Interview with Clare Bolderson, BBC World Service Radio Friday, May 25, 2007 Claire Bolderson: … A large chunk of that will run on Network Africa, which is our program for Africa on Monday morning on the BBC World Service. And then the whole interview will run on News Hour on Monday, which is the program that goes all over the world. * * * CB: I want to work our way toward some of the things you’ve been working on here at the Bank, but I’d like to do this chronologically, and start with the beginning of your time here. And the fact that when you came, you acknowledged that there would be some hostility towards you. I think you said, I think a lot of it has to do with the war—the war in Iraq, of course. Did you underestimate how difficult it was going to be? PW: I don’t know. I mean, what I actually remember from first getting here, even before I was officially on Board, were the Spring Meetings two years ago. I came here knowing that Africa had to be the first priority because it was the part of the world that was most in need, it was a part of the world that was actually left behind by what’s been spectacular progress in development in places in East Asia and India and elsewhere. I met with the African Governors of the Bank and it was a revelation to me because they were so focused on what needed to be done, they were disciplined in their presentations, they were well-organized. And one of the things that was dramatic to me was how many of them emphasized the importance of governance and fighting corruption and the kinds of efforts that were already underway in countries like Nigeria. They were very proud of what they were doing and very conscious of how important it was for success. I have to say, the other thing I remember was they were also almost pleading with me to get the Bank back into the business of infrastructure funding. I think the two are actually connected, as a matter of fact . . . that they need money for these big public projects, but also that they were very conscious that the money had to be spent properly. And it was a very compelling combination. CB: Those were people here at the Bank who were telling you that? Or… PW: No, no. These were Africans themselves. No, no. In fact, frankly I’d hear it more from the Africans than you’d hear…. I mean, I heard once from some senior person at the Bank that to talk about governance is to impose a developed country agenda on developing countries, and I had to say, excuse me, it’s the other way round. If you turn a blind eye to corruption and bad governance, that’s actually imposing a developed country agenda in assuming these countries can’t do better. No, what was startling to me and very exciting was to hear Africans themselves—ministers, who’ve had to run these economies—talking about what needed to be done. And therefore… My sense of development—and I’ve had quite a bit of exposure to it over many years, including three years living in Indonesia, where development was the number one issue for the country and therefore for our relationship when I was U.S. Ambassador with Indonesia—is that development succeeds when countries take it seriously themselves. And when the leadership takes it seriously themselves, and when the leaders understand that they’re responsible to their people for delivering results, not there to feather their own nests and put money in a Swiss bank account. Speaking of which, by the way, you know, another thing that stuck with me strongly in that meeting, it was the first time I’d heard this compelling case from an African—and I don’t remember which one it was, I think it was actually a minister from Ethiopia, they actually divided up responsibilities so that people said different things—how important it is for the rich countries to help the poor countries get their money back. And one of the things I’m proudest of is in the first few months we helped Nigeria get $500 million back from Switzerland and from Swiss banks, with the help of the Swiss, and the former Finance Minister of Nigeria, Ngozi, is now undertaking a task force for us to look at asset recovery. It’s not just a matter of getting the money back to the people it belongs to, it’s also a matter of deterring people from stealing in the first place. CB: Wasn’t the Bank already doing much of this, though? PW: Yes. I mean, you know, this wasn’t a revolution, which I suppose surprised me a little bit that the reaction was that I was creating a revolution. But I do think, to give myself a little bit of credit, I think there was more talk than there was action. And the talk was great. You know, it took, what, 50 years before you could utter the word corruption in this institution, and my predecessor deserves credit for being the first person to do that. But talking about it is one thing and actually taking action is another. And when you take action, you make people uncomfortable and you force them to confront problems. But I’m also proud we’ve confronted a lot of problems and I think we’ve moved forward on most of them. I mean, we had—it’s no secret—a big challenge with Chad over the agreement on the pipeline. As a matter of fact, I think that agreement was aimed in exactly this direction, which is to make sure that the profits from that oil pipeline go to the people of Chad. I think it was actually a response to protestors outside the Bank at one point saying how can the Bank be supporting rich oil companies giving money to corrupt governments. Well, that was the answer. But when the agreement was broken, you had to take that seriously. I’m proud that