Overview of IO Watch Archive Quotes IX,

July - August  2007

438a.    “The first report on the corporate response to the UN ‘s seven-year old partnership with companies, the Global Compact, said there was ‘much room for advancement” on corporate assessments of their impact on human rights, reporting cases of corruption, and in overseeing their suppliers’ compliance. …

The 60-page survey of about 400 companies marks the first time the United Nations has tried to assess the implementation of its 10 principles by the Compact’s near 4,000 strong corporate members. …

The Compact’s Executive Director, George Kell, told journalists companies had initially joined … [for public relations purposes.]  ‘That has fundamentally changed …’, he argued, underlining the increasing business risk involved in transgressions, and the growing implication of top level management in overseeing proper standards.  We delisted 600 participants last year …”, he added.”

“Corporate world struggles with UN social standards”, Yahoo! News, July 1, 2007.     [Note:  So the Global Compact, once known as “Kofi Annan’s Global Compact,” displays a UN with severe human rights, labor rights, anti-corruption, and “supplier” (procurement) problems of its own, piously lecturing others on these very same matters.  But the Global Compact participants are increasingly uneasy with this annual talkfest (see the following entries.)]

438b.    “When the Global Compact launched in 2000 … it had 47 … stakeholders.  Today the number has soared to more than 4,000 participants, expected at the Geneva meeting.

‘It is about trust building … about networking opportunities … about collective learning’ … George Kell … told IPS. …  Still, there are more than 70,000 multinational companies in the world, plus countless small and medium businesses. …

But not every company is … generous or progressive. … [A GC spokesman said] ‘Those companies, especially in the early days, just … became a GC participant.  And there was never any follow-up.’ …

The initiative is voluntary and not legally binding, but there is a complaint mechanism. … [The spokesman] stresses that the Global Compact’s … goal is to engage the corporate ‘sinners’ and encourage them to reform.”

Nergui Manalsuren, “Global Compact expands, impact still hazy”, Inter Press Service, July 3, 2007.

438c.    “Four leading non-governmental organizations have urged the United Nations to set binding rules on corporate responsibility, saying existing standards are a ‘mockery.’ … The Berne Declaration, Greenpeace, Amnesty International and ActionAid … said the Global Compact lacked credibility because it was not legally binding. 

‘We have denounced this accord from the very beginning as a fig leaf for its corporate signatories’ … [said a spokesperson.  He] … said the lack of accountability damaged both the image of the UN and harmed the development of effective international standards for corporate social responsibility. ‘At the global level today, there exists no effective protection for workers, consumers or the environment.’

George Kell … admitted last month that firms in the United States had been slow to join [the Global Compact] because of perceptions that it had no teeth.”

                                    “UN challenged over business ethics”, Swissinfo, July 5, 2007.

438d.    “Companies rank Lions Club International the best non-governmental organization worldwide with which to work, according to ratings [on accountability, adaptability, communication, and execution] compiled by the Financial Times, in association with Dalberg Global Development Advisers and the United Nations Global Compact. …

The assessment … highlights companies’ growing interest in long-term partnerships to tackle an expanding range of social issues. … [They] attempt to increase transparency, accountability and evaluation in the fast-growing world of non-profits … [to] provide ‘information about those [partners] which are successful.’ … However, many NGOs are ambivalent about the Global Compact.

[A table ranking 34 (out of 42) global organization partners found, as a note of reality in all the Global Compact hubbub, UN agencies placed in the mid- to lower-range:  13-14, Unesco, FAO; 16, UNHCR; 18, UNICEF; 23, ILO; 26-28 WFP, UNEP, and – last -- UNDP – with UNDP being the most resource-rich agency (and also the most self-congratulatory, as discussed elsewhere in these late 2006 and 2007 Overview Quotes.)]”

Andrew Jack and Frances Williams, “Companies rank Lions Club best NGO” and “Corporate citizenship and philanthrophy”, pp. 14-15, Financial Times (UK), July 5, 2007.

438e.    “The world’s business schools should be more proactive in promoting corporate social responsibility in their teaching programs, according to the United Nations Global Compact initiative … which this week urged academics to adopt a proposed set of principles on responsible management education … and incorporate ‘universal values’. …

[The principles include those of: Purpose …; Values … ‘as portrayed in international initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact’ ; Method …; Research …; Partnership …; and Dialogue … on critical issues related to global social responsibility and sustainability.

