|
|||||
UN Performance Problems UN Management Accountability Struggles Where is the Rule of Law? Inadequate UN Oversight Recent Developments
|
|
Overview
of IO Watch Archive Quotes X, September - October 2007 483a. “A five-day U.N. conference on climate change ended in Vienna on Friday with significant disagreements remaining about how countries should reduce greenhouse gas emissions and daunting estimates about the price tag for combating global warming. … Many industrialized countries are … wary of strict and mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions … fearing that such curbs could strike at core sectors of their economies. … Many … developing [countries] are reluctant to cut emissions if it means sacrificing economic growth. China, for instance, is opening two coal-fired power plants a week to meet the demands of a booming economy. … [Fifteen countries, who have 64% of the world’s population, produce 90% of its greenhouse gases, and account for 82% of the global economy, are to meet at a U.S.-sponsored meeting in Washington September 27-28.] … Some environmental activists question the motives and sincerity of [President Bush’s] initiative, but the … [U.S. top negotiator says the meeting] was meant to ‘complement’ the U.N. process, because the countries attending will be the biggest economies and the biggest polluters, ‘and if they can’t agree, there’s little hope of reaching an agreement’ in the U.N. talks.” John Ward Anderson, “U.N. climate
talks end in cloud of discord”, Washington Post, September 1,
2007. 483b. “Amid growing concern over the slow pace of international negotiations, the United Nations has called an extraordinary meeting of world leaders to discuss climate change … a day before the start of the U.N. General Assembly’s annual debate on September 25. … [A senior UN official said] there was ‘concern in the secretary-general’s office that Bali may not deliver positive results’ because negotiations … [had slowed.] … In December, the U.N. will hold a world summit on climate change in Bali, Indonesia … [seeking] a more comprehensive global agreement … on deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the year 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol treaty expires. … [UN officials also said] more than 2,000 representatives of non-governmental organizations … are likely to attend another three-day meeting on climate change … in New York starting Wednesday.” Haider Rivzi, “Climate change:
Leaders to debate warming at U.N.”, IPS – Inter Press Service, September 5,
2007.
484. “Negotiators in Geneva are set to resume talks on world trade Monday at the start of another crucial period for the stalled negotiations, which began in 2001 and have been on the verge of collapse for months. … Over the next two months [WTO director-general Pascal Lamy] will have to decide whether enough progress has been made in negotiations to merit a full ministerial meeting on the so-called Doha round … It remains unclear whether there will be sufficient political impetus to close a deal by the end of the year.” Stephen Castle, “WTO talks aim to
break a deadlock”, International Herald Tribune, September 1-2,
2007.
485. “Myanmar’s pro-democracy activists, students, Buddhist monks and citizens … have been staging impromptu protests since August 19, when the cancellation of fuel subsidies … [placed an unbearable burden on most of the 90% of the population living in poverty.] … Plainclothes security agents and gangs of young thugs working for the junta beat up the protesters. … [The protestors’] resoluteness should not be surprising. … But the resounding silence of the United Nations is hard to fathom. [In June] the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a [public condemnation of the government’s behavior -- its last such denunciation was during the Rwanda genocide of 1994. Myanmar’s autocratic rulers have destroyed more villages in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities than have been razed in Darfur … [UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari recently] spoke airily of dialogue and reconciliation in Myanmar … [He should be sent to meet the junta leader] and bring a clear message from the UN Security Council: that all prisoners of conscience in Myanmar must be released. … The United Nations failed to react while another vicious regime was hacking its citizens to death in Rwanda. The organization cannot afford another display of moral blindness.” “The United Nations silence on
Myanmar”, The Boston Globe, in the International Herald Tribune, September 3, 2007. [Note: on September 6,
Mr. Gambari criticized the incidents as “a setback for Myanmar”, called
for the release of political detainees, and said he could visit Myanmar
again by mid-October.]
486a. “Mathieu Koumoin refused pressure from his UNDP supervisors to steer … [$8 million to entities in France and Quebec] to address climate change in 40 African countries. Since his refusal to violate UNDP’s own procurement rules, a post-hoc negative evaluation of [his] work was prepared, and he was let go and barred from his office. He is ‘hiding out in fear’ in a small hotel in Dakar, and has just raised his case directly to the UN Ethics Office … [which purportedly prohibits] retaliation against whistleblowers in the UN system. … [Mr. Koumoin, a Cote d’Ivoire native and former African Development Bank employee, is an engineer with a PhD in development economics.] … [Meanwhile, Ban Ki-moon’s spokesperson] was asked if the UNDP whistleblower issue and [related] staff union resolutions … came up during Ban’s… [executive retreat gathering in Turin, Italy. She] stated that ‘What were discussed were much larger issues … reforms, in general … risk assessment, peace and security issues, a more integrated UN role, … communications … working with private sector partners.’ Now, with the stakes raised, … can this Secretary-General who claims to be about cleaning up the UN … continue to turn a blind eye?” Matthew Russell Lee, “In Dakar,
more retaliation by UN Development Program, climate change used for sole
source contracts”, Inner City Press, September 4,
2007.
