World Bank Board to Name Next President Robert Zoellick in Line for Approval by World Bank’s Board to Be Institution’s Next President By JEANNINE AVERSA The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

Robert Zoellick, President Bush’s former trade chief and No. 2 diplomat, appeared certain to win approval as the World Bank’s next president.

The World Bank’s 24-member board scheduled a closed-door meeting Monday to take up Zoellick’s nomination, which was put forward by Bush. No other countries nominated candidates.

Zoellick would succeed Paul Wolfowitz, who will step down on June 30, ending a stormy two-year tenure at the poverty-fighting institution.

Wolfowitz courted controversy from the start because of his role in the Iraq war when he was deputy defense secretary. However, it was his role in arranging a hefty pay raise for Shaha Riza, his girlfriend and bank employee, that forced his upcoming departure.

To help mend relationships strained by the Wolfowitz episode, Zoellick took a two-week global tour to Africa, Europe and Latin America. His goals were listening and learning, he said.

Zoellick, 53, brings to the World Bank years of experience in the foreign and economic policy arenas under three Republican presidents, starting with Ronald Reagan. Zoellick left the Bush administration last year to become an executive at the Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs.

He met with the board for around four hours last Wednesday to discuss key issues, including challenges of development, the bank’s governance and leadership as well as future strategic directions.

The controversy over Wolfowitz’s role in the pay raise for Riza led to a staff revolt and calls by Europeans and others for him to resign.

The whole matter was seen as a growing liability that threatened to tarnish the institution’s reputation and hobble its ability to persuade countries around the world to contribute billions of dollars to provide financial assistance to poor nations.

By tradition, the World Bank has been run by an American. The Bush administration made clear it wanted to keep that decades-old practice firmly intact throughout the Wolfowitz debacle. The United States is the bank’s largest shareholder and its biggest financial contributor.

On the Net:

The World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/

A leading surgeon last night warned that Andrew Flintoff may never again reach the heights of 2005 when he spearheaded England’s successful Ashes assault.

The England and Wales Cricket Board yesterday revealed that the talismanic all-rounder will undergo an exploratory operation on his troublesome left ankle this weekend in an attempt to discover the extent of his latest injury. It is the same ankle that has already been operated on twice - in January 2005 and last summer. And Simon Morris, one of the country’s leading arthroscopic surgeons, fears that Flintoff could be in “real trouble” if the problem is related to his old injury.

Moyes, from the Wellington Hospital, said: “I can only be concerned. They say he is undergoing an exploratory arthroscopy on his left ankle over the weekend.

“The fact that they are talking about an exploratory arthroscopy means they are probably not certain of what the diagnosis is. Assuming this is a new problem and not an old one the treatment is very successful, with an 85% cure rate. There is every chance he could get back. But if it does transpire to be the consequence of his previous problems then he is in real trouble. I would be certain that if the arthroscopy reveals no new problems then he has got a chronic old problem and it is likely to hamper him in the long term. I could be worried about him.”

Flintoff is already out of the current series against the West Indies and doubtful for the three Tests against India later in the summer. This will be the seventh time his international career has been interrupted by injury. After the operation last July it took almost three months before he could bowl properly again and his performances in the winter, when he captained England on the Ashes tour and then figured in the miserable World Cup campaign, failed to reach the heights of 2005.

At the heart of the concern over Flintoff is the sheer physicality of his bowling. He is not a natural athlete. His pace comes from immense physical strength allied to total commitment which have made him England’s outstanding - and most reliable - bowler for more than two years.

He believes he is good enough to hold down a place in the England team on batting ability alone, although the selectors remain to be convinced. But as an all-rounder, at the top of his game, there is no like-for-like replacement for the 29-year-old in world cricket. The ECB, however, remains upbeat. The board’s chief medical officer, Nick Peirce, said yesterday: “Andrew Flintoff has undergone rigorous fitness testing over the past two days, most recently 30 minutes of net bowling on Tuesday, but has reacted to the testing with further discomfort in his left ankle.

“Despite intense conservative treatment and rehabilitation with England and Lancashire’s medical teams, Andrew’s ankle has continued to cause him discomfort when bowling at full capacity. As a consequence he will undergo an exploratory arthroscopy on his left ankle over the weekend.

“This current ankle injury is separate to the previous posterior impingement injury and while a comprehensive time-scale of rehabilitation will be clearer following the operation the recovery period is not expected to be as long as Andrew’s previous surgery.”

Flintoff was lined up to play for Lancashire against Sussex at Hove yesterday but woke up complaining that his ankle was very sore. “Obviously I’m bitterly disappointed to face another operation on my ankle as I really thought I was making progress with the injury over the past few weeks,” he said. “I’ve been working really hard on my game and the rest and rehabilitation appeared to be helping the ankle but after giving it a strong work-out this week, it now seems that an operation is the only option. I’m desperate to get back playing for England and determined to overcome this setback as soon as possible.”

There was some good news for England yesterday with Matthew Hoggard - who suffered a groin strain in the opening Test at Lord’s - on the verge of a return. He hopes to play a club match in the Bradford League on Saturday and a Friends Provident Trophy game for Yorkshire against Durham on Sunday.

George Bush is today to veto a bill expanding government-funded health insurance for children as he escalates his battle with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

It was the fourth veto of Mr Bush’s presidency - and one Republicans fear could carry risks for their party in the 2008 round of elections.

The White House said earlier that Mr Bush would carry out the veto behind closed doors, and without any press or television in attendance. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidises health coverage for 6.6m, mostly children from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35bn (17.5bn) over five years to allow another 4m children into the program.

It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 (50p) per pack. The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly, took the programme too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5bn ($2.5bn) increase in funding.

Bush argued the plan would be a move towards “socialised medicine” by expanding the programme to higher-income families.

Democrats said their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first.

Of the over 43m in the US who lack health insurance, 9% percent, or over 6m, are under 18. Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override the presidential veto. But in the House of Representatives, supporters of the bill were just over 20 votes short a successful override.

It was six years before Mr Bush vetoed his first bill, blocking expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.