A … study for the Global Compact by McKinsey & Co. found that ‘more than 90% of CEO’s are doing more than they did five years ago to incorporate environmental, social, and governance issues into strategy and operations’ … but only 50% think their firms actually [achieve this .]”

Steve McGookin, “U.N. calls for education in corporate responsibility”, Forbes (US), July 6, 2007.

438f.     “[In Geneva on Thursday, the UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon told more than 1,000 delegates [to a UN-sponsored meeting] that they should widely promote the Global Compact principles.

‘Ensure that your boards, subsidiaries and supply chain partners use the Compact as both a management guide and a moral compass,’ he said. …

However, human rights and other groups are unsure how much the Global Compact can actually deliver, with some saying that it needs to be strengthened while others see it as deflecting attention from other key UN norm setting bodies.  Some groups also complain that the principles are only voluntary.”

John Zarocostas, “’Sea change’ in attitudes at summit session”, International Herald Tribune, July 6, 2007.    [Note:  If only the UN would also dig out – or finally discover -- and apply its own “moral compass.”]

438g.    “The United Nations’ … successful wooing of global businesses to deliberate, and even embrace, U.N. policies is a stunning feat of bureaucratic entrepreneurship. 

[Two of the Global Compact’s 10 principles are on human rights] and the Global Compact refers to the high commissioner on human rights.  [Unfortunately, the new U.N. Human Rights Council], in a wide world of human rights abuses, can find them in only two countries: Israel and, to a much lesser extent, Sudan. …

For the [minority of American] corporations that participate [in the Compact], the benefit is supposedly public relations, particularly for corporations with spotty records on labor and the environment.  Many companies do mention their participation and link to the Global Compact only at secondary locations on their Web sites. …

More than a few investors must be left mystified about corporate judgment.  Surely there are many ways to address public relations problems without descending to the level of a mere stakeholder at the United Nations.”

Harold Furchtgott-Roth, “The U.N.’s problematic ‘Global Compact’”, New York Sun,  July 9, 2007.    [Note: For more details on the Compact, see Global Compact hypocrisy in the IO Watch archives.  For more Geneva palaver and then an incisive view of the underlying motivations, see the following five items.]

439a.    “[The Conference of United Nations NGOs (CONGO) at the Civil Society Development Forum held in Geneva, co-hosted by the U.N. Millennium Campaign] … was clear on what has been missing so far in the development dialogue – a ‘human rights approach’ to poverty and hunger. …

‘We want full involvement of civil society in … the process leading up to the Doha 2008 Review Conference on Financing for Development’ was the strongest recommendation  … and will most definitely act as a prologue to [U.N. ECOSOC’s] annual ministerial review taking place in Geneva this week.  …

[The forum rapporteur said that]  while there was little doubt that the U.N. remained an ‘indispensable pillar of the world order’ there were imperfections which seemed more pronounced than ever before.  For a reform in the U.N. system and to make it more efficient, the voice of the civil society needed to be heard.”

Zofeen Ebrahim, “NGOs demand human rights approach to poverty”, Inter Press Service, July 2, 2007.

439b.    “Halfway through a 15-year global development plan, millions of people are being lifted out of dire poverty and millions of children are going to school, but the world is failing to sufficiently cut hunger, maternal mortality and infant death rates, the United Nations said Monday.

Progress in reaching the Millennium Development Goals. set by global leaders in 2000 … has so far been mixed, the UN report card says.

            Some countries like China, have made great strides. … But success has remained elusive in other places, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where no country is on track to meet goals of halving extreme poverty, ensuring universal primary education or stemming the AIDS pandemic by 2015.”

“UN report says fight on poverty is lagging”, Associated Press, July 3, 2007.

[Note: for fresh strategic approaches, see the next item and 442a-c  below.]

439c.    “[In September 2000] the world’s leaders … [made grand promises] … translated into eight “Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s).  July 7 is officially the halfway point between setting the goals and reaching the 2015 deadline.

Sadly, the UN family is better at making goals than meeting them.  [In 1977, safe water and sanitation, postponed in 1990 to 2000; in 1978 “health for all” by 2000; in 1990 universal primary schooling --  all not yet achieved.  A UN official] … worries that the pledges the UN mints so easily may become a ‘debased currency.’ …

The goals … are meant to convert worthy aspirations into quantifiable commitments, against which governments can be judged. But only 57 out of 163 developing countries have counted the poor more than once since 1990.  Ninety-two have not counted them at all. …

[Estimates of cutting infant and maternal mortality] are too vague to track trends over time or to make meaningful comparisons between countries, the UN laments. … 

The numerical targets are … not a global totting up … country by country.  Far from it.  China, for example, had more or less halved poverty … by the time that goal was set in 2000.” 

