Following the letter sent to the World Bank on August 17, 2020, today we are posting an updated letter to both the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) signed by an increasing number of notable organizations and individuals from Africa and around the world. We at the CIHA blog reiterate our full support for the request to add the campaign to end anti-Blackness and systemic racism at World Bank and International Monetary Fund to the upcoming WB-IMF Annual Meeting’s Agenda.
______________________
***
August 26, 2020
Dr. Merza H. Hasan
Dean of the Board, World Bank
Mr. David Malpass
President, World Bank
Re: Request to Add “This Anti-Black Racism Must End” Campaign
On the World Bank-IMF 2020 Annual Meetings Agenda
Dear Dr. Hasan and President Malpass,
First, we trust that you and your families are staying safe and sane during these unprecedented times.
Secondly, we are writing this letter to request that the World Bank add our fast growing campaign to end Anti-Blackness and systemic racism at World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the upcoming WB-IMF Annual Meetings agenda, so that our voices can be heard by the WB and IMF Board of Governors.
On August 17, 2020, we sent a letter to the WB, co-signed by 50 civil society and human rights organizations from around the World, requesting an end to its Anti-Blackness and systemic racism.
Since then many new organizations have joined the campaign, including the National Conference of Black Political Scientists (NCOBPS), Caribbean Philosophical Association (CPA), Critical Investigation into Humanitarianism in Africa (CIHA), Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS), Continental Network of Indigenous Women of the Americas—North Region, Network Advancement for Poverty and Disaster Risk Reduction (NAPPDRR), Youth for Development and Human Rights Advancement (YDHRA), Réseau Africain sur le Carbone et les Changements Climatiques (RAC3), Youth Renaissance Africa E.V., Red Española de Inmigración y Ayuda al Refugiado, Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices—Norway (IAC), Northern Ireland Council for Racial Equality (NICRE), Diaspora for African Development (DFAD), Make Our Money Matter (MOMM), Concern for Action in Our Community—Ghana (CONFAC-GH), Apna Haq Ltd, Balbriggan Integration Forum, Mathare Peace Initiative Kenya (MPI-Kenya) and Powering Young Initiatives.
Notable individuals have also signed on to our growing campaign in full support, including co-founder of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, Ms Opal Tometi; Professor of Gender Studies and African Studies at the University of Ghana and President of the African Studies Association of Africa (ASAA), Akosua Adomako Ampofo; author, lecturer and world renown African feminist, Ms Minna Salami; Professor of History and Anthropology at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and Interim Director of the UCLA African Studies Center, Andrew Apter; Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Political Science and the College at the University of Chicago, Adom Getachew; Professor of Political Science at University of California Irvine, Cecelia Lynch; Dean of the Hekima Institute of Peace Studies and International Relations (HIPSIR) in Kenya, Fr. Dr. Elias Omondi Opongo, S.J.; and the Director of the Centre for Constructive Theology and Head of Theology and Ethics, School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Professor Simangaliso R. Kumalo.
Our network is rapidly expanding both in terms of number of partners as well as their focus areas. This includes advocates for racial equality; environmental sustainability; global economic and social justice; and a just, equitable and democratic global governance architecture and order.
The red thread that connects our growing network is the unjust global order with roots in centuries of subjugation of peoples from across Africa and colonialism in particular. These trends remain intact albeit in different guises and have been institutionalized either by design or at best unwittingly. Today the outputs of bodies such as the WB, IMF and other global multilateral organizations have systematically relegated Black people to the bottom of every socioeconomic index. The establishment of such organizations was ostensibly to serve global interests, in the pursuit of international progress, order and stability. The evidence that emanates from the records of such bodies, however, suggests a serious dereliction of duty. In embracing the Black Lives Matter movement and energy, we assume that you yourselves deem these moments that are upon us to finally right these wrongs.
Ultimately, we recognize that to redress the imbalances and injustices, which are embedded in our global frameworks and outcomes, that multi-group dialogue and actions are needed, as is an acceptance that we will all have to address these problems together. Our heritage in Africa, teaches us that restoration is a cornerstone that underpins healthy communities. Restorative justice is an accepted and established mode of bringing about regenerative and positive change. This is as true for small sized villages as it is of our global community of peoples.
In this spirit, we urge the World Bank to add our campaign to the upcoming WB-IMF Annual Meetings agenda, so that our voices can play an important role to help re-establish the WB and the IMF as bodies that reflect global economic justice and equity, qualities that our world needs the WB and other institutions of global governance to radiate given the times that we are in.
Our request is not unprecedented. In the past, the World Bank has allowed global activists not only to participate, but also to moderate discussions at the Annual Meetings.[1]
In 2009, the WB invited activists to attend its Annual Meetings in Singapore and criticized the government of Singapore when they denied them visas. Then WB President Paul Wolfowitz “underlined the importance of the activists’ participation in the meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.”[2] He further criticized the government of Singapore for “excluding” the invited global activists stating that “if their opinions are critical of our institutions, that’s all the more reason that it’s important for us to hear them.”[3]
Given the current global movement to end racism, it is time that the WB in full earnest deals with its demons of institutional and systemic racism. The WB management cannot be a force of change to end global racism until it has addressed institutional racism within its walls. By the same token, the WB Board cannot rein in institutional racism in the WB’s management hierarchy before it has dealt with its own race-tiered voting rights allocations.
