevitably comes divided authority, and thus (in theory at least) slower military reaction times and the demand that troops follow commanders from other nations. Multilateralists argue that co-operation strengthens the bonds between nations and peoples, paints the U.S. in a more responsible and respected light, and reduces the risk of wildfire conflicts by increasing the size and unity of the enemy such a rogue nation would face.

Further reading

• Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State (1997)
• John Lewis Gaddis, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (2004)
• Bradley F. Podliska, Acting Alone (2010)

Category:International relations theory

Paul Wolfowitz
10th President of the World Bank Group
In office June 1, 2005 – July 1, 2007
Preceded by	James Wolfensohn
Succeeded by	Robert Zoellick
United States Deputy Secretary of Defense
In office March 2, 2001 – June 1, 2005
President	George W. Bush
Preceded by	Rudy de Leon
Succeeded by	Gordon England
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
In office May 15, 1989 – January 19, 1993
President	George H. W. Bush
Preceded by	Fred Iklé
Succeeded by	Frank Wisner
United States Ambassador to Indonesia
In office April 11, 1986 – May 12, 1989
President	Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush
Preceded by	John Holdridge
Succeeded by	John C. Monjo
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
In office December 22, 1982 – March 12, 1986
President	Ronald Reagan
Preceded by	John Holdridge
Succeeded by	Gaston Sigur
Director of Policy Planning
In office February 13, 1981 – December 22, 1982
President	Ronald Reagan
Preceded by	Anthony Lake
Succeeded by	Stephen Bosworth
Personal details
Born	Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (1943-12-22) December 22, 1943 New York City, New York, U.S.
Political party	Democratic (Before 1981) Republican (1981–present)
Spouse	Clare Selgin (1968–2001)
Children	3
Education	Cornell University (AB) University of Chicago (MA, PhD)
Website	American Enterprise Institute

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (/ˈwʊlfəvɪts/; born December 22, 1943) is an American political scientist and diplomat who served as the 10th President of the World Bank, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, and former dean of Johns Hopkins SAIS. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, working on issues of international economic development, Africa and public-private partnerships, and chairman of the U.S.-Taiwan Business Council.

He is considered to be a leading neoconservative. Wolfowitz rejects the term and prefers to call himself a "Scoop Jackson Republican", after U.S. Senator Henry M. Jackson, a Democrat, who was known as a liberal hawk.

He was an early advocate of the Iraq War and has widely been described as an architect of the war. In the aftermath of the insurgency and civil war that followed the invasion, Wolfowitz denied influencing policy on Iraq and disclaimed responsibility.

After serving two years, he resigned as president of the World Bank due to scandals described by a Reuters report as "a protracted battle over his stewardship, prompted by his involvement in a high-paying promotion for his companion".

Early life

The second child of Jacob Wolfowitz (b. Warsaw; 1910–1981) and Lillian Dundes, Paul Wolfowitz was born in Brooklyn, New York, into a Polish Jewish immigrant family, and grew up mainly in Ithaca, New York, where his father was a professor of statistical theory at Cornell University. Strongly influenced by his father, Paul Wolfowitz became "a soft-spoken former aspiring-mathematician-turned-policymaker ... [whose] world views ... were forged by family history and in the halls of academia rather than in the jungles of Vietnam or the corridors of Congress ... [His father] ... left new country Poland after World War I and after 123 years of partitions. The rest of his father's family perished in the Holocaust."

In the mid-1960s, while they were both undergraduate students at Cornell residing at the Cornell Branch of the Telluride Association, he met Clare Selgin, who later became an anthropologist. They married in 1968, had three children and lived in Chevy Chase, Maryland. They separated in 1999, and, according to some sources, became legally separated in 2001 and divorced in 2002.

In late 1999, Wolfowitz began dating Shaha Riza. Their relationship led to controversy later, during his presidency of the World Bank Group.

Wolfowitz speaks five languages in addition to English: Arabic, French, German, Hebrew, and Indonesian. He was reportedly the model for a minor character named Philip Gorman in Saul Bellow's 2001 book Ravelstein.

University education

Cornell University

Wolfowitz entered Cornell University in 1961. He lived in the Telluride House in 1962 and 1963, while philosophy professor Allan Bloom served as a faculty mentor living in the house. In August 1963, he and his mother participated in the civil-rights march on Washington organized by A. Philip Randolph Wolfowitz was a member of the Quill and Dagger society. Wolfowitz graduated in 1965 with a B.A. in mathematics. Against his father's wishes, Wolfowitz decided to go to graduate school to study political science. Wolfowitz would later say that "one of the things that ultimately led me to leave mathematics and go into political science was thinking I could prevent nuclear war."

University of Chicago

In 1972, Wolfowitz received a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago, writing his doctoral dissertation on Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East: The Politics and Economics of Proposals for Nuclear Desalting. At the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz took two courses with Leo Strauss. He completed his dissertation under Albert Wohlstetter. Wohlstetter became Wolfowitz's "mentor". In the words of Wolfowitz's future colleague Richard Perle: "Paul thinks the way Albert thinks." In the summer of 1969, Wohlstetter arranged for Wolfowitz, Perle and Peter Wilson to join the Committee to Maintain a Prudent Defense Policy which was set up by Cold War architects Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson.

While finishing his dissertation, Wolfowitz taught in the department of political science at Yale University from 1970 to 1972; one of his students was future colleague Scooter Libby.

Career

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Main article: Team B

In the 1970s, Wolfowitz and Perle served as aides to proto-neoconservative Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson. A Cold War liberal, Jackson supported higher military spending and a hard line against the Soviet Union alongside more traditional Democratic causes, such as social welfare programs, civil rights, and labor unions.

In 1972, US President Richard Nixon, under pressure from Senator Jackson, dismissed the head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and replaced him with Fred Ikle. Ikle brought in a new team that included Wolfowitz. While at ACDA, Wolfowitz wrote research papers and drafted testimony, as he had previously done at the Committee to Maintain a Prudent Defense Policy. He traveled with Ikle to strategic arms limitations talks in Paris and other European cities. He also helped dissuade South Korea from reprocessing plutonium that could be diverted into a clandestine weapons program.

Under President Gerald Ford, the American intelligence agencies came under attack over their annually published National Intelligence Estimate. According to Mann, "The underlying issue was whether the C.I.A. and other agencies were underestimating the threat from the Soviet Union, either by intentionally tailoring intelligence to support Kissinger's policy of détente or by simply failing to give enough weight to darker interpretations of Soviet intentions." Attempting to counter these claims, Director of Central Intelligence George H. W. Bush formed a committee of anti-Communist experts, headed by Richard Pipes, to reassess the raw data. Based on the recommendation of Perle, Pipes picked Wolfowitz for this committee, which was later called Team B.

The team's 1976 report, which was leaked to the press, stated that "all the evidence points to an undeviating Soviet commitment to what is euphemistically called the 'worldwide triumph of socialism,' but in fact connotes global Soviet hegemony", highlighting a number of key areas where they believed the government's intelligence analysts had failed. According to Jack Davis, Wolfowitz observed later:

The B-Team demonstrated that it was possible to construct a sharply different view of Soviet motivation from the consensus view of the [intelligence] analysts and one that provided a much closer fit to the Soviets' observed behavior (and also provided a much better forecast of subsequent behavior up to and through the invasion of Afghanistan). The formal presentation of the competing views in a session out at [CIA headquarters in] Langley also made clear that the enormous experience and expertise of the B-Team as a group were formidable.

Team B's conclusions have faced criticism. They have been called "worst-case analysis", ignoring the "political, demographic, and economic rot" already eating away at the Soviet system. Wolfowitz reportedly did not have a central role in Team B, mostly focused on analyzing the role that medium-range missiles played in Soviet military strategy.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs

In 1977, during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz moved to the Pentagon. He was US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs for the US Defense Department, under US Secretary of Defense Harold Brown.

In 1980, Wolfowitz resigned from the Pentagon and became a visiting professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. Shortly thereafter, he joined the Republican Party. According to The Washington Post: "He said it was not he who changed his political philosophy so much as the Democratic Party, which abandoned the hard-headed internationalism of Harry Truman, Kennedy and Jackson."

State Department Director of Policy Planning

Following the 1980 election of President Ronald Reagan, the new National Security Advisor Richard V. Allen formed the administration's foreign policy advisory team. Allen initially rejected Wolfowitz's appointment but following discussions, instigated by former colleague John Lehman, Allen offered Wolfowitz the position of Director of Policy Planning at the Department of State.

President Reagan's foreign policy was heavily influenced by the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, as outlined in a 1979 article in Commentary by Jeane Kirkpatrick entitled "Dictatorships and Double Standards".

Although most governments in the world are, as they always have been, autocracies of one kind or another, no idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances ... (But) decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits.

Wolfowitz broke from this official line by denouncing Saddam Hussein of Iraq at a time when Donald Rumsfeld was offering the dictator support in his conflict with Iran. James Mann points out: "quite a few neo-conservatives, like Wolfowitz, believed strongly in democratic ideals; they had taken from the philosopher Leo Strauss the notion that there is a moral duty to oppose a leader who is a 'tyrant.'" Other areas where Wolfowitz disagreed with the administration was in his opposition to attempts to open up dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and to the sale of Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft to Saudi Arabia. "In both instances," according to Mann, "Wolfowitz demonstrated himself to be one of the strongest supporters of Israel in the Reagan administration."

Mann stresses: "It was on China that Wolfowitz launched his boldest challenge to the established order." After Nixon and Kissinger had gone to China in the early 1970s, US policy was to make concessions to China as an essential Cold War ally. The Chinese were now pushing for the US to end arms sales to Taiwan, and Wolfowitz used the Chinese incentive as an opportunity to undermine Kissinger's foreign policy toward China. Instead, Wolfowitz advocated a unilateralist policy, claiming that the US did not need China's assistance but that the Chinese needed the US to protect them against the far-more-likely prospect of a Soviet invasion of the Chinese mainland. Wolfowitz soon came into conflict with Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who had been Kissinger's assistant at the time of the visits to China. On March 30, 1982, The New York Times predicted that "Paul D. Wolfowitz, the director of policy planning ... will be replaced", because "Mr. Haig found Mr. Wolfowitz too theoretical." Instead, on June 25, 1982, George P. Shultz replaced Haig as US Secretary of State, and Wolfowitz was promoted.