“Briefing: The Millennium Development Goals: The eight commandments”, The Economist, July 7^th, 2007, pp. 25-28.    [Note: Most of the article discusses significant potential in community-based and governmental poverty reduction programs within countries, not in viewing development as an “engineering problem … to pour money in one end of the MDG pipeline and then count the tubewells and school enrolments emerging from the other.”

439d.    “ … The millennium bash secured global agreement on what matters.  That is not nothing.   But impoverished countries have to start where they are, not where summiteers might wish them to be.  Aid money cannot bridge that gap, and the custodians of the MDGs should not pretend otherwise.”

 “Leaders: Global poverty: Are we nearly there yet?:  Midway through, the UN’s drive against poverty remains half crusade and half charade”, The Economist, July 7^th, 2007, pp. 12-13.]        

440.      ”Please try to contain your excitement, but yes, it’s true … In Geneva today, with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presiding, the UN launched yet another ‘high-level’ development thingamabob --- the ‘Development Cooperation Forum,’ which will hold its first biennial grand pow-wow in NY in 2008.

Well, I guess Ban had to do it, otherwise the UN system might have been stuck trying to squeak by with only … [a list of 24 existing UN system development forums follows.]

And what will the DCF do?  Will it exert real oversight?  Clean up graft? Insist on transparency?  Scrap … [defective] programs?  Nope.  The UN says the DCF (ok, have you got your wading boots on) ‘is expected to exert a positive influence on the international development  cooperation system by bringing together all the relevant actors to engage in a dialogue on key policy issues affecting the quality and impact of development cooperation,’ etc. etc.

What does that mean?  Here it is in plain English:  The UN wants money, more money, lots and lots of money, and with that money the UN will form more forums to ask for more money, much more money. Money, money, money.  YOUR money.  They call this sustainable development.”

Claudia Rosett, “Just what the world really needs”, The Rosett Report,  at www.pajamasmedia.com, July 5, 2007.

441.      “[Christopher Burnham, former UN undersecretary-general for management in 2005-2006 has said] … the former operations officer for the U.N. anti-poverty agency in North Korea is a whistleblower who should be protected from retaliation. …  ‘I wrote the whistleblower law.  I know the whistleblower law, and Artjon Shkurtaj is a whistleblower’, Burnham told the Associated Press.

Shkurtaj said … he is seeking whistleblower protection because he lost his … [UNDP] job for raising serious allegations about its financial transactions [in North Korea]. …  He said he was told ‘not to rock the boat.’ … UNDP failed to act on his allegations.

 [Burnham wrote to the UN Ethics Office that Shurktaj reported major deficiencies to him beginning in May 2006 and provided evidence of attempts since early 2005 to report them to UNDP senior management.]  “I … urge you to expeditiously examine this case”, Burnham said. …

[The UN’s whistleblower policy of December 2005] states that all UN employees are required to report any breach of … regulations and explicitly protects them from retaliation.

Shkurtaj’s request … [comes after US allegations, and a UN audit report that found improper currency payments and hiring practices in North Korea that violated U.N. procedures.]”

“AP exclusive: Author of U.N. whistleblower policy says U.N. ex-employee in NKorea should get whistleblower protection”, Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, July 9, 2007.    [Note: two further, detailed reports are:

Melanie Kirkpatrick, “A whistleblower’s tale”, Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2007, and Matthew Russell Lee, “In Ban’s UN, whistleblower attacked by UNDP, placed among the crazies”, at www.innercitypress.com, July 6, 2007.

442a.    “The public company is far more accountable to its shareholders than most governments are to their citizens. … [Public] attention is narrowly focused on expenditure, …[with some remaining ‘off-budget.’  A World Bank] Index reveals that … only six [of 59 countries surveyed] provide ‘extensive’ information, while 23 … provide either minimal, scant or no information to citizens. …

Even more striking, … many governments collude in divesting important national assets – whether tangible … or intangible … for less than their value, without scrutiny. …

The World Bank and its partners should turn their focus from corruption … [in] projects to financial systems as a whole.  States should … publish an annual report setting out their income and expenditure, a balance sheet … and outline which public assets had been sold to whom, at what price, and [how.] … A global agreement should be reached on standards, and an independent international body should be empowered to monitor these accounts.  …

Tracking flows of money through auditing expenditure … is one of the most effective drivers of reform. … Unless state resources are firmly evaluated and monitored we should not be surprised if … developing countries are subject to Enron-type collapse.”

