admindignity and rights accorded to them by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
They are excellent articles not only in forcing the issue of racial discrimination to the fore, but also in exposing three disturbing points. First, they expose how far the Bank would go to cover up for accused managers. Second, they lay bare the World Bank Tribunal as a cruel caricature of Jim Crow courts from America’s dark past.
Third, they throw light on donor nations’ thinly guised indifference ranging from “(we tried), but we believe further engagement with the World Bank would not be productive” (US) to “we cannot get involved in individual cases of this nature” (UK). They leave no doubt in the reader’s mind that US’, EU’s and other donor countries’ international aid human rights conditionality policies carry zero weight.
With donor countries controlling the overwhelming majority of the voting rights of the World Bank there is very little African governments can do to protect the rights of their citizens in the World Bank, even if minded to do so.
Violation of Article VII of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article VII dictates: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” Because of the Bank’s immunity from US courts, victims of discrimination are confined to an Administrative Tribunal that has denied them the protection of the law for decades.
A 1999 report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), found the Bank’s grievance system “did not protect grievants’ rights or hold managers accountable in discrimination and harassment cases.” The US Treasury Department concurred writing that: “We believe that the GAO report presents a fair and accurate statement.”
Since then, four independent reviews have reached the same conclusion. The purpose of this article is to put a face and a name to an issue that has been mostly framed in general discussions and abstract numbers. I will present one case that I found profoundly beyond the pale of human decency.
The story has been independently reviewed and verified by the US Government Accountability Project (GAP), the World Bank Staff Association, the US Treasury Department and the US Executive Director (ED) to the World Bank. This is not an isolated case, but a reflection of breathtaking injustice that blacks are subjected to.
Here is the story as summarised independently by GAP and Justice for Blacks. I am liberally borrowing from their reports where needed to avoid the risk of misrepresentation. Dr AI was charged by the World Bank to reform its International Comparison Programme (ICP) after an independent evaluation established the programme was on the verge of collapse. The team Dr AI led worked with the Bank’s external partners and built a highly successful programme.
His performance was rated “outstanding” and he was praised by his superiors in his official evaluation record for “an excellent job of developing global and regional proposals, building partnerships, working with the team and bringing together research, advocacy, financing, project planning . . .”
Shortly thereafter, his director told him that the programme had become too “high profile” for him and a white global manager was hired. Between 2002 and 2008, Dr AI served as deputy GM. In this position he was charged with managing the Programme in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
His annual performance evaluations were consistently “Outstanding” and “Superior.” Once again, the bank was faced with a dilemma when the global manager retired. Dr AI was in line to become acting global manager or global manager, but the Bank was not prepared to appoint a black man as acting global manager or global manager for a high profile global programme.
The solution the bank chose was to retain the retired global manager as a consultant with global manager title. The problem with this was bank rules do not allow consultants to work full-time or perform managerial duties. As a result, Dr AI was asked to “take over all the day-to-day coordination of the program and the Global Office team” without Acting GM or GM title. Meanwhile, a short-term consultant was fronted as global manager to the external world for close to two years without working fulltime or managing anything.
At first the bank blamed its external partners . . . Dr AI was told the bank could not appoint him global manager because “Europeans are not used to seeing a black man in a position of power.”
He filed complaints and his case was reviewed by the bank’s Appeals Committee. Three bank officials including Dr AI’s director testified under oath before the Appeals Committee that “filling the global manager post was the authority of the bank’s external partners and the bank had no hand in appointing global manager and the bank advocated to appoint Dr AI to global manager position, but the external partners opposed.”
All this was patently false and the bank’s external partners were prepared to testify, but the Appeals Committee rejected Dr AI’s basic due process right to call witnesses.
In its ruling the committee took note that some of the Bank’s actions could not be explained by “business reasons.”
As such, it “strongly recommended” the Bank “immediately resolve the complaint through mediation.” The bank rejected the Committee’s recommendations and subsequently terminated Dr AI. The bank’s complex web of lies began to unravel after Dr AI took his case to the Tribunal . . . The Tribunal allowed the bank’s external partners to testify and they testified under oath that the bank’s sworn testimonies during the Appeals Committee’s proceedings were patently false.
Having faced total rebuke from its external partners, the bank had to concoct a new storyline that was starkly different from what it established under oath. The new story line was that Dr AI lacked relevant ICP experience and, therefore, did not qualify for GM position. There was a problem with this claim.
Dr AI’s official HR record included a statement written and signed by his director stating: “(Dr AI) has been Deputy Global Manager of ICP. He is a very strong performer managing one of the most critical programs the Bank has ever managed. He has multiple roles in the global management of ICP. He is praised for his many skills.” To give credence to the new claim the Bank falsified Dr AI’s HR record and declared that the above quoted and many other similarly laudatory remarks in his official HR file are “overinflated” and therefore they are effectively null and void.
Every project that Dr AI managed and for which he was given “outstanding” performance evaluation for six years was totally erased from the record. Having erased and or declared null and void substantial chunks of his employment record, the bank claimed he could not be appointed GM for ICP because he lacked “proven direct management experience.”
Over a dozen high level officials of international and national organisations (including heads and chief economists) sent written testimonials confirming Dr AI’s outstanding role as deputy global manager and rejecting the bank’s false claims, but the World Bank stood firm with its forged documents and false claims.
Even the judgment report by the bank’s Appeals Committee that “recognised Dr AI as a tenured, talented and hardworking staff member who has earned the opportunity to perform the GM functions” was recanted by the bank with the help of forged documents.
Dr AI took his case to the tribunal alleging that he was denied the position because of the colour of his skin.
Dr AI’s director, who is an Iranian: “The controversy about discrimination, what do you have to say about that?” She responded: “I don’t know what to say, I mean, seriously. You see I’m not sort of a European blonde . . . How could I discriminate against somebody else?” The president, who happened to be a European blonde, ended his question with a polite “Thank you.”
Having spent over US$80 000 in legal fees and presented over 2 300 pages of well-founded claims to no avail, Dr AI came to terms with the gross injustice and focused his energy on salvaging his future. His lawyer approached the bank and proposed to drop his termination claims in exchange for an official letter from the bank confirming his management roles and responsibilities.
Online Reporter