State Department Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs

In 1982, Secretary of State Shultz appointed Wolfowitz as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

Jeane Kirkpatrick, on a visit to the Philippines, was welcomed by the dictator Ferdinand Marcos who quoted heavily from her 1979 Commentary article Dictatorships and Double Standards and although Kirkpatrick had been forced to speak-out in favor of democracy the article continued to influence Reagan's policy toward Marcos. Following the assassination of Philippine opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. in 1983 many within the Reagan administration including the President himself began to fear that the Philippines could fall to the communists and the US military would lose its strongholds at Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval Station. Wolfowitz tried to change the administration's policy, stating in an April 15, 1985 article in The Wall Street Journal that "The best antidote to Communism is democracy." Wolfowitz and his assistant Lewis Libby made trips to Manila where they called for democratic reforms and met with non-communist opposition leaders.

Mann points out that "the Reagan administration's decision to support democratic government in the Philippines had been hesitant, messy, crisis-driven and skewed by the desire to do what was necessary to protect the American military installations." Following massive street protests, Marcos fled the country on a US Air Force plane and the US recognized the government of Corazón Aquino.

Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia

From 1986 to 1989, during the military-backed government of President Suharto, Wolfowitz was the US Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia.

According to Peter J. Boyer,

Wolfowitz's appointment to Indonesia was not an immediately obvious match. He was a Jew representing America in the largest Muslim republic in the world, an advocate of democracy in Suharto's dictatorship. But Wolfowitz's tenure as Ambassador was a notable success, largely owing to the fact that, in essence, he went native. With tutoring help from his driver, he learned the language, and hurled himself into the culture. He attended academic seminars, climbed volcanoes, and toured the neighborhoods of Jakarta.

Sipress and Nakashima report that "Wolfowitz's colleagues and friends, both Indonesian and American" pointed to the "U.S. envoy's quiet pursuit of political and economic reforms in Indonesia." Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a foreign policy adviser to B. J. Habibie, Suharto's successor as head of state (1998–99), stated "that Wolfowitz was a competent and popular envoy." But "he never intervened to push human rights or stand up to corruption."

Officials involved in the AID program during Wolfowitz's tenure told The Washington Post that he "took a keen personal interest in development, including health care, agriculture and private sector expansion" and that "Wolfowitz canceled food assistance to the Indonesian government out of concern that Suharto's family, which had an ownership interest in the country's only flour mill, was indirectly benefiting."

In "The Tragedy of Suharto", published in May 1998, in The Wall Street Journal, Wolfowitz states:

Although it is fashionable to blame all of Asia's present problems on corruption and the failure of Asian values, it is at bottom a case of a bubble bursting, of too many imprudent lenders chasing too many incautious borrowers. But the greed of Mr. Suharto's children ensured that their father would take the lion's share of the blame for Indonesia's financial collapse. The Suharto children's favored position became a major obstacle to the measures needed to restore economic confidence. Worst of all, they ensured that the economic crisis would be a political crisis as well. That he allowed this, and that he amassed such wealth himself, is all the more mysterious since he lived a relatively modest life.

After the 2002 Bali bombing, on October 18, 2002, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz observed that "the reason the terrorists are successful in Indonesia is because the Suharto regime fell and the methods that were used to suppress them are gone."

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy

Flag of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, and Under Sec. Wolfowitz listen as Defense Sec. Dick Cheney briefs reporters during the Gulf War in February 1991.

From 1989 to 1993, Wolfowitz served in the administration of George H. W. Bush as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, under then US Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz's team co-ordinated and reviewed military strategy, raising $50 billion in allied financial support for the operation. Wolfowitz was present with Cheney, Colin Powell and others, on February 27, 1991, at the meeting with the President where it was decided that the troops should be demobilised.

On February 25, 1998, Wolfowitz testified before a congressional committee that he thought that "the best opportunity to overthrow Saddam was, unfortunately, lost in the month right after the war." Wolfowitz added that he was horrified in March as "Saddam Hussein flew helicopters that slaughtered the people in the south and in the north who were rising up against him, while American fighter pilots flew overhead, desperately eager to shoot down those helicopters, and not allowed to do so." During that hearing, he also stated: "Some people might say—and I think I would sympathise with this view—that perhaps if we had delayed the ceasefire by a few more days, we might have got rid of Saddam Hussein."