Clare Lockhart, “Like companies, states must report”, Financial Times (UK), July 10, 2007.    [Note: see also the related items 407 and 418.  Also, in contrast to the UN Millennium Development Goals, which continue to plod unsuccessfully ahead for 15 years toward their general global goals established in 2000 (see items 439a-c above), this and the following two articles propose more fresh, and pragmatic, approaches to building governance and combating violence and poverty worldwide.]

442b.    “[Paul Collier cites] … the ‘headless heart’ syndrome – meaning the tendency of people in rich countries to approach Africa’s problems with more emotion than empirical evidence. …

[His new book’s title] refers to the 980 million people living in what he calls ‘trapped countries,’ those that are ‘clearly heading toward what might be described as a black hole.’  [Instead of broad worldwide strategies like the UN’s] Millennium Development Goals, …the poorest groups in these countries, says Collier, are what we need to worry about. …

He suggests four traps: civil war … the ‘resource curse’ [sudden oil wealth, and ‘survival of the fattest’] … landlocked [and therefore dependent] countries … [and] bad governance. …

What can the rich countries do?  … [Tariff exemptions] for bottom billion countries, … occasional interventions in failed states [for stability], … [and] the growth of international … laws and charters … to report deposits by kleptocrats … [or] to regulate the exploitation of natural resources, to uphold media freedom and to prevent fiscal fraud.  We may not be able to force corrupt governments to sign such conventions. But simply by creating them we give reformers in Africa some extra leverage.”

Niall Ferguson, “Unsentimental prescriptions for poverty”, (a book review of Paul Collier, The bottom billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it, Oxford University, 2007), International Herald Tribune, June 30-July 1, 2007.     [Note:  Two other new books argue that developing countries should be allowed to develop their own policies:  Erik S. Reinert, How rich countries got rich … and why poor countries stay poor, Constable & Robinson, 2007; and Ha-Joon Chang, Bad Samaritans: Rich nations, poor policies and the threat to the developing world, Bloomsbury Press/Random House, 2007.]

442c.    “Few people are better qualified to write about muscular international intervention than muscular Paddy Ashdown … [who] ruled Bosnia and its 3.9m people from 2002 to 2006 on behalf of the world. … Bosnia is still a mess, but a less bad one.  Wirth luck, it may join the European Union eventually. So his book on the ethics and practice of war-ending … and international do-goodery has plenty to recommend it. …

Read at least [his] pithy summaries. … Don’t separate military strategy from plans for the aftermath.  Conflicts don’t end when the fighting finishes.  The ‘golden hours’ after a military victory are crucial.  Keep order – by martial law if necessary – otherwise nothing will work.  Then get the economy going.  Accept that some bad people will hold powerful positions for some time.  Elections should come once everything is working.  Held too early, they spell disaster. …

But the main lesson is a valuable one, well delivered.  Outside intervention is morally justifiable; it can end conflicts and rebuild countries.  So far it has been done pretty poorly, sometimes outrageously badly as in Iraq.  That disappoints Lord Ashdown.  But it does not dismay him.”

“Intervention and peacekeeping: Paddy’s passions”, (a book review of Paddy Ashdown, Swords and plowshares: Bringing peace in the 21^st century, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2007) in The Economist, June 30^th, 2007.

443.      ”The offices of the United Nations’ Mission in Sudan (Unmis) in the suburbs of Khartoum are normally a hive of activity.  The mission is one of the largest in the world and, in many respects, the most important.  It has … two major international crises to deal with … implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement … after 21 years of civil war … and Darfur … the setting for one of the world’s most shocking conflicts. …

Ban Ki-moon has said Darfur is one of his top priorities.  But a brief visit to the Unmis office … tells a different story. … The secretary-general’s special representative – the head of Unmis … was unceremoniously  booted out … by the Sudanese government … [in October 2006. The head of the humanitarian relief effort departed, and the coordinator of the] 80 aid agencies and 14,000 staff working in Darfur … [as well, and all have not been replaced.] …

[An expert observer] says ‘the lack of leadership is appalling.’ … [Another] said the UN ‘is sending the wrong signal’ to the Sudanese government.  [A third] said the UN ‘ is running around like a headless chicken.’”     

Steve Bloomfield, “Mission UNtenable”, Sunday Herald (Scotland), July 11, 2007.

