Get documents about "continued
Document Sample
Accountability and transparency
in the UN, III
2007 (continued)
“Switzerland is pushing for an overhaul of the way the scandal-hit World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) is run. The United Nations body, which opened its 15th Congress in Geneva on
Monday, is currently battling allegations of fraud and corruption. The Congress … takes place only once
every four years. …The Swiss government is submitting a resolution aimed at increasing transparency
… and [demanding] that the 188 member states play a more active role in the management of
WMO affairs. …
The organization is effectively run by a 37-strong executive council that acts independently of the
member states. … The Swiss resolution … [proposes that member states sit] as observers on the
executive council … [and receive] access to all documents issued by the executive council and the
WMO‟s finance committee. … ‘It’s quite a strange situation’, [said a Swiss official.] …
[He] insisted the Swiss drive for greater transparency had „no direct connection‟ with the ongoing
corruption and fraud cases …, but he did concede that the investigations had cast a cloud over the UN
body. … “It is a very important organization … in climate monitoring … [and] we are extremely interested
in a well-organised WMO.‟”
“Clouds gather over UN weather agency”, swissinfo, May 7, 2007.
“I have argued before … that, on balance, the world is a better place because of U.N.
contributions … The balance could tip in the other direction … because the organization has been
leaking legitimacy through long-festering sores.
For example, sexual abuses by peacekeepers preying for more than a decade on the very
civilians they were meant to protect have undermined the moral authority of the United Nations. …
[The] Security Council as the key decision-making body … suffers from a fourfold legitimacy
deficit. Its performance legitimacy suffers from an uneven and a selective record. It is unrepresentative
from almost any point of view. … Its procedural legitimacy is suspect on grounds of lack of
democratization and transparency in decision-making. It is unanswerable to the General Assembly, the
World Court, the nations or the peoples of the world. … George Montbiot argued recently that „Global
governance is a tyranny speaking the language of democracy.‟ …
The United Nations‟ legitimacy has suffered also because of the oil-for-food scandal. … The
United Nations lacks the capacity and expertise to manage such a complex program and should firmly
refuse such tasks in the future.”
Ramesh Thakur, “U.N. legitimacy eroding like festering sore”, The Daily Yomiuri
(Japan), May 21, 2007. [Note: Mr. Thakur is former senior vice rector of the U.N.
University in Tokyo.]
“[Alaadin Morsy,] a senior official at the UN Population Fund,(UNFPA), … was threatened with
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 1 of 16
termination by that agency‟s chief, Thoraya Obaid … [over a dispute about vehicle misuse on a project
in Egypt, which he contested. He stated that] Ms. Obaid was … telling him to quit or face an investigation
which would result in his dismissal. …
The UN Joint Appeals Board ruled in his favor, … [and] ordered a „suspension of action‟ until
the OIOS conducted an investigation. … … An investigation into a sitting Under Secretary General
like Ms. Obaid would to some be an indication of an end to or limitation on impunity. …
[But] Under Secretary General for Management Alicia Barcena … in a May 1, 2007 letter to
Mr. Morsy, … without explanation calls the JAB‟s [decision] „too vague‟ to act on. In essence, [she]
called off the investigation before it even began.
Still, it is another indicator of a UN system of internal justice that is broken, but remains in place.
The Staff Union is calling for an interim system of binding arbitration, so that rulings like the JAB‟s in this
case cannot simply be ignored by the Secretariat.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “At UNFPA, ruling to investigate Obaid is called off by Alicia
Barcena, justice on the rocks”, Inner City Press, May 30, 2007.
“The proposed $2 billion renovation of the United Nations headquarters building in New York is
proceeding with little outside oversight or control and is a case study on the need to reform U.S. foreign
aid programs, said a top Republican lawmaker yesterday. Sen. Tom Coburn … said cost estimates for
the proposed five-year project have ballooned, while U.N. officials have yet to release basic audit,
contracting and procurement data. …
[He] teamed with Sen. Barack Obama … to sponsor a major reform of federal funding
programs, including foreign aid, [which became law in September. It] will create a single Web site listing
the names and locations of all recipients of federal funds, including the amount received annually by
program.