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Wolfowitz and his then-assistant Scooter Libby wrote the "Defense Planning Guidance of 1992", which came to be known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, to "set the nation's direction for the next century." As military strategist Andrew Bacevich described the doctrine:

Before this classified document was fully vetted by the White House, it was leaked to The New York Times, which made it front-page news. The draft DPG announced that it had become the "first objective" of U.S. policy "to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival." With an eye toward "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," the United States would maintain unquestioned military superiority and, if necessary, employ force unilaterally. As window dressing, allies might be nice, but the United States no longer considered them necessary.

At that time the official administration line was "containment", and the contents of Wolfowitz's plan calling for "preemption" and "unilateralism" which was opposed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell and President Bush. Defense Secretary Cheney produced a revised plan released in 1992. Many of the ideas in the Wolfowitz Doctrine later became part of the Bush Doctrine. He left the government after the 1992 election.

Johns Hopkins University

Main article: Project for the New American Century

From 1994 to 2001, Wolfowitz served as Professor of International Relations and Dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. He was instrumental in adding more than $75 million to the university's endowment, developing an international finance concentration as part of the curriculum, and combining the various Asian studies programs into one department. He also advised Bob Dole on foreign policy during his 1996 US Presidential election campaign, which was managed by Donald Rumsfeld.

According to Kampfner, "Wolfowitz used his perch at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies as a test-bed for a new conservative world vision." Wolfowitz was associated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC); he signed both the PNAC's June 3, 1997 "Statement of Principles", and its January 26, 1998, open letter to President Bill Clinton.

In February 1998, Wolfowitz testified before a Congressional hearing, stating that the current administration lacked the sense of purpose to "liberate ourselves, our friends and allies in the region, and the Iraqi people themselves from the menace of Saddam Hussein."

In September 2000, the PNAC produced a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, advocating the redeployment of US troops in permanent bases in strategic locations throughout the world where they can be ready to act to protect US interests abroad. During the 2000 US Presidential election campaign, Wolfowitz served as a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush as part of the group led by Condoleezza Rice calling itself The Vulcans.

Deputy Secretary of Defense

Wolfowitz and Dutch Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen, 2001

Wolfowitz meets with Qatari Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, October 5, 2001

President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz in March 2003

Dep. Sec. Wolfowitz is escorted by Army General David Petraeus he tours Mosul, Iraq, July 21, 2003

Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and General Richard Myers testifying before the 9/11 Commission in March 2004

Wolfowitz and Rear Admiral Robert T. Moeller aboard the USS Ronald Reagan in July 2004

Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz departs the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in January 2005

From 2001 to 2005, during the George W. Bush administration, Wolfowitz served as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense reporting to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The September 11 attacks in 2001 was a turning point in administration policy, as Wolfowitz later explained: "9/11 really was a wake up call and that if we take proper advantage of this opportunity to prevent the future terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction that it will have been an extremely valuable wake up call," adding: "if we say our only problem was to respond to 9/11, and we wait until somebody hits us with nuclear weapons before we take that kind of threat seriously, we will have made a very big mistake."

In the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council on the day of the attacks, Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable," and, according to John Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case." The idea was initially rejected, at the behest of Secretary of State Colin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a second front—against Saddam. Powell was excluded." In such meetings they created a policy that would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption" and the war on Iraq, which the PNAC had advocated in their earlier letters.

After the September 11 attacks, the US invaded Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda, which had orchestrated the attack. The invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. On October 10, 2001, George Robertson, then Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, went to the Pentagon to offer NATO troops, planes and ships to assist. Wolfowitz rebuffed the offer, saying: "We can do everything we need to." Wolfowitz later announced publicly, according to Kampfner, "that 'allies, coalitions and diplomacy' were of little immediate concern."

Ten months later, on January 15, 2003, with hostilities still continuing, Wolfowitz made a fifteen-hour visit to the Afghan capital, Kabul, and met with the new president Hamid Karzai. Wolfowitz stated, "We're clearly moving into a different phase, where our priority in Afghanistan is increasingly going to be stability and reconstruction. There's no way to go too fast. Faster is better." Despite the promises, according to Hersh, "little effort to provide the military and economic resources" necessary for reconstruction was made. This criticism would also re-occur after the 2003 invasion of Iraq later that year.

On April 16, 2002 the National Solidarity Rally for Israel was called in Washington to promote US support and collaboration with Israel. Wolfowitz was the sole representative of the Bush administration to attend, speaking alongside Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. As reported by the BBC, Wolfowitz told the crowd that US President George W. Bush "wants you to know that he stands in solidarity with you". Sharon Samber and Matthew E. Berger reported for Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) that Wolfowitz continued by saying that "Innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying as well. It is critical that we recognize and acknowledge that fact," before being booed and drowned out by chants of "No more Arafat."

Following the invasion of Afghanistan the Bush administration had started to plan for the next stage of the War on Terror. According to John Kampfner, "Emboldened by their experience in Afghanistan, they saw the opportunity to root out hostile regimes in the Middle East and to implant very American interpretations of democracy and free markets, from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz epitomised this view." Wolfowitz "saw a liberated Iraq as both paradigm and linchpin for future interventions." The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 19.