we took it seriously. I’m also proud that we worked through with President Deby and with his Finance Minister, a gentleman named Tolli, to what I think was actually a better solution than where we started. But you can’t get to that solution if you are refusing to acknowledge that there’s a problem and confront the problem. CB: But there was tremendous resistance in the Bank, and in some aid circles, in European governments, to what you were doing by taking this very strong stance on corruption. Is that because you didn’t bring people on board enough to start with? That you just decided you were going to do this? Or was it because of something else? PW: Well, actually, I think we’ve brought people on board in an impressive way, I have to say. I mean, this Governance and Anti-Corruption Strategy that was endorsed by the Board, just two months ago now, was the product of what people say is the most extensive worldwide consultation that Bank has ever done with some 40 countries, some 3,200 individuals that participated in it. We listened, we modified the strategy some, we didn’t have to modify it an awful lot. I mean, one of the things that was very encouraging was to hear how many people, even in countries that might surprise you a little bit, said this is a very important part of the agenda. But, you know, I’ve heard complaints from presidents of countries—I guess it’s not fair to name them—but one who has an impressive record for cleaning up governance in his country, who said that he was appalled when he came in at how many years Bank officials turned a cynical, blind eye to what was going on in his country. I think it’s very important that people understand where the Bank stands, and that we be clear about that. Some people say that there’s resistance because—and I guess it’s true, you can read it—there are people out there who are fearful that somehow if we take the issue of governance seriously, we won’t get money to the people who need it. You know, don’t punish the poor twice. I’m sure you’ve heard that slogan. We’re not punishing the poor at all. I mean, we’re doing record levels of IDA lending. We had $9.5 billion last year, that was a record; we’re heading above $10 billion this year, it’s another record. The numbers for Africa are going up dramatically. And we’re still short of IDA money. So there’s no need to waste it on people who are stealing half of it. There are plenty of people who are using it properly and using it well, and by insisting that it go to those sorts of people, I think we’re creating incentives for others to clean up their act. CB: The fact that you came up with a strategy, as you say, two months ago—modified strategy—does that not imply that there was perhaps something wrong with the previous strategy of the last two years? Let me quote you from that letter to the Financial Times by 36 former top Bank officials: Anti-corruption measures, they say, “were implemented with no consultation and little transparency or apparent consistency.” Do you accept that? PW: Not at all. Look, if you track the course of the various papers from what I said when I spoke in Indonesia in April of last year—which, I don’t think it was the first time we laid out a framework, but it certainly was an initial framework—through Singapore, through what we approved at the Board, it’s a process of refinement and of listening, which is a perfectly sensible thing to go through. No, I think it’s that people were much more comfortable talking about it than actually confronting the consequences of identifying problems and dealing with problems and having some period of uncomfortable relations even with governments that—and I won’t name them, but some of my favorite governments are ones where we had some of these problems and we’ve worked through them. CB: One of the criticisms, particularly from European officials, is that that’s a very blunt instrument, threatening to cut off aid or to suspend programs when countries are deemed to be corrupt, but it’s a negative strategy, it’s not about engaging that country, it’s about trying to punish it. PW: Well, they obviously haven’t read the paper if that’s what they’re saying, because the paper is much more about building up institutions, about creating what in Bank terminology we like to call the demand side of good governance, which is encouraging people, citizens, to speak up and insist on better performance. This notion that we’re about cutting off aid, well look, first of all, I don’t see how you can say we cut off aid when we’re doing record levels of lending. CB: But threatening to suspend countries like Chad, Congo Brazzaville, for example, Cambodia or India. PW: We didn’t suspend India. We had a problem with a loan in India. We worked through the problem. And actually we’ve gone ahead with a second loan in that very same sector. I don’t think that you advance good governance by just going ahead and ignoring problems when you find them. Even Uzbekistan—and that’s the one case where we scaled back significantly—we’re looking at ways to move forward. But you know, it’s sort of astonishing to me that people would say you should just ignore the fact that the government’s taken a series of actions that are so repressive that you really can’t have any assurance that people will be telling you the truth about what’s happening to your money. In Cambodia, we worked with the ministries that seemed to be making good use of funds and held up lending to ones that weren’t. It’s… I mean, that’s almost a kind of straightforward matter of good management. But the