As we mentioned in our previous letter to President Malpass (submitted on Monday 27 August 2020), the colonial race-based logic of the WB must end. This means ending the racial stratification and subjugation of the organization in its decision-making, management, policies and practices.
Global sustainable development calls for a democratization of the WB and IMF and a full and equitable inclusion of African, Caribbean and other developing countries in the decision-making and management of the WB and IMF.
A majority of the global community wants this. For example, last year both the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (with 128 votes in favor and only 53 against[4]) and the UN Human Rights Council (with 25 votes in favor and 14 against[5]), passed resolutions for the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, including,
The promotion and consolidation of transparent, democratic, just and accountable international institutions in all areas of cooperation, in particular through the implementation of the principle of full and equal participation in their respective decision-making mechanisms;
And also reaffirmed,
the need to continue working urgently for the establishment of a new international economic order based on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest and cooperation among all States, irrespective of their economic and social systems, which shall correct inequalities and redress existing injustices, make it possible to eliminate the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries and ensure steadily accelerating economic and social development and peace and justice for present and future generations.[6]
The mandate of the World Bank to pursue that which is just and equitable is plainly within its hands to achieve. Yet, systemic racism within the WB persists and is reflected in its institutional anti-Blackness, as documented in the WB’s 2015 official diversity report: “the institution has made some progress on gender issues and some on Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender (LGBT) issues, race and not just race broadly, but specifically issues for Black staff (African and Afro-descendant), continue to be problematic.”[7] This is disquieting, not least because the call to end anti-Black racism was raised by the WB African Board members decades before LGBT issues were on the agenda.[8]
In 2003, WB official diversity report revealed that 16 WB diversity studies have found a “pattern” of systemic racism “with varying degrees of empirical rigor.”[9] The report quoted an unnamed vice president as having said “We are not likely to treat our client [countries] better than we treat one another.”
It is this same institutional culture and structural racism that have denied Black nations seats on the WB Board and G-20 membership.
The WB Staff Association has two explanations as to why the World Bank has failed to end its institutional and structural racism. First, in 2005, the Staff Association suggested anti-Black racism will end when the institution shows willingness to “knock the heads off those who resist change.”[10] This, the report said, requires “a cultural revolution.” Unfortunately, the institution has shown little or no interest or commitment to any of the sort.
Second, in 2007, the Staff Association exposed that “diversity reform initiatives were seriously undercut by lack of managerial accountability.”[11]
Despite numerous internal studies confirming the presence of “systemic” and “serious” institutional and structural racism, the WB continues to vehemently deny it in public. In 2014, in a letter to the editor of the Chicago Sun Times, then WB President Jim Yong Kim wrote: “We are truly a rainbow institution. Our staff now represents 170 different nationalities, each of whom expects to be treated with respect and dignity.”[12]
President Kim wrote this letter, after he embargoed a damning official World Bank diversity report that was concluded in July 2014.[13] The report was released in May 2015 “for internal use only,” even after the DC Civil Rights Coalition had mounted a sustained campaign to have it released for the public as it was originally intended.[14]
President Kim’s statement that each staff is “treated with respect and dignity” represents a willful coverup. There is nothing respectful or dignifying about being subjected to “a kind of apartheid” environment.
In June 2020, current World Bank President David Malpass acknowledged that “as an institution” the World Bank “can do better in tackling injustices, racism, and inequality within the World Bank Group and around the world.”[15] The President went as far as celebrating June 19 as “the anniversary of the official end of slavery in the United States […] to acknowledge the atrocities of the past and make commitments to end racism.”
President Malpass added in his blog: “What happened to George Floyd is beyond reprehensible. I hope that justice will be served for him and his family, but it cannot make up for his death and the pain for him, his family, and all those who care about humanity. The scourge of racism is deep and pernicious and must be confronted and ended.”
The celebration of the US anniversary of the emancipation from enslavement and expressions of sympathy to victims of racism would be commendable, if President Malpass backed it up with action to end racism in the World Bank.
However, what we have seen hitherto is that the World Bank covers up its own sins and refuses to address and redress even cases where its own investigation has found a “blatant and virulent case of racism.” This is the case of Dr. Yonas Biru, which we highlighted in our previous letter to President Malpass (submitted August 17, 2020).[16] Other cases of anti-Black racism in the WB abound, including cases that WB’s own Tribunal have stated are discriminatory, but have still not been settled. Among other things, this points to the inherent structural bias of the WB Tribunal—whose judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by a racially skewed Board.
We are left wondering whether celebrating the anniversary of Emancipation Day and expressing public sympathy to George Floyd’s family, while protecting institutional and structural racism in the WB, mocks the very notion of racial justice and instead acts as a sinister appropriation of a genuine global movement for racial equity and justice. The door of action remains open for the WB to demonstrate where it truly stands.