486b. “The UN’s whistle-blowing and retaliation scandal … now shifts to the Secretary General’s own chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, … who wrote ‘on behalf of the Secretary-General’ [on July 16 to members of the US Congress] that ‘the Ethics Office must be able to conduct its work free from any interference.’ [Subsequently, however,] Ban Ki-moon said that the Ethics Office does not have jurisdiction over UNDP … [an issue which only emerged when the Ethics Office findings upheld Artjon Shkurtaj’s claims of being retaliated against.] A Washington diplomat contacted by Inner City Press but requesting anonymity because not authorized to speak -- ‘yet,’ called the difference between Nambiar’s July 16 written statement, and Ban Ki-Moon’s actions and statements a month later ‘troubling. … Somebody has to go,’ the diplomat said. ‘You can’t just lie to Congress.’ At Thursday’s noon briefing … Ban’s spokesperson … [said that issues including] the UN’s internal justice system and the jurisdiction of the Ethics Office, will be the subject of a press briefing at some undefined time in the future.” Matthew Russell Lee, “At UN, Ban’s
chief of staff told Congress to rely on Ethics Office, jurisdiction dodged
a month later”, Inner City Press, September 6, 2007. [Note: see also Mr. Lee’s article
“At the UN, promises of whistleblower protection go uncorrected, shooting
messengers”, Inner City Press, September 7, 2007.
486c. “A few members of Congress are still committed to … cleaning up the UNDP, despite considerable evidence that Dervis, Melkert, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself could hardly care less about ethics, justice, accountability and all those good things – as long as they can continue rolling in U.S. tax money. Thursday evening, Senator [Norm] Coleman … [added] an amendment (unanimously passed) to a Senate appropriations bill … [which would halt] U.S. funding to the UNDP until [it] adopts a whistleblower protection policy. And from the House, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen … [wrote] Thursday to Ban noting that ‘allowing an entity to define and instigate the sole inquiry into its own alleged wrong-doing is absurd and contrary to all international best practices.’ The letter gives a terrific recap of the banana-republic behavior of the UN and UNDP. … [On July 5 she] wrote to Ban asking him ‘to ensure that ‘the whistleblower at issue is not wronged.’ … [The issue now passes to] the UNDP executive board, which … [is about to meet and] appears to have defined itself as … exclusively in charge of a UNDP that refuses to account to the Secretary-General, to Congress, … or to anyone else.” Claudia Rosett, “Whistleblowers and the UN duplicity program”, The Rosett Report, September 7, 2007. [Note: copies of the Koumoin, Nambiar, and Ros-Lehtinen letters are available in the IO Watch Dark Sides feature UN, whistle-blowers, 2007, Part III. 487. “The [US] Senate unanimously approved legislation on June 27, 2007, that would pay the U.N. more for peacekeeping than current U.S. law allows. [Its] key sponsor, … Senator Joseph S. Biden …. [asserted] that we should not ‘fail to pay our bills’ to the United Nations. This argument misrepresents the situation and misreads history. … The core of the Helms-Biden legislation was an agreement to pay arrears … in return for lowering the U.S. assessments and adopting other reforms to address management and oversight weaknesses. … Despite some progress … reform is especially critical for U.N. peacekeeping. Numerous scandals in recent years have revealed serious flaws and problems in the management and oversight of U.N. peacekeeping operations and in the accountability and discipline of U.N. peacekeepers. These weaknesses are particularly troubling because the number, size, and cost of peacekeeping operations have increased rapidly, making more resources vulnerable to misuse or corruption. … Without fundamental reform, these problems will likely continue and expand, further undermining the U.N.’s credibility and ability to accomplish one of its primary missions: maintaining international peace and security.” Brett D. Schaefer, “Keep the cap on
U.S. contributions to U.N. peacekeeping”, The Heritage Foundation,
Backgrounder No. 2067, September
6, 2007.
[Note: the article provides a detailed analysis of this central UN
operational issue – see particularly pages 6 ff. on
“Reneging on peacekeeping reform” – at www.heritage.org, under “Search”, then “Brett D. Schaefer No.
2067”.]
488. “If America and Iran are intent on really talking each other into a fight, the rest of the world can do little to prevent it. But there are ways to avoid the chances of a war by accident. … Since July 2006 the Security Council has passed three binding resolutions ordering Iran to stop enriching uranium until it shows that … its nuclear intentions are peaceful. … [But] Iran has ignored the UN. …The rest of the world should also inject more backbone into the IAEA. … Iran and the IAEA have just announced a new understanding on future co-operation. It is a dreadful one … [allowing] Iran to drip-feed information. … IAEA head Mohamed] ElBaradei’s argument is that it is better to let Iran continue limited work under close supervision. … Mr. Bush’s approach to Iran has long been flawed … perhaps [confirming Iran’s] hostility and reinforc[ing] its desire for a bomb. … [America’s, Iran’s, and the Middle East’s] own interest … would probably be better served if they explored the possibility of some sort of grand bargain. … The region would be a good deal safer if the rest of the world did more to disabuse them.” “America and Iran: The other
struggle in the Gulf”, The Economist, September 8th, p.