Prior to the invasion, Wolfowitz actively championed it, as he later stated: "For reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason"

The job of finding WMD and providing justification for the attack would fall to the intelligence services, but, according to Kampfner, "Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz believed that, while the established security services had a role, they were too bureaucratic and too traditional in their thinking." As a result, "they set up what came to be known as the 'cabal', a cell of eight or nine analysts in a new Office of Special Plans (OSP) based in the U.S. Defense Department." According to an unnamed Pentagon source quoted by Hersh, the OSP "was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States."

Within months of being set up, the OSP "rivaled both the CIA and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, as President Bush's main source of intelligence regarding Iraq's possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda." Hersh explains that the OSP "relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi." According to Kampfner, the CIA had ended its funding of the INC "in the mid-1990s when doubts were cast about Chalabi's reliability." Nevertheless, "as the administration geared up for conflict with Saddam, Chalabi was welcomed in the inner sanctum of the Pentagon" under the auspices of the OSP, and "Wolfowitz did not see fit to challenge any of Chalabi's information." The actions of the OSP have led to accusation of the Bush administration "fixing intelligence to support policy" with the aim of influencing Congress in its use of the War Powers Act.

Kampfner outlined Wolfowitz's strategy for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which "envisaged the use of air support and the occupation of southern Iraq with ground troops, to install a new government run by Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress." Wolfowitz believed that the operation would require minimal troop deployment, Hersh explains, because "any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand." The financial expenditure would be kept low, Kampfner observes, if "under the plan American troops would seize the oil fields around Basra, in the South, and sell the oil to finance the opposition."

On March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz told the House Appropriations Committee that oil revenue earned by Iraq alone would pay for Iraq's reconstruction after the Iraq war; he testified his "rough recollection" was: "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but ... We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." By October of that year, "Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said 'prewar estimates that may be borne out in fact are likelier to be more lucky than smart.' [He] added that earlier estimates and statements by Mr. Wolfowitz and others 'oozed with uncertainty.'" Di Rita's comments came as a much less optimistic secret Pentagon study—which had been complete at the time of Wolfowitz's testimony—was coming to public light, and when actual production results in Iraq were coinciding with those projected in the less optimistic Pentagon study.

During Wolfowitz's pre-war testimony before Congress, he dismissed General Eric K. Shinseki's estimates of the size of the post war occupation force which would be needed. General Shinseki testified to the US Senate Armed Services Committee on February 25, 2003 that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. By contrast, Wolfowitz estimated that fewer than 100,000 troops would be necessary in Iraq. Two days after Shinseki testified, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:

There has been a good deal of comment—some of it quite outlandish—about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army—hard to imagine.

On October 26, 2003, while in Baghdad staying at the Al-Rashid Hotel Wolfowitz narrowly escaped an attack when six rockets hit the floors below his room. Army Lt. Col. Charles H. Buehring was killed and seventeen other soldiers were wounded. Wolfowitz and his DOD staffers escaped unharmed and returned to the United States on October 28, 2003.

President of the World Bank

Press conference at G8 Summit (Paul Wolfowitz standing at rear on right)

In March 2005, Wolfowitz was nominated to be president of the World Bank by US President George W. Bush. Criticism of his nomination appeared in the media. Nobel Laureate in Economics and former chief economist for the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz said: "'The World Bank will once again become a hate figure. This could bring street protests and violence across the developing world.'" In a speech at the U.N. Economic and Social Council, economist Jeffrey Sachs also opposed Wolfowitz: "It's time for other candidates to come forward that have experience in development. This is a position on which hundreds of millions of people depend for their lives ... Let's have a proper leadership of professionalism."

In the US, there was some praise for the nomination. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stated:

Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power ... he saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein.

He was confirmed and became president on June 1, 2005. He soon attended the 31st G8 summit to discuss issues of global climate change and the economic development in Africa. When this meeting was interrupted by the July 7, 2005 London bombings, Wolfowitz was present with other world leaders at the press conference given by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Several of Wolfowitz's initial appointments at the Bank proved controversial, including two US nationals (Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems) formerly with the Bush administration, whom he appointed as close advisors with $250,000 tax-free contracts. Another appointee, Juan José Daboub, faced criticism, including from his colleagues, for attempting to bring policies on climate change and family planning towards a more conservative position.

Wolfowitz gave special emphasis to two particular issues. Identifying Sub-Saharan Africa as the region most challenged to improve living standards, he traveled widely in the region. He also made clear his focus on fighting corruption. Several aspects of the latter program raised controversy. Overturning the names produced by a formal search process, he appointed a figure linked to the US Republican party to head the Bank's internal watchdog. Member countries worried that Wolfowitz's willingness to suspend lending to countries on grounds of corruption was vulnerable to selective application in line with US foreign policy interests. In a debate on the proposed Governance and Anti-Corruption Strategy at the Bank's 2006 Annual Meetings, shareholders directed Wolfowitz to undertake extensive consultations and revise the strategy to show how objective measures of corruption would be incorporated into decisions and how the shareholders' representatives on the Bank's Board would play a key role. Following the consultations and revisions, the Board approved a revised strategy in spring 2007.