However, at present, it is difficult to read the situation in a positive light prior to concrete steps being taken towards comprehensive institutional reforms. Until such time, the WB’s 12-story long #EndRacism flag appears to be window dressing, as does the task force the institution has established to supposedly address racial injustice. The WB has repeatedly shown this card, in fact 14 times since 1979.[17] Every time there has been calls for racial equality, the WB creates a task force or working group, whose powers are limited rendering such initiatives as toothless tigers. Against this backdrop of failure, is there any likelihood of a different outcome from the 2020 taskforce?
Our request is to be given a platform at the Annual Meeting to raise such issues, moreover, to plant the seeds that will begin the process of instituting effective restorative justice frameworks for real change within the organization.
We state the above with utter humility, conviction and responsibility to assist resolving these most pertinent of issues. It is critical that our voices, representing a broad international constituency, are given the opportunity that the WB has accorded non-Black activists in the past. We understand that registration commences on August 27 and that it is not unprecedented to add an item on to the agenda two months before the meeting, particularly given the matters at stake that we seek to raise.
We thank you for your consideration and look forward to your response, which we respectfully request be provided to us by September 9, 2020.
Sincerely,
Muhammed Lamin Saidykhan
Movement Coordinator of Africans Rising for Peace, Justice and Dignity
[1] Cf. e.g. World Bank, “The Infrastructure Revolution: Integration, Investment and Innovation” You Tube, Oct 18, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUNRmeByGm4.
[2] Claudia Blume, “Singapore Bars Activists from World Bank-IMF Meeting”, Voice of America, October 31, 2019. https://www.voanews.com/archive/singapore-bars-activists-world-bank-imf-meeting
[3] Ibid
[4] United Nations General Assembly, Voting summary for Resolution A/RES/74/150 adopted on December 18, 2019, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3840124?ln=en (accessed August 23, 2020).
[5] United Nations Human Rights Council, Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order: resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 26 September 2019 (A/HRC/RES/42/8), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3837128?ln=en (accessed August 23, 2020).
[6] United Nations General Assembly, Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order: resolution adopted by the General Assembly on December 18, 2019 (A/RES/74/150), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3848626?ln=en (accessed August 23, 2020); United Nations Human Rights Council, Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order: resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 26 September 2019 (A/HRC/RES/42/8), https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3837128?ln=en (accessed August 23, 2020).
[7] World Bank, “A Strategic Review of Current Diversity, Inclusion, and Racial Relations Issues Related to
the World Bank Group Workforce,” May 2015.
[8] The first time systemic racial discrimination was discussed by the WB Board was in 1979, at the WB-IMF Annual meeting in Belgrade. Twenty years later, a 1998 WB official Memorandum revealed that, “There is a cultural prejudice among some managers, who rated Sub Saharan Africans as inferior.” The report further noted “The findings of three earlier WB studies send a clear message: race-based discrimination is present in our institution, including denial of opportunity and inequitable treatment on the basis of the color of their skin. The problem is serious indeed.” See: The Team for Racial Equality. Memo to James D. Wolfensohn, President, World Bank Group. 4 March 1998.
[9] Egan, Mary Lou et. al. Enhancing Inclusion at the World Bank Group: Diagnosis & Solutions. December 2003. World Bank Group. 21 August 2008
[10] Staff Association, “Can the Leopard, er, the Bank Group Change Its Spots?”, World Bank Staff Association Newsletter, July/August 2005
[11] Staff Association, “Staff Association memo to the Personnel Committee of the World Bank Board of directors” (2007)
[12] Jim Yong Kim, “Letter to the Editor” the Chicago Sun Times, September 17,
[13] The report found “a blatant and virulent case of racism.” On a sliding scale of 1 to 6, report that ranked the Bank far closer to 1 (apartheid type system) than 6 (a system of racial equality). It stated: “Racial discrimination is most acutely felt by the Bank’s Sub-Saharan-African and Caribbean Staff… and Black staff referred to their assignment as kind of apartheid.”
[14] World Bank, “A Strategic Review of Current Diversity, Inclusion, and Racial Relations Issues Related to
the World Bank Group Workforce,” May 2015.
[15] David Malpass, “Ending Racism”, World Bank Blogs, World Bank, June 18, 2020.
[16] The case has been described as, “The Corporate Equivalent of George Floyd’s Racial Injustice…”, by Bishop Brian Collins in a letter to the White House and the World Bank. Dr. Hasan, as the Dean of the WB Board is on the record characterizing the case as “an unfortunate case.” It has been a year since both President Malpass’ Spokesperson and the US Board of Director to the WB notified Dr. Biru that his case will be “adequately addressed.” But to this date no action has been taken.
[17] Here are a partial list of different window dressing task forces: The African Study Group” (1979); “The African Issues Working Group” (1990); “The Diversity and Inclusion Coordinators” (1992); “The Team for Racial Equality” (1998); “The Diversity Office” (2003); “The Staff Association Diversity Working Group” (2005); “The Diversity and Inclusion Task Force” (2007); “The US Minority Working Group” (2009); “External Advisory Board” (2014); “The President’s Council for Diversity” (2015); “Diversity and Inclusion Advocates” (2015); Diversity Task Force (2020).