14.
489. “When fighting erupted at the end of August between the Congolese army and a renegade [Tutsi] general, Laurent Nkunda … alarm bells began to ring all over the region. … Unless governments … cooperate to dampen the flames – with help from the UN, whose 17,000 troops in Congo are the body’s biggest peacekeeping force in the world – the conflict could reignite, and spread. … Last year things seemed to be improving … [after Joseph] Kabila won an election and promised as a priority to bring peace to Congo’’s troubled East. … But then, [says a Congolese official,] “Nkunda was able to enlarge his territory, and the killings, the rapes, this whole nightmare, started.” … The UN has promised to help Congo’s pretty ineffective army with logistics, but will not fight on its side. … Talks failed to address General Nkunda at all. … [A Nkunda ally says] ‘If things blow up here, do you really believe that Rwanda is going to stand there with its arms crossed? They’ll come.’ If he is right, it is grim news for Congo – and for all its eastern peoples.” “Congo: Will it blow up again?”, The Economist, September 8th, 2007, p. 42.
490a. ”In 2006, … [US officials began investigating whistleblower claims of significant problems in UN Development Program] activities in North Korea. After months of UNDP obfuscation, the U.S. led an effort to suspend those activities] and convinced Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to call for an independent audit … which confirmed the allegations. UNDP fired the whistleblower in March 2007. The U.N. Ethics office subsequently concluded that the firing was retaliatory. The UNDP has rejected the conclusions, …, arguing that [the Office] lacked jurisdiction to investigate the case. … General Ban Ki-moon has sided with the UNDP. … [which eventually] announced that it would ‘arrange an additional … external review.’ … [Until Mr. Ban] shows leadership and managerial skills to resolve this issue, the U.N.’s ‘flagship development agency’ (which has received more than a billion dollars from U.S. taxpayers over the past decade) will continue to operate with impunity and without accountability. … [The US Senate passed an appropriations] … bill prohibiting disbursement of U.S. funds to the UNDP until it adopts and implements a whistleblower protection policy. … Congress and the administration should simultaneously demand that Ban implement a consistent, system-wide code of ethics subject to investigation by the Ethics Office.” Brett D. Schaeffer, “U.N.
Secretary-General’s lack of leadership undermines accountability”, The
Heritage Foundation, web memo No. 1611, September 12, 2007. [Note: the article gives an excellent
summary of this key UN accountability issue, and points out the weaknesses
in the positions taken by UNDP leaders and Mr. Ban. The full article is available at
www.heritage.org, at “Search” under “Brett D.
Schaeffer, lack of leadership”, then click on “print” for the
pdf.] 490b. “As recently as last March, the top legal officer of the [UNDP] warned the organization not to punish a whistleblower who exposed UNDP’s controversial dealings in North Korea ‘because he is a resource person for an independent review of a potential explosive matter for UNDP.’ The advice was ignored. … Since then, the UNDP has continued its hardline stance. … The head of UNDP, Kemal Dervis, [has] announced that a three person panel … would look into the whistleblower allegations and other aspects of UNDP’s behavior in North Korea. Dervis said he hoped the panel would report by December. … The legal memo … dated March 13, 2007, …was written by James Provenzano, at that time the … equivalent of UNDP’s general counsel. …[It] underlined that ‘the Organization would not take any actions that could be misconstrued as ‘retaliatory.’ … Instead, [Artjon] Skhurtaj’s contract was allowed to expire and various attempts were made to ban him from U.N. headquarters. ... [Provenzano was] replaced by a junior legal official … [and] is currently head of the UNDP procurement service … He declined to make any comment about the legal opinion.” George Russell, “Secret legal memo
urges U.N. Development office to rehire whistleblower”, Fox News, September 12, 2007. [Note: the new
three-member UNDP panel is composed of three hand-picked senior- level
dignitaries, none of whom, it seems, is an auditor.] 491. “The anti-corruption drive led by Paul Wolfowitz … [at] the World Bank, which roiled the institution and contributed to his downfall, should be overhauled to make it more effective and remove distrust of bank employees. … [A panel led by Paul Volcker] said that corruption remained a major problem at the institution. … ‘The World Bank Group needs strong leadership up and down the line and a coordinated effort against corruption’, Volcker said. ‘It must not only do more to expose corruption in particular projects, but as important, build safeguards against future abuse of its operations.’ … Volcker said … that the follow-up of corruption charges was ‘cumbersome’ and ‘slipshod.’ He said the most important recommendation of the report … was that the bank create a system for taking follow-up actions after corruption charges were lodged. In addition, an independent panel of outsiders not beholden to the president and his staff should be involved in overseeing that process. … Robert Zoellick, who succeeded Wolfowitz … welcomed the Volcker report and said its proposals were similar to ones that he had intended to adopt himself … [and] that he would act [soon] on them and those of Volcker’s panel.” Stephen R. Weisman, “World Bank
must fight graft better, panel says”, International Herald Tribune,
September 13, 2007. [Note: Corruption
problems, strong leadership needed, safeguards against abuse, follow-up
actions, independent outsiders? It all sounds like a replay
of the Volcker report on the UN oil-for-food scandal of 2005. But, in this case the World Bank promises to act
decisively, whereas Kofi Annan’s UN only buried and forgot similar Volcker
reform proposals, as clearly shown by the current UNDP obstruction of
decisive investigation of corruption charges in North Korea and
elsewhere.]
