Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page B07

With a vote on his nomination to head up the World Bank expected this week, Paul Wolfowitz has sought to calm the storm over his nomination by speaking out. In an exclusive interview with Lally Weymouth of Newsweek and The Post, he talked about his new job and about the Iraq war and its aftermath. Excerpts:

Q. This week, what are you going to tell the Europeans as to why you think that you would be a good head of the World Bank?

A. I want to tell the Europeans why I think I would be [a good president]. But also, I want to listen to them, hear their views and better understand their expectations for the Bank.

But what's the answer to the question, why you and the Bank?

I believe deeply in the mission of the Bank. I believe that reducing poverty and promoting economic development is one of the important things we need to do to leave our children and grandchildren with a better world. . . . I think I have a lot of the skills that can accomplish that successfully.

When did you actually decide you wanted this job?

Well, I was working hard at an important job that I'm in right now and which I find very fulfilling, and I got an inquiry as to whether I would be interested in being nominated for the World Bank. And I didn't have to think about it terribly long to think that this was a huge challenge that would be something that I thought I could really contribute. . . .

I think this is an incredibly important job. I think [current president] Jim Wolfensohn has demonstrated how important it can be. And I think in terms of [President Bush's] goal and all of our goal of expanding the realm of freedom in the world, there's both a political dimension and an economic dimension, and they're not tightly linked, but they support one another.

Your opponents have, of course, been saying you are going to use the Bank to pursue the Bush administration's philosophy of pushing democracy all around the world.

No, but I think when the Bank performs its mission, which is reducing poverty and promoting economic development, it makes it more possible for people around the world to achieve their own goals of freedom and democracy.

Do you see a different Bank under you than under Wolfensohn?

I think the differences will be less significant than the similarities. And of course, if I get the job, I will be responsible to the 184 countries that are members of the Bank, and I need to be clear about what their agendas are.

So who is your biggest opponent among the Europeans? The French?

Well, I would say that on the whole the reaction from the Europeans has been very constructive. They're looking to make sure that if I'm approved I have a good understanding of their concerns, one of which is the priority they attach to the Bank's work in Africa.

What are the other European concerns?

Making sure that the senior management of the Bank has adequate representation of the diversity of the Bank and, in particular, that some of the many highly qualified Europeans are playing roles in the senior management. I don't have any problem with that.

Isn't the argument that you and [John] Bolton [the president's nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations] represent a unilateralist American push in international organizations?

Well, I think that's a misreading of President Bush. But, John Bolton is going to the U.N. as the president's representative. . . . If I become the president of the Bank, I will be working as an international civil servant responsible to the entire membership of a global organization. It's different. It doesn't mean U.S. views are irrelevant, and they have an important voting share, but they're one of many voices.

So it's not fair to link the two appointments?

No. . . . I know people tend to do that, but I think each have their separate logic. I've had a lot of experience, including particularly when I was in Indonesia as ambassador, living in a different country and understanding the problems of a developing country, understanding both the good and bad of foreign assistance -- and there's a lot of good. I'm not somebody who thinks we can do without it. But I think there are a lot of ways to improve it, and I think one way to get more foreign assistance . . . is to demonstrate that it can be used effectively.

Do you agree with Wolfensohn's reforms and plan to continue them?

Certainly I agree with many of the key thrusts that he started. I think the decentralization thrust is very laudable, [as is] his emphasis on the need to combat corruption and to develop good governance as an essential part of economic development. Generally I like the direction he's set the Bank in.

Do you think that what's going on in Lebanon and the recent vote in Iraq are vindications of your policies in Iraq?

I know people use that word a lot, and I wouldn't. I think we still have a lot more work to do. . . . But I think that I have believed and continue to believe that the desire of people to be free and to choose their own leaders is one of the most powerful forces in the world. It's not utopian . . . I think it's realistic to figure out how to mobilize that force on our side because we are the natural allies of people with those goals.

Do you take responsibility for any mistakes made in planning for the war in Iraq, and what do you see as the key mistakes? Dissolving the army?

There's so much finger-pointing that goes on. It's a long exercise to dissect all the things that are wrong that are said about why this has proven to be difficult. And the notion that there was no planning is simply wrong.

You mean that there was planning for the aftermath?

There was a lot of planning, and the State Department was involved in the planning. The usual phrase is, there was no planning for the post-conflict phase. And the real problem is that the conflict hasn't ended, and that there is an enemy still out there actively trying to prevent the emergence of a new Iraq. . . . I think people shouldn't have been surprised that a regime that had burrowed into Iraqi society over 35 years and killed and tortured and intimidated people so effectively didn't quit just because they were driven out of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.

But do you think there were mistakes? We said we were going in to get weapons of mass destruction and there were no weapons of mass destruction, so there were obvious mistakes, right?

And there were some great successes as well. And I think if people want to go through this exercise, instead of first deciding who they want to blame, they ought to first do an assessment and put the pluses up there with the minuses.