Controversies

Wolfowitz's relationship with Shaha Riza

Main article: Shaha Riza

After President George W. Bush nominated Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank, journalists reported that Wolfowitz was involved in a relationship with World Bank Senior Communications Officer (and Acting Manager of External Affairs) for the Middle East and North Africa Regional Office Shaha Ali Riza. According to Richard Leiby, of The Washington Post, Riza is "an Oxford-educated British citizen, was born in Tunisia and grew up in Saudi Arabia. She's known for her expertise on women's rights and has been listed on the bank's Web site as a media contact for Iraq reconstruction issues." According to Leiby and Linton Weeks, in their essay "In the Shadow of a Scandal", Riza's employment at the World Bank predated Wolfowitz's nomination as Bank president: "Riza started at the World Bank as a consultant in July 1997 and became a full-time employee in 1999"; and the relationship between Riza and Wolfowitz pre-dated it as well:

In the early 1990s, Riza joined the National Endowment for Democracy and is credited there with development of the organization's Middle East program. Wolfowitz was on the endowment's board—which is how Riza first met him, according to Turkish journalist Cengiz Candar, a friend of the couple. "Shaha was married at the time and Paul was married," Candar recalled, and it wasn't until late 1999—after Riza divorced and Wolfowitz had separated from his wife of 30 years, Clare Selgin Wolfowitz—that the couple began dating."

When Wolfowitz was considered for head of the CIA after the 2000 election, Clare Wolfowitz wrote President-elect George Bush a letter telling him that her husband's relationship with a foreign national—Riza—posed a national security risk. It has been reported that Scooter Libby intercepted the letter. Sidney Blumenthal also reported on the letter Clare Wolfowitz wrote:

This embittered letter remained a closely guarded secret, although a former high official of the CIA told me about it. Chris Nelson also reported it on April 16 in his widely respected, nonpartisan foreign policy newsletter: "A certain Ms. Riza was even then Wolfowitz's true love. The problem for the CIA wasn't just that she was a foreign national, although that was and is today an issue for anyone interested in CIA employment. The problem was that Wolfowitz was married to someone else, and that someone was really angry about it, and she found a way to bring her complaint directly to the President. So when we, with our characteristic innocence, put Wolfowitz on our short-list for CIA, we were instantly told, by a very, very, very senior Republican foreign policy operative, 'I don't think so.' " The Daily Mail of London also reported on his wife's letter when Wolfowitz was appointed president of the World Bank in 2005.

According to the London Sunday Times on March 20, 2005, despite their cultural differences:

Riza, an Arab feminist who confounds portrayals of Wolfowitz as a leader of a "Zionist conspiracy" of Jewish neoconservatives in Washington ... [and who] works as the bank's senior gender co-ordinator for the Middle East and north Africa ... not only shares Wolfowitz's passion for spreading democracy in the Arab world, but is said to have reinforced his determination to remove Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime.

The relationship created further controversy over Wolfowitz's nomination to head the World Bank, because the bank's ethics rules preclude sexual relationships between a manager and a staff member serving under that manager, even if one reports to the other only indirectly through a chain of supervision. Sharon Churcher and Annette Witheridge, in The Daily Mail, quote one World Bank employee's statement that "Unless Riza gives up her job, this will be an impossible conflict of interest"; the observation of "a Washington insider": "His womanizing has come home to roost ... Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha, but it doesn't look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress"; and Wolfowitz's response: "If a personal relationship presents a potential conflict of interest, I will comply with Bank policies to resolve the issue."

Wolfowitz initially proposed to the World Bank's Ethics Committee that he recuse himself from personnel matters regarding Riza, but the committee rejected that proposal. Riza was "seconded to the State Department", or placed on "external assignment", assigned "a job at the state department under Liz Cheney, the daughter of the vice-president, promoting democracy in the Middle East". She "was also moved up to a managerial pay grade in compensation for the disruption to her career", resulting in a raise of over $60,000, as well as guarantees of future increases; "The staff association claims that the pay rise was more than double the amount allowed under employee guidelines." A promotion and raise had been among the options suggested by a World Bank ethics committee that was set up to advise on the situation. According to Steven R. Weisman, however, in a report published in The New York Times, the then-current chair of the committee emphasized that he was not informed at the time of the details or extent of the present and future raises built into the agreement with Riza. Wolfowitz referred to the controversy concerning his relationship with Riza in a statement posted on the website of the World Bank at the time (April 12, 2007).

The affair resurfaced in headlines in 2011.