492. “Next week, … Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will preside over the … [UN General Assembly’s] general debate. This occasion is as good as any for a periodic assessment of Mr. Ban’s performance. His instincts on most global issues remain sound. … While he is frustrated by the United Nations’ internal ethics, and financial and staffing failures, … [he] dedicates most of his time to … international diplomacy. … Where his predecessor, Kofi Annan, commented too quickly on every top news item in the press, attempting to assure the United Nations centrality in global affairs, Mr. Ban is much more selective. … [His] diplomatic success, as in Sudan, may end up overshadowing … missteps. His most glaring failure to date, on the other hand, remains his inability to rein in the U.N. bureaucracy. … [The UN now has] an ethics office to protect whistleblowers. … [But Mr. Ban has allowed UN agency heads] to dictate the terms and run circles around him. It is hard to imagine how his success in the diplomatic arena, where he depends so much on a scandal-free United Nations, will last if Mr. Ban does not tackle internal issues with more vigor soon.” Benny Avni, “First general debate
for new U.N. chief”, The New York Sun, September 17,
2007.
493. “The UN Ethics Office, … [created to protect UN system staff] from retaliation for whistle-blowing, is said be moving toward the opposite. … Mathieu Koumoin, who on September 4 wrote to the Ethics Office with evidence … [of his dismissal from UNDP] after complaining about diversion of funds away from Africa, … [has received a strange letter from Ethics Office director Robert Benson.] … [He recites a decidedly slanted timeline, and that] Koumoin complained within UNDP and to the UN Joint Appeals Board, as an excuse to not even address if a prima facie case of retaliation exists. This is an abdication of the Ethics Office mandate. It is also inconsistent with what Mr. Benson did just a month ago … [in finding a prima facie case of retaliation] in the case of UNDP’s North Korea whistleblower Tony Shkurtaj. … [It seems] a system rigged for retaliators. If the Ethics Office finds that the complainant was retaliated against, it does nothing. If it does not make that find, it issues a letter that the respondent agency can use. Tails you lose, heads I win, from UNDP’s perspective. ... A new low, it seems, for the UN Ethics Office.” Matthew Russell Lee, “UN Ethics
Office becomes ‘rigged for retaliators’, new memo reflects”, Inner City
Press, September 17,
2007. [Note:
see also item 486a.]
494a. “The Bush administration’s proposed 2008 budget cuts … US aid spending to areas like health care, education and child welfare by 31 percent … [while kicking] 27 percent more money into the U.S. State Department’s economic-support fund. That means America will use more dollars to make friends and to compete in the developing world with Beijing. … Important strategic U.S. allies like Uzbekistan, Libya and Pakistan … are likely to benefit. ... But a Democratic senator says the cost is too high, [and would take] money, power, control, and expertise away from the one agency in the U.S. government’ devoted to fighting global poverty. … [USAID’s] child-survival program could shrink by 9 percent and its famine program by 18 percent.” 494b. “345 -- Millions of dollars Ted Turner is short of on his 1997 pledge of $1 billion to the U.N. by 2007.” “Periscope: The new US politics of
aid”, [and more bad funding news], Newsweek International, September 17th, 2007,
p. 4. 494c. “NATO is backing away from establishing a … [Response Force of 25,000 soldiers for six-month rotations of land, air, naval or special forces] … for all the missions that NATO, the EU, the UN and others need for missions around the world’, [a spokesman said.] … [NATO] has sent 40,000 soldiers to Afghanistan and 17,000 are still in Kosovo, nine years after they deployed.] A NATO country that sends peacekeeping forces is obliged to pay for the troops … [which] is a heavy burden for [major troop contributors such as Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands.] … ‘The reality is that NATO and the EU are chasing after the same highly skilled soldier … There is now immense strain on the defense plans of NATO and the EU’, [an expert said. Another observed that] … NATO and EU missions are hampered by low defense budgets among almost all the states of both organizations. … [A third] said there were few signs that … finance ministries were willing to increase spending.” Judy Dempsey, “Alliance retreats on
creation of crack force”, International Herald Tribune, September 21,
2007.
