|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
Over the decades, the UN has steadily suppressed corruption stories,
events, and rumours, especially concerning its senior officials. There are occasional recorded
glimpses of blatant favoritism for misbehaving senior officials, versus
severe penalties for other staff involved in the same or lesser cases of
misconduct. A
2001 "slap on the wrist" sanction is perhaps the most embarrassing of all,
since it involved Pino Arlacchi of Italy, the Executive Director of the UN
Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (now UNODC) (which also
includes the "high-priority" UN "Global Programme against Corruption") in
Vienna. [Note: The UN Global
Programme Against Corruption is found at and the parent programme, the
UN Office on Drugs and Crime, is found at European
media articles and a protest letter from UN staff in early 2001 had
highlighted accusations of abusive personnel policy, waste, corruption and
inefficiency in the Vienna office.
After considerable media attention, Dileep Nair and the OIOS were
called in to investigate. "The United Nations has strongly criticized management of its drug
control and crime prevention office, although it did not make the report
public. Dileep Nair [of the
OIOS] said … that the
findings on fraud and mismanagement
o funds … had been
forwarded to [Secretary-General Annan] with a recommendation for 'drastic
and immediate change.' … the Office
… has been a focus of
controversy since publication of a …[detailed letter
from] a former senior employee … The letter, backed by
co-workers … takes
Arlacchi to task for alleged faults in personnel policy, waste, corruption
and inefficiency. The audit follows
British, Italian and Austrian newspaper reports about alleged
mismanagement … under
Arlacchi who [is well-known] in his homeland of Italy as an expert on
organized crime. The Austrian daily Der Standard alleged in February that
Arlacchi misspent money on unauthorized renovations, the purchase of a
$100,000 office Mercedes, several large TV sets, satellite dishes,
valuable Chinese vases and expensive silk
flowers. Nair ['was not at liberty to discuss the report ' but said that]
the agency's main weaknesses included 'overcentralized and heavily
personalized decision-making.'" Barbara Borst, " Report
criticizes UN crime office", AP, June 12, 2001,
Hugh O'Shaughnessy, "UN drug
agency fiasco exposed", The Observer (UK), July 29, 2001,
Barbara Crossette, "UN
review criticizes director of its drug and crime program", New York
Times, June 12, 2001,and Martin Kozlowski,
"UN-organized crime', a full-page cartoon strip, Earth Times,
May 2001, p. 36.
In
July 2001, Secretary-General Annan took action on the crime office
scandal, sort of: "Pino Arlacchi, head of the [UN crime programme] has been told to
step down. Kofi Annan
… told Mr. Arlacchi
that he must leave … when his
contract finishes at the end of February [i.e. in
2002]. The move follows
months of controversy … Several European
donors, including the Netherlands, cut off their funding of the [Office]
following allegations of Mr. Arlacchi's mismanagement, which were the
focus of a damning UN investigation released last month. … Mr. Annan is said to have been studying a second report concerning
more serious allegations of misconduct by Mr. Arlacchi relating to plans
to send a 90-year-old wooden boat on a round-the-world trip 'to raise
awareness' of the agency. Diplomats who have seen the report say that it is even more damning
than the first." … [Mr. Annan's
spokesman] said: We know [he] is studying the reports and I've not been
informed that he's yet made a final
decision.' Diplomats say Mr. Arlacchi's fate was sealed when he lost the
support of the US and Italy following the changes of administration in
those two countries. Mr. Arlacchi, who says he has been unjustly singled out, could not
be reached for comment." Carola Hoyos, "Annan orders
head of UN drugs agency to step down", Financial Times (UK),
July 25, 2001. [Note: Mr. Arlacchi finally
and quietly left his UN post, apparently with no sanctions, in January
2002.]
In
a 2002 retrospective, the OIOS annual report stated that the UNODC "had
taken energetic and determined corrective measures'. Six critical
investigation recommendations called for improved accountability for waste
and abuse or correction of high-risk systemic deficiencies. Also, in no
less than five separate management audits and an inspection, OIOS had made
an impressive set of 97 audit recommendations to the senior management of
the Office and a further 48 to operating and field staff. Forty-six
percent of these were classified as being of critical importance, and most
were in the process of being implemented. The OIOS also stated that
"The new Executive
Director has placed high emphasis on improving the governance of the
programme and the management of the Office."