Wolfowitz's leadership of the World Bank Group

In early 2007, Fox News published on a series of investigative stories on the World Bank, based in part on leaks of internal bank documents. On April 11, 2007, Reuters and Al Kamen in The Washington Post, reported that Wolfowitz and the World Bank board had hired the Williams & Connolly law firm to oversee an investigation into the leaking of internal bank documents to Fox News. Those reports cite an internal memo to the bank staff later posted on the internet, dated April 9, 2007, in which the World Bank's general counsel, Ana Palacio, states that the Bank's legal staff was scrutinizing two articles by investigative reporter Richard Behar published on the website of Fox News on January 31 and March 27, 2007. A day after the second report published by Behar, on March 28, 2007, Kamen had disclosed that "Bank records obtained by the Government Accountability Project" documented pay raises in excess of Bank policies given to Shaha Riza

On April 12, 2007, the London Financial Times reported that, in a 2005 memorandum, Wolfowitz had personally directed the Bank's human resources chief to offer Riza a large pay rise and promotion, according to two anonymous sources who told the Financial Times that they had seen the memo. The memo was part of a package of 102 pages of documents released by the bank on April 14, 2007.

On April 14, 2007, after reviewing these documents, the Financial Times concluded that it was "a potentially fatal blow" to Wolfowitz. In contrast, Fox News concluded that the new documents might offer Wolfowitz a "new lifeline" in the scandal, because the Bank's ethics committee had launched a review of the Riza compensation case in early 2006 and concluded that it did not warrant any further attention by the committee. Wolfowitz failed, on April 19, 2007, to attend a high-profile meeting and the controversy led to disruption at the World Bank when some employees wore blue ribbons "in a display of defiance against his leadership."

World Bank Group's board of executive directors and staffers complained also that Wolfowitz was imposing Bush Administration policies to eliminate family planning from World Bank programs. According to Nicole Gaouette, in her report published in the Los Angeles Times on April 19, 2007, Juan José Daboub—the managing director whom Wolfowitz had appointed who has also been criticized for overly-conservative policies concerning climate change and "a Roman Catholic with ties to a conservative Salvadoran political party"—repeatedly deleted references to family planning from World Bank proposals.

On May 14, 2007 the World Bank committee investigating the alleged ethics violations reported (in part):

• "Mr. Wolfowitz's contract requiring that he adhere to the Code of Conduct for board officials and that he avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent, were violated";
• "The salary increase Ms. Riza received at Mr. Wolfowitz's direction was in excess of the range established by Rule 6.01";
• "The ad hoc group concludes that in actuality, Mr Wolfowitz from the outset cast himself in opposition to the established rules of the institution"; and
• "He did not accept the bank's policy on conflict of interest, so he sought to negotiate for himself a resolution different from that which would have applied to the staff he was selected to head."

Wolfowitz appeared before the World Bank Group's board of executive directors to respond on May 15. Adams speculated that "With Mr Wolfowitz so far refusing to step down, the board may need to take radical action to break the stalemate. Members have discussed a range of options, including sacking Mr Wolfowitz, issuing a vote of no confidence or reprimanding him. Some board members argue that a vote of no confidence would make it impossible for him to stay in the job." By Wednesday, May 16, 2007, The New York Times, reported that "after six weeks of fighting efforts to oust him as president ... Wolfowitz began today to negotiate the terms of his possible resignation, in return for the bank dropping or softening the charge that he had engaged in misconduct ..." After expressions from the Bush administration that it "fully" supported Wolfowitz as World Bank president and its urging a "fair hearing" for him, President Bush expressed "regret" at Wolfowitz's impending resignation.

On May 17, 2007 the World Bank Group's board of Executive Directors announced that Paul Wolfowitz would resign as World Bank Group president at the end of June 2007.

Recent activities

As a Visiting Scholar of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wolfowitz has blogged for the group and appeared in group events. In 2011, he wrote columns that appeared in publications such as The Independent, The Sunday Times, and Newsweek.

Wolfowitz is a former steering committee member of the Bilderberg group.

In February 2013, Wolfowitz publicly supported legal recognition for same-sex marriage in an amicus brief submitted to the US Supreme Court.

In February 2015, Wolfowitz advised presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

In August 2016, Wolfowitz announced his intention to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election, despite having "serious reservations about her." However, in a December interview on Fox Business, Wolfowitz claimed that he did not in fact vote for Clinton.

In January 2017, Wolfowitz wrote an op-ed in the New York Times commenting on a "dissent cable" that had been signed by 1,000 Foreign Service Officers criticizing President Trump's executive action on immigration.

See also

• Joint Vision 2020
• Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)
• World Bank Group

Further reading

• Immerman, Richard H. Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz (2010) pp. 196–231 excerpt and text search

External links

• Paul Wolfowitz at the American Enterprise Institute's website
• Appearances on C-SPAN
• Membership at the Council on Foreign Relations

Official biographical accounts

• "Biography: Paul Wolfowitz: President, The World Bank Group", at web.worldbank.org (World Bank Group). Accessed May 4, 2007.
• "Paul Wolfowitz – Department of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense". Search result in obsolete directory of "The President and His Leadership Team". Accessed May 4, 2007.
• "Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense" at the Wayback Machine (archived May 2, 2006) – Archived biography at the United States Department of Defense. Last updated: March 16, 2005. Accessed May 2, 2007.
• Wolfowitz, Paul."Statement by Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank Group WB/IMF Spring Meetings 2007". Online posting. World Bank Group, Worldbank.org, April 12, 2007. Accessed May 1, 2007. (Video and audio links.)