494d. “The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria begins a donor meeting in Berlin … [with] a dire warning from UNAIDS about a lack of resources. … [A UNAIDS report] said global funding for HI/AIDS prevention and treatment must be more than quadrupled over the next three years to 42.2 billion dollars to stop the pandemic worsening. … It expects to collect pledges of seven to eight billion in Berlin. … The Global Fund was set up five yars ago … and claims to have saved two million lives by giving medicine to AIDS and tuberculosis sufferers and distributing mosquito nets in malaria-infested areas.” “Global Fund tries to rally donors
on AIDS at Berlin meeting”, Yahoo! News, September 25, 2007. [Note: As the above articles
indicate, the UN has to struggle more and more to raise billions for its
programs, and more donors are now working outside UN channels (see the
next three items). Further,
the Global Fund meeting disclosed a major dispute over concern that
funding for a few high-profile diseases risks undermining basic health
systems and services in developing countries, as discussed in Andrew Jack,
“Symptom to system: How aid skews health services,” Financial Times,
FT.com, 27 September
2007.
495a. “China plans to plough at least $5 [billion] … into rehabilitating infrastructure and mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo in what would be one of its most ambitious ventures in sub-Saharan Africa, Congolese officials yesterday said. … In an initial phase, the Chinese would be repaid in copper and cobalt … but the deal also envisages concessions in nickel and gold … If the funds are disbursed, they would make Congo one of the top recipients of Chinese investment in Africa as Beijing drives to secure mineral and other commodities to fuel its booming domestic economy. Congo was hoping to enter similar agreements with Brazil and India, [said a Congolese spokesman.] ‘We are not putting all our future in the hands of the Chinese.’ … Concerns over corruption and the implementation of economic reforms have held up some of the billions of dollars earmarked for reconstruction by traditional donors.” William Wallis, “China to invest
$5bn in Congo”, The Financial Times (UK), September 19,
2007.
495b. “The $5 billion that China is plunking down promises a great leap forward for Congo, … with about 3,200 kilometers of new rail lines and an equivalent amount of new roads, … [plus] 31 hospitals and 145 smaller health care centers … [and] two large new universities. Most of this will be accomplished in a mere 36 months. … Congo stands to experience more progress …. than it has in 47 years of independence from Belgium. … The move is impressive on many levels, … [especially] the immense vacuum in Africa that [the Chinese] are moving to fill ... not merely to facilitate extraction of [the world’s richest assortment of minerals] … [but] redrawing the economic map in central and southern Africa, linking the copper zone of the south with … [ports] and redirecting other portions of the country’s huge mineral potential to Chinese-built networks in Zambia and Angola. … China’s mastery of infrastructure is unquestioned, but can there be lasting development … without political development … strong civil societies … books or … medicines? Africa, sadly, has plenty of experience with this question, and nowhere more so than in Congo, where [ambitious] foreigners … have visited before.” Howard W. French, “The Chinese and
Congo take a giant leap of faith”, International Herald Tribune, September 22-23,
2007.
495c. “[Bill Clinton has] … transformed himself into one of the hottest brands in the booming business of giving away money. … The Clinton Foundation is now a global organization … [that both fights] HIV/AIDS, poverty and climate change, and also helps other philanthropists develop programmes of their own. … [He espouses] a businesslike approach to giving money … [by] ‘bleeding-heart cheapskates’ [who] are not naïve, they don’t want to waste a lot of money, they like low administrative overhead, they measure pretty ruthlessly for return.’ … The Clinton Global Initiative, launched in 2005, … is still only in its early stages. The CGI’s 1,000 participants – 65% from business – must pledge some good work, which they must accomplish or show progress towards … Most honor their pledges … [and] he says 14 people were not allowed back last year.’ … There have been nearly 600 [pledges] so far, worth almost $10 billion. … Mr. Clinton insists he will continue his philanthropic work even if he becomes [US] First Spouse, though … he would have to be more transparent [to avoid favoritism charges.] But given the power of Mr. Clinton’s personal brand, that transparency may be a price worth paying.” “Face value: The brand of Clinton”,
The Economist, September 22d, 2007, p. 75.