"Report
of the OIOS", UN document A/57/451,
2002, paras.
80-89.
However,
this bizarre story of coddled corruption was not finished, and it may
indeed still continue on. In
late 2003: "Samuel Gonzáles-Ruiz, a top
adviser on organized crime at the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has
accused management of turning a blind eye to 'a pattern of
misappropriation of funds' and 'clear acts of corruption and mismanagement
by staff,' the FT has learned. … In his letter of resignation … he
wrote: 'One can observe a pattern of irregularities in the issuing of
contracts, petty corruption, and abuses of administrative discretion
commited by staff with managerial responsibilities over projects and
programs within my working domain.' Mr. González-Ruiz, a former head
of Mexico's anti-mafia unit who gained an international reputation for
taking on the country's drug cartels, charged that management took no
action to investigate cases of internal corruption by staff, even after
they were provided with detailed evidence. He also said in his letter
that whistleblowers within the agency were routinely punished and that
corrupt officials enjoyed 'active and/or passive protection from top
management.' Thomas Catýn, "Adviser quits over 'corruption' at UN agency," Financial Times, FT.com, November 2, 2003. [emphasis added.] [Note:
Mr. Gonzáles-Ruiz is obviously an "expert witness."] The
new head of the UNODC took swift and decisive action: that is, he summoned
the OIOS. "The [UNODC] today called for an independent investigation after
one of its advisors resigned, citing allegations of corruption in the
body. UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa said he was taking the
allegations very seriously … 'The severity of the allegations brought to my attention deserves a
most thorough examination.
They were made public without prior consultations with me …' he
said. His comments follow the resignation of Samuel Gonzáles-Ruiz, who
said he could not stay on
… Mr. Costa asked the UN's independent … [OIOS] to begin a probe, and
it has already started work on its inquiry. Mr. Costa said he was
confident that major evidence of any misbehaviour was unlikely to be
found." "UN anti-drug office calls for
probe after adviser's resignation over 'irregularities', UN News
Service, 3 November 2003.
Mr.
Costa's confidence was upheld. The desired "most thorough examination" was
carried out with exemplary swiftness, and Mr. Costa and the UNODC received
an OIOS "exoneration." "The United Nations internal watchdog announced today that it has
cleared the [UNODC] of allegations of corruption and mismanagement raised
last month by one of its advisers. A probe made by the
… [OIOS] found that
the allegations … could not
be substantiated. Mr. Gonzáles-Ruiz,
whose allegations were backed by another employee [who was also leaving]
… accused the UNODC of
mismanagement and corruption, and said there were irregularities in the
issuing of contracts and retaliatory actions against
whistle-blowers. Yet the report by
OIOS … [concluded] that
there was no abuse of travel privileges, no retaliation against
complainants, and no evidence of a conflict of interest in the awarding of
a contract last year to a staff member's
next-of-kin. But the probe did
find … a conflict of
interest in [contracts awarded by the same staff member] between 1995 and
2001 … It recommended that
'appropriate action be instituted' over that
matter. … [Mr.] Costa welcomed
the results of the probe. … 'our credibility is
unblemished … The Office's integrity was wrongly
put in doubt and the OIOS independent investigation has put the record
straight' he said." "Internal watchdog clears UN
anti-drug office of corruption allegations", UN News Service, 26
November 2003.
It
must be remembered that this "double-soft" treatment of corruption
allegations occurred in the very UN office charged with leading the global
battle against crime and corruption.
Mr. Costa stated in a press release that the two employees who
raised the "unfounded" allegations "cannot have a future in the
organization" [but they knew that, and were leaving anyway.] He then went on to
say: "'We strongly salute the findings
of the independent investigation.
… The enormous efforts we have made over the past two years to
refocus, restructure and reorganize UNODC have paid off and our
credibility is unblemished. I
am indeed proud of the UNODC staff whose integrity and dedication had been
put in doubt.' 'The Office's integrity was
wrongly put in doubt … Personal grudges … should not be turned into
slander using the megaphone of international media', Mr. Costa
emphasized. 'Yet, there
should be no complacency. The
Office recently brokered successful negotiations … for the first United
Nations Convention Against Corruption: the UNODC therefore needs to be,
and be perceived to be well above any suspicion of wrongdoing … I am
determined to enforce a zero-tolerance policy as regards any form of
conflict of interest, mismanagement and
corruption.' As an important step towards
safeguarding the highest standards of transparency and integrity at the
UNODC, Mr. Costa will seek the views of Member States regarding … an
Integrity Panel to advise him … in keeping with the UNODC's role as the
custodian of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption."