"Unilateral" redirects here. For other uses, see Unilateral (disambiguation).

"Unilateral engagement" and "Unilateral disengagement" redirect here. For other uses, see Engagement (disambiguation) and Disengagement (disambiguation).

Unilateralism is any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided action. Such action may be in disregard for other parties, or as an expression of a commitment toward a direction which other parties may find disagreeable. It stands in contrast with multilateralism, the pursuit of foreign policy goals alongside allies.

As a word, unilateralism is attested from 1926, specifically relating to unilateral disarmament. The current, broader meaning emerges in 1964.

Unilateralism and multilateralism represent different policy approaches to international problems. When agreement by multiple parties is absolutely required—for example, in the context of international trade policies—bilateral agreements (involving two participants at a time) are usually preferred by proponents of unilateralism.

Unilateralism may be preferred in those instances when it is assumed to be the most efficient, i.e., in issues that can be solved without cooperation. However, a government may also have a principal preference for unilateralism or multilateralism, and, for instance, strive to avoid policies that cannot be realized unilaterally or alternatively to champion multilateral solutions to problems that could well have been solved unilaterally.

Typically, governments may argue that their ultimate or middle-term goals are served by a strengthening of multilateral schemes and institutions, as was many times the case during the period of the Concert of Europe.

Unilateralism by country

United States

Unilateralism has had a long history in the United States. In his famous and influential Farewell Address, George Washington warned that the United States should "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world". Many years later, this approach was labeled (by its opponents) as "isolationism", but some historians of U.S. diplomacy have long argued that "isolationism" is a misnomer, and that U.S. foreign policy, beginning with Washington, has traditionally been driven by unilateralism. Recent works that have made this argument include Walter A. McDougall's Promised Land, Crusader State (1997), John Lewis Gaddis's Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (2004), and Bradley F. Podliska's Acting Alone (2010).

Debates about unilateralism came up with the Iraq War. While over 30 countries have supported the U.S. policy, some previous American allies, such as France, Germany and Turkey, were not participating. Many opponents of the war have argued that the United States was "going in alone" in Iraq without the support of multilateral institutions—in this case NATO and the United Nations.

Advocates of U.S. unilateralism argue that other countries should not have "veto power" over matters of U.S. national security. Presidential Candidate John Kerry received heavy political heat after saying, during a presidential debate, that American national security actions must pass a "global test." This was interpreted by Kerry opponents as a proposal to submit U.S. foreign policy to approval by other countries. Proponents of U.S. unilateralism generally believe that a multilateral institution, such as the United Nations, is morally suspect because, they argue, it treats non-democratic, and even despotic, regimes as being as legitimate as democratic countries. Proponents also point out that the unilateralist policy of having the United States control Japan after World War II was more of a success than multilateral policies such as those used in post-war Germany. Japan took only 5 years before adopting its constitution while Germany was divided into West Germany and East Germany for 45 years and was controlled by the United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union before being reunited, although Japan, unlike Germany, was not center-stage during the early stages of the Cold War.

Critics of American unilateralism point to the ethical implications of engaging in armed conflicts that may inevitably draw in combatants from other nations, as well as the undermining of the international ability to protect small nations from aggressors. Unilateralism, it is argued, can be considered nothing more than a positively sold version of the very actions that would earn other states the title of aggressor or rogue nation. Opponents of unilateralism say it rejects the essential interwoven nature of modern global politics and perhaps underestimates the extent to which a conflict in one country can affect civilians in others.

Proponents of multilateralism argue that it would provide a country with greater resources, both militarily and economically, and would help in decreasing the cost of military action. However, with divided responsibility inevitably comes divided authority, and thus (in theory at least) slower military reaction times and the demand that troops follow commanders from other nations. Multilateralists argue that co-operation strengthens the bonds between nations and peoples, paints the U.S. in a more responsible and respected light, and reduces the risk of wildfire conflicts by increasing the size and unity of the enemy such a rogue nation would face.

China

China is another country perceived to follow a policy of unilateralism. To do business in China, foreign firms must cede intellectual property to mandated Chinese business partners, despite World Trade Organisation rules against this. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis estimated that as of 2010 more than half of technology owned by companies in China came from companies abroad.

China is perceived to take advantage of overseas universities and research institutions. Throughout the world, China's Ministry of Education operates (as of 2017) 1,579 Confucius Institutes, which were described in 2009 by the Communist Party's then-head of propaganda Li Changchun as "an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up."

China has incurred widespread resentment in the US due to the perception that the nation takes a unilateralist stance, particularly in the realms of intellectual property, education and research, and the American market. There are also concerns about how China uses its power, and that China's non-interference policy is a shield against taking on international responsibilities.

China is another country perceived to have taken a unilateralist stance, spurring American resentment toward the nation. Lax protection against intellectual property theft, the

Further reading

• Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State (1997)
• John Lewis Gaddis, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (2004)
• Bradley F. Podliska, Acting Alone (2010)