496. “The World Bank and the United Nations announced Monday … a system to help developing nations recover assets stolen and sent abroad by corrupt leaders that amount to an estimated $40 billion a year. … The problem is widespread, but most acute in Africa where an estimated 25 percent of the gross national product of states is lost to corruption, the [World Bank] said. The approach … [seeks to build] the capacity of developing countries to track stolen money … [and assist financial centers to] better detect and deter money laundering. … Ngozi Okonjo-Iwaela, the former finance minister of Nigeria who oversaw the return of $505 million to her country from Switzerland, said the new plan would help … by denying corrupt officials a foreign place to hide the money. … [She said the Nigerian] campaign had to be … [bilateral] and did not produce timely results. … The UN Convention Against Corruption … [of 2005] obliges countries that signed it to cooperate. However, … [98 countries have] not signed, including Canada, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, and Switzerland. ‘Part of our advocacy role will be to urge countries that are not parties to become parties’, Okonjo-Iwaela said.” Warren Hoge, “Helping nations
retrieve corrupt leaders’ booty”, International Herald Tribune, September 18,
2007.
497a. “The United Nations-sponsored Khmer Rouge tribunal in … [Cambodia was created] after nearly a decade of acrimonious negotiations … [as] a ‘hybrid’ structure that combines international and Cambodian law, and employs a mix of Cambodian and international judges, lawyers, and staff. The U.N. agreed to let Cambodian judges play a decisive and indeed dominant role. … That was a big bet on a notoriously corrupt, inefficient and poorly administered judicial system. Cambodian judges, quite simply, [cannot] antagonize the ruling political party. … Unsurprisingly, serious problems are now cropping up. … The tribunal has … failed to adequately address allegations that [in a $13.3 million budget] United Nations Development Program funds … are being siphoned off as kickbacks. … [Further outsider questions about hiring practices led UNDP to hire] a Malaysian company … to conduct an independent special audit [in early 2007.] The results of that audit, [addressing only hiring practices], have been vigorously suppressed by the UNDP and the tribunal. … The UN is a public institution, funded by public moneys. … If [UNDP doesn’t make the audit public], the justice that the Cambodian people have waited over 30 years to obtain may, in the end, mean very little.” John A. Hall, “Yet another U.N.
scandal”, Wall Street Journal, September 21,
2007. 497b. “The complete details of an audit examining … [UNDP’s lack of oversight of the Khmer Rouge war-crimes tribunal] haven’t fully come to light yet. But we’ve seen an early draft of the independent audit. … It isn’t pretty. … The auditors discovered inflated salaries and significantly increased staffing levels … [many] unqualified workers appointed without competitive hiring practices … [and refusal of access] to the personnel files of 28 [Cambodian] staffers. … The auditors [generally concluded that the] … hiring practices, overseen by the UNDP, are so flawed that the UNDP should consider starting from scratch. That’s a strong finding. … There could be more to come. In February, the Open Society Justice Initiative called for an investigation into allegations of kickbacks paid by Cambodian judges and court officials to their superiors. If true, that goes to the heart of the court’s credibility. … The draft audit did not address these charges. … So what exactly did the final audit say? Only the UNDP – and the Cambodian government – know. Even the [Project Board] was not allowed to see the final audit report. … So much for the UNDP’s responsibility to the European and U.S. taxpayers putting up the money.” “Cash for Cambodians”, The
Wall Street Journal, September 25, 2007. 497c. “On Tuesday, the Cambodian side of the [Khmer Rouge] tribunal posted the final audit report on its Web site for all to see. … Contrast this with the approach of the UNDP, which has maintained a stony silence. … [The report does not cover the allegations of kickbacks, but it does include both sides’] comments. The UNDP says salaries ‘should be reviewed’ … [and] that ‘serious lapses in the recruitment process have taken place.’ The Cambodians … disagree. … The problems described in the audit may never be solved. … While the UNDP administers most of the funding for the Cambodian side of the court, it doesn’t have the power to hire and fire staffers. The auditors’ strongest recommendation – that the UNDP consider withdrawing from the project if the problems aren’t fixed, and fire everyone and start over again if it decides to stay – are rejected by both sides. Translation: the auditors’ most important findings may never be seriously addressed.” “UNDP comes clean”, The Wall
Street Journal, October 4, 2007.