"Investigation clears UN office on drugs and crime of allegations of corruption and mismanagement", UN Information Service, Vienna, Press Release SOC/NAR/884 of 26 November 2003.
This case (or two
cases) provides a rare detailed view, thanks to unusually thorough media
coverage, into UN "corruption-fighting" where high-level officials are
concerned. Serious
allegations were made, and largely upheld as evidenced by the 145 mostly
"critical" recommendations made by the OIOS in 2001 and 2002 on the
troubled UNODC programme, and even in the second case regarding the
creative staff contract-writer.
Yet OIOS was there with soothing reports and exonerations, and the
subsequent punishments, if any, were very mild. In contrast, IO Watch
would note that all the whistleblowers had to exit the organization in
order to speak out. That left the senior officials to proudly
proclaim their exoneration and full credibility (but after
substantial corrective action initiated only because of the complaints
that the whistleblowers had made), and even to speak proudly of
"enforcing a 'zero tolerance' policy [of] any conflict of interest,
mismanagement, and corruption", amid thoughts of establishing an
advisory "Integrity Panel."
The
General Assembly, much to its credit, has pressed the UN Secretariat
intensively ever since the late 1980s to combat corruption, establish an
investigations unit, hold managers accountable, and sanction them for
serious malfeasance, including criminal cases in national courts if
necessary. The 1993 resolution to establish the UN management
accountability system stated
that the General Assembly was: "Determined to
address alleged cases of fraud in the United Nations in an impartial
manner, in accordance with due process of law and full respect for the
rights of each individual concerned, especially the rights of defense."
"Review of the efficiency of the
administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations", General
Assembly resolution 48/218 A of 23 December 1993, II., para.
11.
A
subsequent General Assembly resolution, in 1997, expressed continuing deep
concern about the problems and defects of UN financial management and
administration, and about "the incidents of fraud and presumed fraud
reported by the Board of Auditors" (not by the OIOS). It called on the Secretary-General
to act much more decisively: "The General Assembly, …
Expressing deep
concern about the persistence
of problems and defects observed by the Board of Auditors in the financial
administration and management of the United Nations;
… 11. Notes with deep concern
the incidents of fraud and presumed fraud reported by the Board of
Auditors; 12. Requests the
Secretary-General and the executive heads … to take the disciplinary
actions necessary in cases of proven fraud and to enhance the individual
accountability of United Nations personnel, including through stronger
managerial control; … "Financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors," General Assembly resolution 51/225 of 16 May 1997.
IO Watch believes that
the handling of the UNODC cases in 2001 and 2003 highlights once again
these concerns, not only because UNODC is telling the world how to fight
corruption but as an office not handling accountability and corruption
very well itself. It seems
that the true UN corruption-fighting stance is one of firm discrimination
-- tread oh-so-softly with senior officials, but get very tough with
lower-level staff misconduct or their reporting thereof. This past and present
two-track system of 21st-century "UN-style accountability" is perfectly
exemplified by juxtaposing two comments by Mr. Nair of OIOS in an
interview in 2001, one involving Mr. Arlacchi's case and the other that of
a hapless, and severely punished, lower-level staff member in (the
considerably more "hardship" duty station of) northwest Somalia: "[Mr. Nair] noted
[OIOS'] strong criticism of the management of the UN Office for Drug
Control and Crime Prevention in Vienna, which was investigated after
allegations of fraud and mismanagement. Last month, the United Nations
announced that Pino Arlacchi, who heads the office will leave his post in
mid-2002. … In northwest Somalia,
investigators said allegations of corruption and mismanagement were
unfounded, but the audit discovered that a senior U.N. officer had not
strictly adhered to U.N. rules.
The [OIOS] recommended that he should be held strictly accountable
for approximately $50,000 in losses as a result of his
actions." |
|||