notion that we’re punishing the poor or that we’re not funding useful programs is just belied by the facts. CB: It’s interesting that you talk about good governance, because that has not traditionally been the role or the aim of the Bank, to deal with governance issues. It’s been about development on the ground. Do you think that’s been wrong? That it ought to be about the governments and their governance? PW: No, I don’t. I think it should be about development. But I think it’s seriously misguided if you think you can separate development from governance. I’ll cite as my authority on that point the report of the Commission on Africa commissioned by Prime Minister Blair. It’s one of the best things on African development I’ve had the privilege of reading in this job. I think two or three former heads of government or present heads of government participated in it, a distinguished group of economists, and they said governance is central to successful development in Africa. And the fact is, I mean, governance covers a wide range of subjects. I was struck when I was in China and asking the Chinese officials, what did they value most from what they’d learned from the Bank, and it was striking how many times they went to things like, we learned from you about how to do good procurement systems, we learned from you about the importance of having modern accounting. In fact, the official who said that said, we realized after we needed accounting systems that we also needed accountants, so I got sent to Chicago and Cleveland to do an internship in accounting. That’s governance. And we’ve done some amazing innovations. There is, in Indonesia, something called the Kecematan Development Program, which now I think reaches some 30,000 or 40,000 villages, where the villages participate directly in deciding what small- and medium-scale investments will be made and the villagers monitor the expenditures. That’s a governance innovation, but it’s aimed at development. We’re not the good government society, if that’s what you’re getting at. But you cannot do development, you cannot be a serious development agency, if you don’t pay attention to how the governments are operating. CB: Well why then has there been so much criticism of the strategy? Former Bank official Dennis de Tray said the World Bank’s a development institution, not an anti-corruption institution, it’s not a police force, and it’s not a keeper of moral standards. There does seem to be this extraordinary resistance. PW: Well, you pick an interesting example. He was the last country director in Indonesia in the Suharto era, who did turn a blind eye to corruption in Indonesia. And it took his successor, a man named Mark Baird, some three years to recover the Bank’s reputation, because every Indonesian knew that corruption was endemic. They didn’t expect the World Bank to revolutionize things but they did, I think, expect the World Bank to at least speak up. And that’s, you know, that’s an important part of this whole thing... I may go to go back to this point. It’s not about imposing a Western view or a World Bank view. In fact, I’m kind of proud of the fact that one Nigerian governor told me that he was pleased that I wasn’t one of these PhD’s from a Western university who came and told them how to solve their problems but didn’t stay long enough even to learn what the problems are. It’s empowering people like John Githongo or Nuhu Ribadu, who are really, I think, pioneers. Nuhu Ribadu’s the head of the Economic Crimes and Anti-Corruption Commission in Nigeria. Or this President of Georgia, whom I was alluding to earlier. The World Bank sends signals, and if the signal we sent in late-Suharto Indonesia was ‘none of this matters’, it’s very hard for people who think it does matter to stand up and say something about it. But I really do believe the most important thing here—we’ve spent a lot of time on governance and anti-corruption—the really important thing is Africa. Six hundred million people who deserve a much better future, who should be moving forward, and I think actually are starting to move forward. That’s one of the wonderful surprises to me coming in here, was to find that a third of the countries of Africa really do seem to be starting to put the right economic policies in place, and you’re seeing that in much better economic performance. They’re still burdened with too many restrictions on private enterprise. And by the way, corruption is one of the restrictions on private enterprise. I mean, I was struck at how many Africans said to me after the Chad experience, you’re not going to have a successful private sector in Africa until our leaders recognize that they’re responsible to their own people and not to their Swiss bank accounts. And I heard that in Indonesia 20 years ago. When people feel that arbitrary government is going to come in and choke them, it’s very hard to get businesses going. One of the best things the World Bank group does is this report that the IFC puts out every year—it’s actually a Bank Group publication—called Doing Business, which identifies the kinds of obstacles that bad policy puts in the way of especially small and medium businesses. I mean, the big mega-corporations don’t have to worry about how much it costs to pay your taxes, they hire expensive lawyers anyway. But for some small businesswoman like the one I met in Kumasi in Ghana who had five little sewing machines in her shop—and I’m sure it was a so-called informal sector shop, probably outside of labor laws because it’s probably too difficult to register—for them these barriers are very, very serious. And what’s very rewarding is that Ghana and Tanzania have paid attention to that report and they’re now among the two fastest-reforming countries in the world. They still have a long way to go, but it’s… The most important thing for development is not corruption and it’s not official development assistance, it’s opportunities for people to work and create value and create jobs. It’s about private sector growth and it’s about trade opportunities, frankly, too, which is a different form of corruption, which is the corruption of rich countries like the United States and Europe that block their markets to the products of the poorest countries. I mean, Burkina Faso gets 70% of its income from cotton and they can’t get a single bale into the United States.
