|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
This entire archive, and especially multiple subsections of the UN Performance
Problems section , discuss the
many weaknesses and cultural factors holding back effective performance
and true reforms in UN operations. The following eight
quotes lay out a pattern of shortcomings over the years. Perhaps the only change over this
period is that the early quotes tried to obtain recognition that major
changes were needed, while the later and most recent ones show just how
hard it is for the UN to overcome its past management culture baggage and
actually move forward as a modern, professionally-managed, and accountable
organization. "The crude truth about many of the UN agencies is that they don't
know what they are trying to achieve; and that cronyism, sloth and
incompetence would ensure they could not achieve it even if they did. The obstacles to reform are huge,
the courage to tackle them nowhere visible. Still, here are some
suggestions. The system reflects
the whims and false starts of 44 years
some parts should be
radically slimmed or closed entirely. Other parts are
paralysed by having too many separate aims, too many programmes
. Each should be
given a manageable set of objectives and focused on
these. Accountability must be improved. That would at least mean regular
and public reports on where and how the money goes, and on how far
pre-stated targets of achievement are being
met. Co-ordination between the various agencies is much talked
about. It should happen.
The quality and
morale of professional staff must be raised
start rewarding merit, not political or personal
connections. Not least, the length
of time anyone can run an agency should be strictly limited.
." "The United Nations agencies: A case for emergency treatment", The Economist, December 2, 1989, pp. 27-28, 30 [30]. [emphasis added] [Note: the article offered a set of sensible suggestions for improvement as of 1989. At present, most if not almost all still seem to have been ignored.]
"
. International law -- so
reverently invoked, so rarely defined
. Does it exist? Some spheres of international
behavior (e.g., maritime matters, the rights of diplomats) are governed by
law-like regimes: there are enduring and widely-adhered-to conventions,
and institutions for arbitrating disputes.
.
The phrase 'international law'
often is virtually an oxymoron. Law without a sword to
enforce it is mere words, mere admonition or
aspiration. Law must be backed by coercion
legitimized by a political process.
The 'international community' has no such process.
. A true community exists only
when there is consensus about certain matters -- the meaning of freedom, the
nature of rights and duties, sources of legitimacy.
. Rhapsodizing about the U.N. as
the 'international community' incarnate obscures this
fact If 'international law' is defined
as what the 'international community' actually does, the problem
deepens. Regarding force,
history is clear; nations do what they think necessary and feasible.
. Eager seizure of the label 'legal'
encourages the fallacy that international law is explicit and exhaustive
. it puts policy at the mercy of a vague and volatile consensus of an
'international community' most members of which are unsuited to serve as
ethicists or judges." George
F. Will, "The perils of 'legality': If international law is really law,
who enacts, construes, adjudicates and enforces it?", Newsweek,
September 10, 1990, p. 25.
"Over-stretched and
under-funded, bureaucratically and unimaginatively organized, the UN is
perceived to straddle the globe like a dinosaur.
I couple of years
ago, I spent some months in New York [to examine the work of] the Security Council and General
Assembly at close quarters. I
was prepared to believe that the UN was an interesting
institution with a
possible new lease of life. I returned with a
somewhat different set of beliefs. Today's UN, I now believe, is an
essentially and intrinsically conservative institution
no longer capable of
reform along lines that would enable it to change in a progressive
direction.
Always an opaque
organization, it is not easy to understand its workings, and almost
impossible to follow the threads of its myriad activities. Sometimes it seems more like a
church for the faithful, with its attendant mysteries, than a political
institution run by rational individuals. Only four groups of people [diplomats, journalists, academics, and
members of the secretariat] are familiar with its arcane ceremonies, and
all of them usually conspire to sing its praises.
. [They] all have
such a vested interest in the UN .... that they rarely question the
organization's existence.
. I believe we should
regard it with
suspicion
and shed no tears if
it were to disappear." Richard Gott, "Nations
divided by a lost vision", Guardian Weekly, London, 12 September
1993, pp. 1-3.
"It is seldom possible to use the
word 'new' about proposals for reorganization or better coordination in
the UN system. They are
almost always repetitions from an earlier round.
Few UN reforms have been complete
enough to work. The negotiation process has often left only slivers of
what were originally integrated recommendations. Negotiated compromise may be the
stuff of diplomacy
But if compromises on structure turn out to be unwise
or unworkable, correcting them may be extremely difficult and may take
years.
Equally disastrous are the
temptations of mechanistic change,
[carelessly] moving boxes on an organizational diagram
Reorganization proposals need a comprehensive scrutiny in the same way
that a heart specialist must look at the entire blood-circulation system.
If governments make indifferent
choices of executive heads, no amount of reform will compensate for the
lack of leadership.
Good organizational decisions can
be, and have been, wrecked by overlooking the staff requirements to make
them effective
[this has] invariably been neglected by governments and
most executive heads in UN system reforms, with the result that five years
later delegates usually wonder why the reforms are not producing
significant improvement." Erskine Childers with Brian Urquhart, "Renewing the United Nations System", Development Dialogue, 1994:1, Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, Uppsala, Sweden, 1994, pp. 34-37. "Sins of member
states: Secretariat staff resent
member
state interference in
their daily work
[their micromanagement of] the hiring and promotion of
Secretariat personnel.
. [and of]
Secretariat budgeting,
. too often
seeking to control the minor
details of spending allocations.
. Secretariat staff members are also
frustrated by lack of clear direction from intergovernmental bodies. Too
often member states fail to agree on how best to confront global
problems
. Moreover,
mandates are frequently assigned to the Secretariat with little thought as
to the resources needed for their
implementation. Sins of the
Secretariat:
. Member states contend that
ineffective -- some would say nonexistent -- managerial practices throughout
the Secretariat have led to inefficient use of the [UN resources]
; a
staff unaccountable for its actions and prone to delegate upwards;
insufficient program coordination
; and wasteful duplication of
efforts. There has been a
lack of transparency in Secretariat decision making [on] policy issues,
personnel, and budget expenditures.
much of the information that is
provided is not timely or readable.
Overall, inefficiency and lack of
accountability within the Secretariat, whether preceived or real, have
invited member state micromanagement. " "Making UN reform work: Improving member state-Secretariat relations", Report of the twenty-eighth United Nations issues conference, The Stanley Foundation, February 21-23, 1997, pp. 2, 14-16. "The United Nations and its sister
institutions will face a period of harsh reform. Most of the global organizations
set up at the end of the second world war are held in low esteem
. This is odd. The end of the cold war
. has
accentuated the need for global institutions.
. Unfortunately, global institutions
have not risen to the task.
. The UN, quite simply, looks out of
date. By trying to do
everything, it rarely does anything very well. In particular, most of its money
goes into social and economic development. These activities appeal to the
poorer 'southern' states that have such a grip on the {General
Assembly]. But government aid
now accounts for only a tiny proportion of the money flowing to developing
countries. And much of the
UN's development work has been superceded by leaner, non-governmental
organisations, such as charities." John
Micklethwait, "The multilateral muddle", in "The world in 1999", The
Economist, January 1999, p. 73.
"1) Reform does not come easily to
the UN system. The
Secretary-General has little leverage, the system is diffuse, and the
Member States are rarely united
2) On the other hand, the process
of reform is a constant
At
times, process seems more important than results, while at other times
process is the desired result. 3) Those unaware of the history of
reform may indeed be condemned to repeat it
4) The key to UN reform, in that
sense, may lie less in trying to be innovative than in understanding why
past initiatives have failed and how the strategies and tactics for
achieving them could be improved.
5) More study is needed of how
independent scholars and commissions have helped to shape the UN reform
process.
6) When it comes to moving an
agenda for reform in the United Nations, it is not always clear where
power dwells
7) Change happens even if reform
doesn't.
Sometimes formal
reform follows (it never leads.) 8) The course of reform tends to
be decidedly unpredictable.
9)
the temptation to mistake
modest and short-term adjustments for epochal change has proven
irresistible
" Edward C. Luck, Reforming the United Nations: Lessons from a history in progress, Occasional Papers, 2003 No. 1, Academic Council on the United Nations System, Yale, 2003, pp. 47-49. "Why GAO did this
study The U.N. Secretary General
launched two reform agendas, in 1997 and 2002, to address the U.N.'s core
management challenges -- poor leadership of the Secretariat, duplication
among its many offices and programs, and the lack of accountability for
staff performance.
In 2000,
GAO reported that the reforms were not yet
complete. What GAO
found
First, the Secretariat has taken
positive steps to strengthen its human capital management, but reforms in
this area are ongoing and additional challenges remain. Second, the U.N. has begun to
adopt results-oriented budgeting, but its monitoring and evaluation system
does not measure program impact.
UN reform faces several
challenges. For example, the
Secretariat does not conduct comprehensive assessments of the status and
impact of U.N. reforms. In
addition, the reform agendas lack clearly stated priorities, interim
goals, and target dates for overall completion. Other challenges include
resistance to change from program managers and possible resource
constraints. What GAO
recommends
the [US] Secretary of State and
[US Mission to the UN] should work with other member states to encourage
the Secretary-General to (1) report regularly on the status and impact of
reforms; (2) identify short- and long-term goals and establish target end
dates for remaining reforms; and (3) conduct assessments of the resulting
resource implications." U.S. General Accounting
Office, United Nations: Reforms progressing, but comprehensive
assessments needed to measure impact, GAO 04-339, February
2004, "Highlights" page.
[emphasis added.]
[Note: the complete report is available
at |
|||