444.      ”The United Nations Development Program, already mired in controversy for its dealings with North Korea, now faces another scandal involving the people who spend its $5.2 billion annual budget. …

The new scandal involves UNDP’s headquarters financial unit, where checks are signed and purchase orders are approved for its sprawling operations world-wide.  Since the last week of June, FOX News has learned, investigators from the … [UN internal watchdog OIOS] have been probing the financial unit for evidence of hiring irregularities and violations of UNDP financial rules.

And already there are some themes similar to the six-month battle over UNDP operations in North Korea: evidence of unauthorized personnel working in sensitive positions that – according to its own regulations – should only be held by UNDP staff; payments with puzzling authorizations that total nearly $2 million; service providers whose employees may violate UNDP rules and regulations.

Fox News has also learned from UNDP insiders that critical files may have disappeared out of reach of investigators.  This was coupled with dramatic, sudden, and secretive shut-downs of UNDP’s computers in the wake of FOX News email queries Tuesday about the situation … which coincided with an emergency senior staff meeting.”

George Russell, “Outsiders have access to U. N. Development Program’s financial management system”, Fox News,  July 11, 2007.    [Note: The details can be found at www.foxnews.com, under a search for “George Russell July 11 2007”.]

445.      “Saviour or wrecker? … Passing impartial judgment on governance is notoriously difficult, yet is also important in holding [governments] accountable and improving the way [they] are run.  That role falls to the World Bank. 

This week the Bank’s Institute published its sixth annual Worldwide Governance Indicators.  The report pools hundreds of indices from 33 data sources by 20 organizations.  It …[pictures] governance across six categories over a 10-year period and more than 200 countries and territories. …

The World Bank provides a useful role in sifting through a myriad of data sources and acts as a global arbiter in weighing the results. … In this case, economists are trying to count what – many would say – cannot be counted.  The alternatives, however, are worse.  Either we ignore this fact or make subjective guesses.  For all its weaknesses, the Bank remains best-equipped to crunch the numbers and deliver the judgment, however unpalatable.”

“Good governance: To change how countries are run, start with a report card”, Financial Times (UK), July 12, 2007.    [Note: A follow-up article discusses offended Bank member countries criticising the “controversial” ratings, and another  compliments the Bank for highlighting the inherent errors in its assessments:  Krishna Guha and Richard McGregor, “World Bank directors test Zoellick” and Keith Kranker, “Methodology hits governance scores”, both in the Financial Times (UK), July 13, 2007.

446a.    “A new audit has found that renovating the iconic U.N. headquarters building is already $148 million over budget, long before the dirt has been shoveled.

Delays and design changes to the nearly $2 billion project (see www.un.org/cmp)  have created the initial cost overrun … [the report further finds that the United Nations has yet to undertake important pre-construction surveys. …

There has not been a serious disagreement on whether the U.N. headquarters’ nearly 2 million-square-foot complex needs to be rebuilt [after 60 years] . ... But how to plan and pay for such a massive project has crippled the early preparations before construction can begin. …

The overall Capital Master Plan (CMP) is now six months behind schedule, with each month ratcheting the cost by roughly $10 million …

‘The project has remained an abstraction in the minds of many because it has been in the pipeline for so long,’ the auditors wrote.”

Betsy Pisik, “U.N. complex breaks budget”, The Washington Times, July 12, 2007.     [Note: [For a fascinating look at the hapless early days of the UN headquarters reconstruction project and a meeting between Kofi Annan and Donald Trump on that topic, see Trouble at Turtle Bay of May 2005.]

446b.    “The human resources of the [capital master plan] project were insufficient to manage such a project, due to the slow pace of filling vacancies.  The vacancy rate was 21 percent at 15 March 2007; in the preceding three years … an Executive Director had been heading the project for only 10 months. … Although the Procurement Service had dedicated three full-time professionals to the capital master plan project, the Facilities Management Service … of the Department of Management, had yet to adapt its resources to the needs of the project. … The board is concerned with the financial implications resulting from the delays in implementation of the project.”

“Report of the Board of Auditors on the Capital Master Plan for the year ended 31 December 2006”, UN document A/62/5 (Vol. V), “Summary”.    [Note: At least the auditors are concerned.  But when will Member States and the general public insist that top UN Secretariat officials finally be held accountable and punished for their grave mismanagement and waste in multi-billion dollar projects and processes – oil-for-food, procurement, and now the replacement New York headquarters building?]