CB: So what’s the Bank’s role, then, in trying to address that?
PW: Well, you know, the Bank can’t do everything. I think there is an important advocacy role, and I’ve tried to play that role even at the expense of my relations with a few farm state Senators in the United States. Speaking the truth is an amazingly valuable tool. That’s all the Doing Business report does. There’s not a single dollar of lending or money attached to it. But telling people what their problems are is an… They can’t be solved if they don’t know. The Finance Minister of Malawi was here about a year and a half ago, and I was very impressed. I mean, he said something, and it’s impressive, I’ve heard this from many Africans. He said, our colonial history was terrible but we have to stop blaming our past. We’ll never get to the future if we keep blaming the past. So I sort of took off from there. I told him where Malawi ranked in the Doing Business report; I don’t remember what it was, but it was in the lower quintile for sure. And he said, shame on us. And I said, no, not shame on you, you didn’t know this until I told you. But if a year from now you haven’t done anything about it, then it’s shame on you. President Kikwete of Tanzania was here a year and a half ago and I said Tanzania ranks 142 out of 155. Some richer countries would argue with me that our methodology is flawed and their ranking is better. He said, wow, he goes home and he gives a speech to a major political leadership conference in Dar es Salaam, says we’ve got to do better. And they are doing better. They’re one of the 10 fastest reformers now. So telling people what they’re doing wrong, telling people what works, doing it with some humility. I mean, I don’t think we need to be the lecturing bank that knows all the answers, and I don’t think we are, but on the other hand you shouldn’t hide facts, and sometimes facts are uncomfortable and people like to hide them because they’re uncomfortable. CB: Do you think if you had explained everything you’ve just been saying to me in a different way to people here in the Bank right from the beginning, you might not have encountered some of the resistance and the hostility that you did encounter. PW: I’ve been explaining it for two years, so I don’t think that’s the issue. CB: Well, what is the issue then? PW: Oh, it’s many things. But look, I’d rather not figure out what the issue was. Other people can do that. I do think it’s absolutely essential, whoever replaces me, whoever succeeds me has got to understand that this institution is answerable on Africa. And if five years from now we haven’t delivered for Africa, none of the rest of it really matters. I think we are. I hope that momentum can be sustained. And by the way, it’s not… I think secondly, actually, is to understand it’s not primarily about supporting the public sector in Africa, although I think the public sector is a crucial platform for the private sector, but it’s terrific work being done by the IFC with the African private sector. And I think understanding that improving governance, as the Blair Commission Report says, is a big part of that, and it means finding, listening to Africans… I’m very proud of the fact that I personally found two impressive African women, both of them with experience as ministers—one in the government of Botswana, the other the government of Nigeria—and brought them in as vice presidents. I think we need more of that kind of ground-level experience, people who’ve actually made things work in those conditions, because something that I learned 20 years ago in Indonesia is, you’d get these Westerners who would come in with a kind of condescending view of whoever it was they were dealing with in the Indonesian government, and you’d ask them, well, how long would survive trying to get… You can’t just pick up the phone and get things to happen the way you’re used to doing in the United States, it’s a different kind of environment, that people who can make things work in that environment are people with special experience, and it’s as valuable as any PhD from Oxford or Harvard or MIT. CB: Have you convinced people here at the Bank of that? PW: I think a fair number, yes. I think some of them are really inspired when they meet people like Obi Ezekwesili, who’s the minister from Nigeria, when they meet Joy Phumaphi, who’s the former minister of health in Botswana. And frankly, the most inspired people and the ones most easily convinced happen to be the 30% who are out there working in country offices. There’s something that’s a little enervating, to be charitable about it, about being in these wonderful comfortable conditions in Washington. But you talk to someone like I did in our local office in Kinshasa just a couple of months ago. I mean, they’re literally living in combat conditions. Ten days after we left, they had to be evacuated. Some of the local staff commute three hours, if you can imagine that, and that’s not three hours on the Washington Metro, that’s three hours in dangerous, muddy streets and crowded little jitney buses, to come to work and three hours to go home at night. And I suppose it’s a better job than most in Kinshasa, but the fact is they also do it because they really believe in the mission. And it’s exciting that… I mean, I was the first president ever, apparently, to visit Burundi. And I assume the explanation is Burundi was never in a condition in the past where anyone thought about doing development there. And now suddenly, in the last few years, Liberia, which was once thought to be a hopeless basket case, Congo Kinshasa, which was once thought to be a hopeless basket case, Sierra Leone, Central African Republican even, Burundi, not to mention these amazing success stories in Rwanda and Mozambique that were war-shattered ten years ago and have been doing amazingly well. There are real turnaround possibilities, and one of the things that we accomplished during my time here—and I have to tell you there was a lot of resistance, but we got it through—was a new Rapid Response policy, so that when you have a country like Liberia, where you get a new government that has a mandate but a finite mandate to deliver results and they don’t need a six-year development plan, they need a six-month development plan, and under normal procedures you wouldn’t even get the first approval in six months, we changed that significantly. CB: You are leaving after just two years, just over two years, at the Bank. Has that taught you anything, this whole experience, about your leadership here? PW: It’s a difficult place, but look, I think we got an awful lot done in two years. I’m very proud of what was accomplished. I very much wish my successor well and hope that he or she can carry on the same agenda. I think it’s an important one, and I intend to carry it on in other ways. Really, you may know that 20 years ago I fell in love with Indonesia and Indonesians, because it’s a remarkable place and remarkable people. And I’ve sort of similarly been just incredibly attracted by Africans. There’s something just very compelling and inspiring about people who are giving their all to overcome very difficult conditions. We’re spoiled in this country, and you’re spoiled in Europe. These people really have to work to make it happen, and I’d love to, maybe through some private sector activity, maybe some philanthropic activity, be able to help them. CB: You’d be able to do more here if you weren’t going, and I want to ask you about the circumstances of your departure. The scandal, one might call it, involving Shaha Riza. Would any of that have arisen, do you think, if people here had liked you better? PW: I’m not… You want me to look backwards. I’m pleased that finally the Board did accept that I acted in good faith and acted ethically, and I accept the fact that by the time we got around to that the emotions here were so overheated that I don’t think I could have accomplished what I wanted to accomplish for the people I really care about, who are… CB: But why were they so overheated? What does that tell us about you and the Bank? PW: No, I… I’m sorry, you keep… Look, I think it tells you more about the media than about the Bank, and I will just leave it at that. It was, people were reacting to a whole string of inaccurate statements, and by the time we got to anything approximating accuracy, the passions were around the bend. But that’s the past. I think it’s a critically important institution for Africans and for other poor people. I think we’ve done a great deal to make IDA a more effective instrument, and not just by looking at governance and anti-corruption but also by looking at the importance of measuring results. I mean, that’s another one that came rather late to the development community and we’re, frankly, still way behind in terms of… You know, private sector companies measure results by the bottom line and it’s pretty straightforward. It’s very hard to measure results in the development business, but you’ve got to. We put in a whole new approach to malaria, with the Malaria Scorecard that’s been adopted by WHO. By the way, we’ve also significantly… I think, we’ve done, in just the last 18 months more than $350 million of malaria support for various African countries. That compares to $50 million in the previous 5 years, so it’s a huge increase, and it’s not just increasing the money, it’s a big emphasis on measuring where it goes. And the third thing that has to be done is trying to coordinate better among the many donors. I think it’s the President of Botswana who once said that the wonderful thing about development is that so many people want to be generous, and the difficult thing about development is that so many people want to be generous. And the two go together, by the way. The way… If you’re not measuring what you’re doing, it’s pretty hard to harmonize it with other people. But the real key is letting countries run things themselves. I mean, the most successful examples of harmonization I know are where you get a strong leader like the woman who runs the HIV-AIDS program in Rwanda, who basically says, you know, ‘it’s my way or the highway.’ And she’s right. I mean, you can’t have 16 different approaches to healthcare and be successful. CB: Do you think the Bank can go on as it is, or has it been damaged because of what’s happened in recent months? PW: Actually, I think hopefully, I mean, people will look at some of the governance issues here and the human resources issues here, and it could be a stronger place. It should be a stronger place. This kind of experience actually, you know, exposes problems but, as I said earlier, you don’t solve problems unless you expose them. CB: And your own feelings? Are you bitter? PW: No, I’m not bitter. I’ve got a lot to do in life. CB: You’re not sad that you’re leaving? PW: I’m actually looking forward… It’s been a… I would be pretending if I didn’t say it’s been two years of very hard work, and I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished, but no, I’m not sad. I’ve got a lot else to do. CB: One of the things that’s come up is how your successor should be chosen, and whether the whole system of there usually being an American in charge of the World Bank and a European at the IMF, whether that should be changed, where the developing countries, including a lot of the African countries, are saying let’s change that now. Do you think it should be? PW: I don’t think my opinion on that really matters now, so no, I’ve got other things to think about. CB: You wouldn’t say what you think is best for the Bank? PW: I’ll tell you what I do think. I do think that something needs to be done about the underrepresentation of the African countries. And it’s less a matter of voting power, although I’m sure that’s part of it, but you know, when you have two Board members trying to represent some 45 countries, many of them with actually conflicting interests, just getting around to visit your capitals would be a full-time job. They’re at a severe disadvantage, and I think if we’re going to take African voices seriously, then there need to be more of them. I also think there needs to be a much more concerted effort to increase the African voice in the Bank staff. That’s why I went to such lengths to recruit Africans and fortunately found these two fantastic African women. It means being more open to bringing in outsiders, because you’re not going to change those numbers quickly if you just, you know, grow them. But I think also… I’ve gone out of my way, let me put it that way, to, where there are talented Africans—and we have a lot of talented Africans—to try to help them move ahead a little faster than normal. And that unfortunately means that people who are near the end of their career probably need to retire earlier. Unless you’re willing to do something about the top end, you’re not going to move the bottom line up quickly. CB: So that ruffles feathers. PW: Just a couple. [Laughter] Yes, of course it does. CB: Do you have any regrets? PW: Oh, probably a couple, but right now I feel pretty good, so… And I do not have regrets about what we accomplished in the last two years. I think it’s… You know, last Thursday (or was it Wednesday? At any rate, whenever I issued my statement, I guess it was Thursday morning)… Wednesday night I sat down and started scribbling and I was a little surprised at how much… I mean, somebody said, well this is a very long statement. I said, well, it’s true, but there’s actually a lot that we’ve accomplished and I feel very proud of that, very satisfied about that, and ready to go on and do other things. CB: That’s great. Thank you very much. I just want to ask you one other thing which we’ll drop in, I forgot to ask when we were talking about Africa. You talk very passionately about development in Africa and wanting to help Africa as being very much a focus of what you’ve been doing. And yet, money from the World Bank still goes to China, now a very rich country itself, and you’ve also escalated money to Iraq, which incidentally comes at the bottom of Transparency International’s list of corrupt countries, so I see a bit of an inconsistency there. PW: No. Everybody’s looking for these little… First of all, China’s not getting any grant money from the Bank at all. Iraq got a one-time post-conflict allocation, and I wouldn’t say it’s accelerating. As a matter of fact, a lot of that’s slowed up because of the difficult conditions in Iraq. I mean, the Bank’s role is different in different places. I think the main role for us in Iraq, frankly, and it’s a very modest role—I mean, people, if you read the newspapers, you might think we were opening a 600-person office, I believe it’s a scale-up from 3 people that have been there all along to 4 people. I may have the numbers off by 1 or 2 but we’re not talking about anything major. What the Iraqis want help with, and need help with, is how to manage their own resources, which are quite considerable. And it’s how to tackle the problem of corruption, because the best Iraqi leaders realize that they’re losing probably billions of dollars because of that and they want to figure out ways to fix it. But again, to quote people who criticized our strategy without bothering reading it, the strategy is not to disengage, the strategy is to engage more intensively in difficult countries. The World Bank made a big difference in China over the last 25 years, in part, by helping them reduce the level of corruption and misgovernance in their own systems. Are there still problems there? Of course there are problems there. There are still problems in Indonesia, big ones, but we’re not running away from them but we’re trying to work to help them improve them. I think we’re doing a much better job at that than we did ten years ago. CB: Mr. Wolfowitz, thank you very much for talking to us. PW: Thank you. |
RSS