Zoellick's replacement of Wolfowitz is highly symbolic. Comparisons between the two are interesting, to say the least. In their time both were U.S. President George W. Bush's trusted foreign policy "designers." Zoellick coined the term "stakeholder" to describe China's role in the international system and thus helped upgrade China-U.S. relations, whereas Wolfowitz opened the door to the Iraq War with his neo-conservative beliefs, resulting in the U.S. diplomatic standoff over the Iraq issue. With distinct philosophies, they achieved glaringly different results--Zoellick made China-U.S. relations the most brilliant facet of the Bush administration's diplomacy, while Wolfowitz turned the Iraq War into a persistent headache for the embattled U.S. president.

Their ways of doing things are often in sharp contrast to one another. Wolfowitz's leadership in the World Bank weakened, not (as commonly perceived) because of the scandal over a pay raise for his girlfriend, but because of his unilateral work style, a legacy he inherited from the Pentagon. Wolfowitz's decision-making over personnel and many other issues runs counter to World Bank tradition. For example, he aroused widespread concern when he decided to halt assistance to India, Chad and Kenya, before the matter was put before the bank's board of governors.

Wolfowitz, in fact, often found himself at odds with the influential board of governors, which represents the World Bank's 185 members. Their disputation over what actions should be taken against corruption was particularly heated, something that severely undermined his leadership. Also, the United States' European allies are bitter about Wolfowitz's failure to come up with any systematic strategies for the World Bank during his two years at the helm.

Compared with Wolfowitz, Zoellick keeps a much lower profile. He is better at coordinating relations and is capable of viewing problems in a constructive light. Experienced in both business and politics, Zoellick is not preoccupied with trivial affairs but thinks from a strategic perspective with overall interests in his mind. This trait is indispensable to the World Bank as it faces the daunting tasks of restoring solidarity and ending the current stalemate over several issues.

For the Bush administration, Zoellick is a safe choice. Earlier, the World Bank's board of governors had issued a statement detailing a number of essential qualities that the next leader would possess, including "a proven track record of leadership, experience managing a large international organization, a willingness to tackle governance reform and political objectivity and independence."

Zoellick is one of the most qualified candidates. He not only has rich managerial experience and extensive international connections but is also good at judging and dealing with complicated international relations. Unlike Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq War, Zoellick is more likely to maintain political objectivity.

Zoellick has traveled a winding path to head the World Bank. In 2004 when former World Bank President James Wolfensohn was ending his term, Zoellick, then U.S. Trade Representative, was eager to become his successor. However, President Bush nominated his close aide, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz. Two years later, Zoellick showed interest in becoming U.S. treasury secretary but that job went to Henry Paulson.

Interestingly, it was Paulson who recommended Zoellick as the United States' nominee for the World Bank's president. After serious consultations with Britain, Germany and other major powers, Paulson, who was charged with selecting a new leader for the World Bank, considered Zoellick as the best choice. After a long wait, Zoellick was finally favored by chance.

High expectations

At the top of Zoellick's agenda is to restore confidence at the badly shaken World Bank and heal the rifts among its members. While maintaining high moral standards as a leader, he will have to draw attention to the more cooperative and pragmatic matters, so that staff members and government shareholders can leave disagreements behind to focus on the future. Zoellick has rich experience in international affairs and close contacts with top leaders of the EU and many countries, a key advantage for him as chief of the World Bank. In addition, he is experienced in finance and investment. All these factors will help him fulfill his new mission, making him more professionally competent than his predecessor.

Zoellick is committed to poverty reduction. His nomination therefore has positive implications for the economic development of Asia and Africa. To the disgruntlement of some Asian and African countries, especially those in extreme poverty, they have been largely overlooked by the World Bank. Hopes are high that the bank, under Zoellick's leadership, will be able to provide interest-free loans to the tune of $30 billion to the poorer countries. At a recent press conference, Zoellick said that he would stick to the World Bank's central aim of reducing global poverty. He indicated that the bank would possibly shift the focus of its assistance to some developing countries, extending interest-free loans as well as providing technology.

Zoellick's knowledge of China will help the World Bank play a more assertive role in the economic development of Asia. The former U.S. deputy secretary of state has contributed greatly to the development of China-U.S. relations, from negotiating China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to calling China a "stakeholder" in the international system. His nomination as president of the World Bank is set to have a positive impact on cooperation between the World Bank and China. Also, he may broaden the scope of his "stakeholder" concept so that the World Bank is more welcomed in Asian and African countries as they pursue development.

Countries in disagreement or friction with the United States are justifiably hoping that the World Bank will now be depoliticized, especially considering instances such as this one: the World Bank had planned to launch a large aid project in Uzbekistan in 2005; however, as it expelled U.S. soldiers and banned U.S. military aircraft from landing in the country, Wolfowitz shelved the project and transferred the aid funds to other countries supportive of the U.S. antiterrorism campaign. Of course, Uzbekistan is not the only country suffering from such grievances.

A major challenge confronting Zoellick is how to deal with trade protectionism. Zoellick celebrates openness and was a strong promoter of free trade in the Bush administration. While he served as U.S. trade representative, he not only helped launch the Doha round of WTO negotiations but also worked on the free trade agreements signed between the United States and a number of countries including Chile, Singapore and Australia. At a time when free trade and trade protectionism vie for dominance, the World Bank, led by Zoellick, will be widely watched. As he takes up his new mission, the World Bank will face a major opportunity to step up its reforms.

Zoellick played a crucial role in the peaceful reunification of Germany and China's entry into the WTO. He is expected to continue working in that spirit. It is hoped that he will concentrate on the development of impoverished countries, inject vigor and vitality into the World Bank and make it more rational, balanced and reliable in a time marked by uncertainties. A good leader is one who is good at selling hope and keeping promises. The World Bank shares common aspirations for a promising future with the countries that count on the bank.

Zoellick has said that there were frustrations, anxieties and tensions about the past that may inhibit the future, but he vowed to put these behind for good. He believes that the World Bank's best days are still to come.

The author is a researcher at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences