|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
SUBSECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS: -- Past history -- Public relations, not performance -- Management culture deterioration "If, in the future,
the UN hopes to avoid failures like that in Somalia, it will need to
change on a more fundamental level. …. Above all, if the UN
is to be effective, it must be accountable. 'The UN is probably the least
accountable bureaucracy in the world -- a main reason not only for the
cataclysm in Somalia but for the persistence of famine through Africa',
said Alex de Waal, a British anthropologist who has studied the UN's
response to famines. ….
'Officials who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths must
face the prospect of prosecution, not promotion.' …. There is also the
need for a freedom of information act, so UN officials
cannot hide from the public everything from their salaries to their
mistakes to how much they're spending on public relations. And finally,
there must be an independent watchdog organization with full
power to investigate U.N. agencies. The General
Assembly has the authority to
establish a commission of inquiry to examine what went wrong in Somalia,
but it has never examined its own
performance." Ray
Bonner, "Why we went":
How the United Nations turned its back on Somalia and subverted the best
chance for peace", Mother Jones, (USA), March-April 1993,
pp. 54-60.
[emphasis added.] [Note: the full article is
available at MotherJones.com under the author's name.] As the above quote
indicated in 1993, and as still seems true, IO Watch believes that the
present-day UN warrants the harsh judgement rendered by this subsection
title. It stands alone in the world because of its rejection of the rule
of law, and its failure to firmly apply the accountability, transparency,
and oversight processes that increasingly govern the rest of mankind.
The first major
section of this archive on Where is the Rule of
Law? provides an answer --- it is
not present within the UN.
The other major sections on UN Performance
Problems presents many assessments
of its past and continuing defects in all operational areas, and the
sections on UN Management Accountability
Struggles The UN is not yet
bound by the good governance processes that increasingly apply to the rest
of mankind. Its traditions of diplomatic immunity have been bolstered by a
defective management culture that is now six decades old, and the recent
attempts to "free" UN managers without firm, and offsetting,
accountability. These factors
have greatly handicapped the Organization's programmes and therefore
progress toward the global goals it was created to help attain.
UN management
operations and "reforms" are hidden behind much reassuring rhetoric and
vague documents. But enough
facts have already emerged, and many more exist, to indicate that the UN
presently has grave failures of due diligence and good governance. These flaws must be rectified if
the UN is ever to operate effectively, and its many outstanding and
motivated staff must be given the opportunity to perform dynamically
without "deadwood" burdens on
their backs. This and the following
two subsections provide the situation and the road ahead for UN pursuit of
management accountability.
This first subsection summarizes some major aspects of the UN's
UNaccountable culture, the second introduces an open-ended list of recent
major problems which have resulted, and the third offers a "best practice"
list of real reforms that have already been applied elsewhere or are
"doable", which could finally make the UN more transparent, open, and
accountable. Global governance and
21st century international issues present too much complexity for the old
UN model -- "the only truly universal organization" -- to handle or even
lead by itself. Instead, common, concerted, and effective action is needed
from the powerful private sector, ever-more-vigorous and assertive NGOs,
and the forces of civil society, along with the traditional nation-states
and international organizations.
The modern-day world,
especially because of the media and the Internet, has become very much one
of networks and networking processes, not of hierarchies in a pyramid with
the UN claiming the top position. Instead, the UN must work with (not
above) others to address and resolve global
problems. An interesting
reflection on the key determinants of organizational effectiveness in the
brave, new networked world comes from management guru Warren Bennis. In an interview in 2000, he said
that: "Networks, by definition, connect
everyone to everyone.
Hierarchies, by definition, don't: they create formal channels of
communication, which you're expected to follow. Hierarchies are concrete-lined
irrigation ditches, where water flows along prescribed lines. Networks are flat, rich mysterious
[entities] of every-which-way communication.
… When a network becomes the main
means by which information is conveyed and work gets done in an
[organization], … hierarchal crutches are knocked away. Rank is unclear. We work in teams, which are often
[inter-organizational] -- so hierarchical power can't guarantee that work
gets done. Networks encourage
people to operate informally, with few rules. They depend on
trust. Few [organizational] people I meet
are mystified by power.
Trust, on the other hand, baffles them -- yet it is more
important. [In a new book … he and his
coauthors write] 'Gathering information, and above all, developing trust,
have become the key source of sustainable competitive
advantage.'" Thomas A. Stewart,
"Whom can you trust? It's not so easy to tell: … how [do] organizations
build trust in a networked world," Fortune, June 12, 2000,
pp. 173-174. The author of the
article went on to explore the question of how we create, build, and
support a climate of trust in a networked world. He identified five
elements: "competence -- I can trust you if I know you're
good at what you do. community -- Networks naturally spawn informal
… "communities of practice" … [which] create and validate competence. The boss may not know which
butcher is best, but the other butchers do. commitment -- it's vital that there
be a shared commitment to the same mission. Unfortunately, the randomized
bromides and buzzwords that pass for vision in most [organizations] breed
cynicism, not trust. … No more hiding the [organizational] model behind
high-sounding nonsense. …[Also] The company that asks for innovation and
rewards obedience should not be surprised if its creative people seem
diffident. communication -- can be [trust's]
best friend or its worst enemy.
Hierarchies lie and get away with it pretty well. Naked emperors go unchallenged.
… A revolutionary way to
built trust … Tell the truth. [Finally] … if trust is a source
of competitive advantage, it should pay. Trust needs to be seen to be good
business." Thomas
A. Stewart, "Whom can you trust? It's not so easy to tell: … how [do]
organizations build trust in a networked world," Fortune, June
12, 2000, pp. 174-175. In IO Watch's opinion,
the UN is indeed trapped in old-fashioned bureaucratic hierarchical ways
of doing things (the "free the managers" efforts notwithstanding), and its
arrogance and lack of accountability make it poorly prepared for gaining
the trust that 21st century global networking requires. It is not yet a member of the
various "coalitions of the competent," nor does it even really provide its
much-trumpeted sense of "legitimacy." Even if it did, this "seal of
approval" function should not cost the world the $6 to $10 billion that
the UN spends annually.
UN performance in
terms of the five elements of trust and competitive advantage outlined
above fall short: -- competence is
indeed key the key to performance and trust, but UN personnel processes
have and still do hire too many people (often as managers) despite their
lack of professional competence and willingness to
work; -- the UN is known as
a difficult partner, slow to decide, arguing and bickering over direction
and details, and always wanting to be the dominant
force; -- clear commitment is
lacking, in favor of reams of "high-sounding nonsense" on every
conceivable issue [a major specialty of UN
discourse]; -- communication, as
discussed throughout this archive, shows clearly that UN reporting seeks
(or manages to) gloss over, cover up, and numb the mind, not to explain,
illuminate, and speak frankly, or in concentrate onactions taken and
results achieved; -- and, as the citations in thia
archive's subsection on Staff Rights vividly
shows, an atmosphere of trust and openness has always been in short supply
at the UN, now enhanced by the bad managers who flaunt their
impunity.
IO Watch wishes in the
following subsections to identify nine key aspects of this "UNaccountable
UN". It would note that on
many of these topics a separate book could and probably should be written,
but this archive presents only a brief and initial selection of incisive
analyses which it believes convey the key points. Useful Sources
"United Nations
organizational integrity survey", Final Report, prepared by Deloitte
Consulting LLP, June 2004.]
Held, David and
McGrew, Anthony, Goldblatt, David and Perraton, Jonathan, Global
transformations: Politics, economics and culture, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, 1999.
Narasimhan, Vasant, and Attaran, Amir, "Roll back malaria? The scarcity of international aid for malaria", Malaria Journal,15-April 2003, pp. 2-8.
Weiss, Thomas G.,
ed., Beyond UN subcontracting: Task-sharing with regional security
arrangements and service-providing NGOs, St. Martins, New York,
1998.
A global agenda: Issues before the 58th General Assembly of the United Nations: 2003-2004 edition, Angela Drakulich, ed., An annual publication of the United Nations Association of the United States of America, UNA/USA, New York, Oxford, 2003. Jordan, Robert S., et. al, Ch. 5, "International organizations as practical necessities", in International organizations: A comparative approach to the management of cooperation, fourth ed., Greenwood/Praeger, Westport, Conn., 2001, pp. 97-124. Jordan, Robert S., et. al, Ch. 10, "International organizations and the management of cooperation", in International organizations: A comparative approach to the management of cooperation, fourth ed., Greenwood/Praeger, Westport, Conn., 2001, pp. 233-250. Kovach, Hetty, Neligan, Caroline, and Burall, Simon, The global
accountability report 1 2003: Power without accountability?, The One
World Trust, Houses of Parliament, London, 2002/2003. Alleyne, Mark D., Global lies?: Propaganda, the UN and world order, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2003. La Porte, Todd R., ed., Organized social complexity: Challenge to politics and policy, Princeton University, Princeton NJ, 1975. Nayyar, Deepak, and Court, Julius, Governing globalization: Issues and institutions, Policy Brief No. 5, United Nations University and World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki, Finland, 2002. Peters, Tom,
Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution, Harper
& Row, New York, 1987.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, When giants learn to dance, Simon & Schuster, 1989. Simmons, P. J., and de Jonge Oudraat, Chantal, eds., Managing global issues: Lessons learned, Carnegie Endowment, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2001. Smith Dan, with Ane Braein, The atlas of war and peace, Earthscan, London, 2003. Van Houtven, Leo, Governance of the IMF: Decision making, institutional oversight, transparency, and accountability, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, 2002. The world guide: An alternative reference to the countries of our planet , 2002-2004,New Internationalist, OxfordUK, 2003 United Nations Management and Decision-Making Project UNA-USA, The U.N. in profile: How its resources are distributed, by Maurice Bertrand, United Nations Association of the United States of America, New York, 1986.
United Nations Management and Decision-Making Project UNA-USA, Fairness and accountability in U.N. financial decision-making, by Frederick K. Lister, United Nations Association of the United States of America, New York, 1986. Williams, Douglas, ed.,
The specialized agencies and the United Nations: The system in
crisis, C. Hurst, London, 1987.
A study of
the capacity of the United Nations development system, 2 vols., DP/5,
United Nations, Geneva, 1969.
Watkins, Michael D., and Bazerman, Max H., "Predictable surprises: The disasters you should have seen coming", Harvard Business Review, March 2003, pp. 72-80.
Brainard, Lori A., and Brinkerhoff, Jennifer, Digital diasporas, networks and international policy processes, PA Times (USA), November 2002, p. 3. Milward, H. Brinton, and Raab, Joerg, "Dark networks as
problems", PA Times
(USA), November 2002, p. 5. Joint Inspection Unit, "Extrabudgetary resources of the United Nations", JIU/REP/90/3, A/45/797 of United Nations, "Budgetary and financial situation of organizations of the United Nations system", A/57/65 of 25 July 2002. Sperling, Gene, and Hart, Tom, "A better way to fight global poverty: Broadening the Millenium Challenge Account", Foreign Affairs, vol. 82, No. 2, March/April 2003, pp. 9-14.
Resources on the UN and UN finance www.globalpolicy.org .
Freeman,
Phyllis, and Robbins, "Disease deadbeats", Foreign Policy,
September/October 2003, pp. 79-80. Fomerand, Jaques, "Recent UN textbooks: Suggestions from an old-fashioned practitioner", Global Governance, 83(2002), 383-403. Barnett, Michael N., and Finnemore, Martha, "The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations", International Organization, vol. 53, no. 4, Autumn 1999, pp. 699-732.
"Governance: Impacts of networks and network structures", includes inter alia Brainard, Lori A., and Brinkerhoff, Jennifer M., "Digital diasporas, networks and international policy processes" and Milward, H. Brinton, and Raabis, Joerg, "Dark networks as problems", PA Times (USA), November 2002, pp. 3-5.
Naim, Moses, "The five wars of globalization" ["Why governments can't stop the illegal trade in drugs, arms, ideas, people, and money"], Foreign Policy, January/February 2003, pp. 29-37.
Van Oudenaren, John, "What is 'multilateral?'", Policy
Review (USA), February & March 2003, pp. 33-47. Bell, Coral, "Normative shift", Policy Review, The National Interest (USA), Winter 2002/2003, pp. 44-54. [Note: The "normative shift" referred to is "the social process of domestic or international rules about what id deemed acceptable or unacceptable behavior …. why and how?"] Watkins, Michael D., and Bazerman, Max H., "Predictable surprises: The disasters you should have seen coming", Harvard Business Review, March 2003, pp. 72-80.
Moore, Mike, "Multilateral meltdown: It's time for another walk in the Bretton Woods", Foreign Policy, March/April 2003, pp. 74-75. Bozeman, Barry, and Kingsley, Gordon, "Risk culture in public and private organizations", Public Administration Review, March/April 1998, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 109-118.
United Nations Development Programme, Managing Change Update, January 1996.
United Nations
Development Programme, Building a new UNDP: A strategic planning
framework, 1995 . Ruggie, John Gerald, "The United Nations and globalization: Patterns and limits of institutional adaptation", Global Governance 9 (2003),301-321.
Stewart, Thomas, A., "Whom can you trust? …. A conversation with
Warren Bennis inspires a question about how organizations build trust in a
networked world", Fortune, June 12, 2000, pp. 173-175.
Paul, Samuel, Holding the state to account: Citizen monitoring in action, Bhooks for Change, Bangalore, India, 2002. Michael,
Bryane, and Bates, Michael, "Assessing international fiscal and monetary
transparency: The role of standards, knowledge management and project
design", International Public Management Journal, 6(2), 2003,
95-116. |
|||