498a. “A powerful group of U.N. member states … [is discussing] whether to push for the removal of the … [Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organization] over allegations of impropriety and a culture of mismanagement at the organization, officials said. … Sudan-born Kamil Idris has been under fire since a [1996] internal report found he had claimed his year of birth as 1945 when he applied to join the agency, then changed it to 1954 last year. The earlier date would have helped him get his first job at WIPO in 1982 and subsequent promotions, … [while] the later birth date could enhance his retirement benefits, the report said. … [Another recent external audit] described a chaotic staffing situation at WIPO with employees taking unreasonable amounts of sick leave [and] having low morale. Western diplomats are keen to restore confidence in WIPO, which is viewed as an increasingly important [UN system organization] because of the growing economic value countries place on copyrights, patents, and other means of protecting intellectual property. WIPO is unique because it achieves a multimillion dollar (euro) surplus by charging fees on patent registrations and other commercial services, rather than having member states paying operating costs.” Frank Jordans, “UN patent chief under pressure to
step down as age issue resurfaces”, Associated
Press, September 21 2007. 498b. “[In a showdown over misconduct at high levels at WIPO,] one of the whistleblowers is none other than [US] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. [Her State Department cable] … states that WIPO under [Kamil] Idris ‘has experienced multiple scandals in recent years,’ … [and that a 2006 internal audit report] concluded Idris ‘had violated WIPO staff rules and ethical standards by using two different dates of birth …for personal gain.’ The cable noted that ‘Idris has been involved in previous dubious activities at WIPO’ … [Earlier] allegations of fraud surfaced in connection with WIPO [building renovation] as well as Idris’s purchase for personal use of a villa on the outskirts of Geneva …(currently listed on a Swiss real-estate website as for sale at a price of … $13.6 million.) That flap led to an [‘incomplete’ external review of WIPO in 2005 with a caveat] that new facts might emerge in a criminal investigation that was opened by Swiss authorities. [The external report did] report finding management ‘weaknesses’ at WIPO ‘which might lead to irregularities being committed’ … a growing number of [improper] short-term and consultancy contracts … and signs of ‘frustration’ and ‘fear’ among the WIPO staff.” Claudia Rosett, “Dating yourself: Fear and
frustration in Geneva”, National Review, nationalreview.com, September 23,
2007. 498c. “WIPO was unable to begin its General Assembly Monday after African and Asian countries blocked attempts to include on the agenda a discussion [pressed by U.S. and European diplomats] over whether [Director-General Kimal Idris] acted improperly. … Idris has always denied he tried to profit from the age change. … “When there are allegations swirling about of judgement, integrity and character … then it makes it more difficult to continue in that position’, [U.S. Ambassador Warren Tichenor] said. An official delegation from the European Union on Thursday handed Idris a strongly worded letter suggesting he step down to avoid further damage to the organization’s credibility. He declined to answer questions from the Associated Press.” “Standoff ensues at UN patent agency over scrutiny of
chief’s age”, Associated Press, live-PR.com,
September 24,
2007. 498d. “[WIPO] could face two years of deadlock after the U.S. and European countries blocked its $537 million biennial budget, while developing countries fiercely defended the agency’s top official. … The U.S., the 27-nation E.U., Switzerland and other wealthy countries challenged Idris to answer the inconsistencies at WIPO’s annual assembly, which ended Wednesday. But Idris failed to show up for any sessions focused on the alleged infractions, and WIPO’s large Islamic and African bloc prevented any follow-up to the [2006] audit report’s findings. … The U.S. is examining a range of responses if WIPO member states continue to protect Idris … [including] possible withdrawal … [but more likely] ‘evaluate its relationship with WIPO’ if the assembly failed to deliver an agreement. … The Brazilian ambassador said rejection of the budget would not be devastating to the agency because its rules stipulate that current financial outlays can be carried over until agreement is reached.” “UN patent agency may face deadlock after budget
blocked,” Associated Press, October 4,
2007. 498e. “European diplomats said the … [blockage of the 2008-2009 Wipo budget] was ‘a vote of no confidence’ in Wipo’s leadership. [Mr.] Idris has incensed his critics by trying to suppress the internal auditor’s report and refusing to defend himself publicly at the annual meeting, as the US and others had demanded. Industrialised countries now plan to call an emergency meeting of Wipo’s 184 member states to discuss selection of a new director-general, in an effort to keep the pressure on Mr. Idris to resign. Western diplomats … said the budget vote of 44 against to 64 in favour showed they could muster enough support to block important decisions in the organization, which require a two-thirds majority.” Frances Williams, “West puts pressure on Wipo chief”,
The Financial Times (UK), October 4,
2007. 498f. “Switzerland … this week issued a call for an immediate search for a new leader of [WIPO] in order to address concerns of mismanagement and lack of credibility … in an unusually blunt press statement. … As host to many international organisations, Switzerland in its governance follows principles of transparency, integrity and reliability at organizations, it said. Therefore, Switzerland said all appropriate measures should be taken to restore the organisation’s credibility.” William New, “Switzerland urges immediate search for
new WIPO Director General”, Intellectual Property
Watch, 5
October 2007. [Note: An
extreme case of international officials’ insistence on impunity rather
than accountability, which will certainly continue to evolve (or
deteriorate), and have negative reverberations throughout the UN
system.]
499a. “The United Nations 62d General Assembly opens today and the genocide continues in Darfur. Sudan’s Islamist regime has caused the death of more than 400,000 people and displaced 2.5 million, yet Sudan remains a member of the UN in good standing. It’s darkly ironic that the UN was founded in 1945 … ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.’ But nowadays the UN has strayed … far from its founding ideals. Like his predecessors, Mr. [Ban] Ki-Moon is obsessed with neutrality, impartiality, and the equal treatment of all UN states, even if they commit genocide. He prefers refuge in a make-believe world. … Security Council Resolution 1769, passed in July, has been hailed as a great step forward. … [But it] has no mandate to seize weapons or halt air attacks on civilians. It introduces a hybrid joint African Union-UN command structure that will inevitably lead to confusion. Sudan’s insistence that most troops be African will also cause further delay. So today, as every day, Mr. Ki-Moon and the UN dither and the carnage in Darfur continues. But perhaps we should no longer be surprised that the United Nations is unable to confront those involved in genocide.” Adam LeBor, “Time to confront Darfur”, The New York Sun, September 21,
2007. [Note: Mr. Lebor is the
author of “Complicity with evil: The United Nations in the age of modern
genocide” (see the IO Watch Dark Sides feature on UN, genocide, 2006.]
499b. “Srgjan Kerim [of Macedonia, the] incoming president of the General Assembly, … says [bureaucracy] is stifling the UN. … Apart from attacking bureaucratic sclerosis, Mr. Kerim also wants to … revitalize [the Assembly,] a body he believes has lapsed into a forum for defending narrow national interests rather than promoting global solutions. He plans to tell the General Assembly that the focus of its general debate must be reviewed. ‘Why should a general debate always be a series of monologues? We must deal with substance,’ [he says.] ‘I see that as a process where the GA will come back to its central position from which it’s been derailed over years and decades.’ The test case he has identified is climate change, which Ban Ki-moon has also identified as the most crucial challenge facing the 62d session. … Toward the end of the year he wants to invite [dignitaries] … to a panel on how to proceed ‘and to ask the secretary-general to prepare a climate road map until 2012 and beyond. We have to create events if we want to be relevant,’ he said. ‘Often events happen and we just try to catch up.’” Harvey Morris, “New leader of UN assembly to
revitalise policy”, Financial Times (UK), September 22-23,
2007.
[Note: An excellent diagnosis, but
providing only the usual feeble corrective “talk-talk” plan, as other
reform-minded GA-presidents-for-a-year have come to discover.]
499c. “The much-celebrated [Sudan peace] treaty that ended decades of civil war between the north and south, a model the United Nations is hoping to use to stop bloodshed in the Darfur region to the west, is at an impasse and in danger of collapsing, say international experts and officials from both sides. … [The 2005 peace accord ended] the longest-running civil war in Africa. It had killed an estimated 2.2 million people – 10 times as many as the violence in Darfur. … The two sides are deadlocked over the toughest issues the treaty was supposed to solve: how to draw the north-south border; how to change a very militarized government; and how to split Sudan’s booming oil profits. … The perennial question in Sudan is whether the relatively few [Northern] Arabs … will share power and wealth with the rest of the diverse population. … [This discord does not] bode well for the United Nations. … In Abyei, … [a huge UN force] is corralled behind barbed wire because neither the government nor the rebels will allow it to patrol freely. ‘Our job has been hindered massively,’ said the head of the UN mission in Abyei. ” Jeffrey Gettleman, “A path ‘back toward war’ in
Sudan: The treaty to end the north-south civil war is near collapse”, International Herald Tribune, September 22-23,
2007.
499d. “What exactly has the UN accomplished this week while jamming up local traffic … [in New York]? Absolutely nothing of substance has been achieved in the way of stopping terrorist-regime nuclear programs, dealing with any of the other assorted threats to democracy and humanity worldwide, promoting peace, freedom or delivering a better life to anyone except UN dignitaries – who, when I dropped by the Waldorf-Astoria [hotel] last evening, were on parade with their retinues, all in their evening finery, enroute to another set of post-shopping banquets and haute cuisine blowouts in NY. … The UN envoy dispatched post-haste to protect the beleaguered dissident monks of Burma has reportedly ended up stranded amid the luxuries of a Singapore hotel … And Ban Ki-moon has devoted his time to trying to persuade the free countries of the world to sign on to a UN-orchestrated experiment in central planning under the label of addressing climate change (the UN can’t even audit its own books, but it is proposing to manage the world’s weather) for which this same gang of UN worthies will jet to a UN pow-wow in December, on Bali.” Claudia Rosett, “This is getting personal”, The Rosett Report, September 28,
2007.
500. “A decade ago, the International Monetary Fund helped to stabilize the world economy after markets collapsed in Latin America, Russia and Asia. … [New IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn faces] a global chorus calling on the fund to rethink its priorities and its governance. … [The IMF] has lost operating income, is running a deficit, and is facing staff cuts and considering the sale of gold to meet expenses. Beyond these difficulties is the question of whether an institution established in the 1940’s has a role to play in an era when trillions of dollars flow across borders every day. … [There is also] widespread unhappiness and embarrassment … over the clubby nature of the [European-dominated] process. … A Russian fund director said ‘It is an open secret that the fund is barely alive. … The traditional modus operandi of the fund – you need our money, we tell you what to do – is gone.’ If the fund concentrates solely on monitoring the econo | |||