Under the law, the United Nations and other … [U.S. foreign aid recipients must] provide
detailed lists of where U.S. funds go, including subcontracts and loans. Mr. Coburn said „transparency‟
is the key to improving the efficacy of foreign-aid spending, now amounting to over $25 billion a year. …
He called such mandatory disclosures ‘a great antiseptic’ against corruption and inefficiency.
„Transparency isn‟t the goal. Accountability is‟, he said.”
David R. Sands, “U.N. renovation hit on oversight”, The Washington Times, June 7,
2007.
“[Undersecretary-General Inga-Britt Ahlenius,] head of a U.N. inspection office [the OIOS,] said
the world body needed a ‘major overhaul’ of how it procures $1.9 billion in goods annually. …
Commenting on the conviction of a former U.N. purchasing official [Sanjaya Bahel, see item 404 above,
she] said a Procurement Task Force that reports to her was reviewing contracts worth $1 billion for waste
and fraud and had opened 140 cases [of which 20 to 25 are „large‟ cases.] …
U.S. federal prosecutors have indicted … four U.N. staff members. The Bahel case had been
investigated by [her] predecessor, who had himself been under investigation, but was dropped for lack of
evidence in 2004. … Her task force held its own probe.
But Ahlenius avoided questions on investigations now underway … as well as new completed
reports, saying she was forbidden to do so by the U.N. General Assembly. The 192-member assembly
also has delayed new procurement regulations for the past two years.
‘I think the secretiveness that is held by this organization serves us poorly’, Ahlenius said.
… She said the [UN] … was not protected enough from „corrupt vendors‟ and was „a victim‟ of
unscrupulous companies and vendors.”
Evelyn Leopold, “U.N. needs overhaul in procurement, U.N. watchdog says”, Reuters,
June 8, 2007.
“A June 8 letter from [UNDP number two Ad Melkert to US officials stated that] … UNDP‟s
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 2 of 16
„reasonable cooperation‟ is „strictly voluntary‟ and is „without prejudice to the [UN’s] privileges and
immunities.’] … Melkert contests that UNDP deviated from any of its rules in North Korea, and requests
… „copies of all UNDP documentation and … [information that a former UNDP consultant may have given
the U.S. Government.‟]
On June 11, … Inner City Press asked … [UNDP‟s David ] Morrison about his statement that no
retaliation has taken place at UNDP, … [in light of a June 5 complaint filed] with the UN Secretariat‟s
Ethics Office. Mr. Morrison spoke of „an individual on a short term contract‟ which was „simply not
renewed.‟ …
[Asked] to confirm that the individual in question was, in fact, the head of operations of the UN in
North Korea for some time, … Mr. Morrison declined to answer. [That official, in January 2007, had
alerted [UNDP head Kemal] Dervis that „For years UNDP staff have raised the issue of … [IT
security] and urged action to] „no longer allow DPRK national staff to manipulate and download and
corrupt data in the network.‟”
Matthew Russell Lee, “At UNDP, tales of data corruption, „whirling‟ Dervis and
whistleblower‟s warnings about N. Korea”, Inner City Press, June 12, 2007.]
“A top executive of the … [U.N. Development Program] threatened ‘retaliation’ against a
State Department official this week even though America, the top financier of the agency, pays $100
million of its annual budget. … On Wednesday … [a U.S. ambassador] presented [UNDP second in
command Ad Melkert with documents on UNDP‟s North Korea program activities.] …
„I was surprised and concerned to learn‟ that during the meeting „Mr. Melkert suggested to
Ambassador Wallace that UNDP viewed United States inquiry relating to such new information as
justifying some kind of „retaliation‟ against the Government of the United States‟, [US Ambassador
Zalmay] Khalilzad wrote to [UNDP Administrator Kemal] Dervis yesterday. …
UNDP spokesman David Morrison said yesterday that the agency intended to respond to Mr.
Khalilzad‟s letter, ... but [earlier this week said that] the new allegations „don‟t add up.‟…
„Their job is not simply to refute every external criticism of UNDP, but rather to ensure the
integrity of UNDP from within‟, … [a US ambassador] yesterday told a General Assembly committee that
oversees the development agency, referring to Messrs. Dervis and Melkert.”
Benny Avni, “Top U.N. official threatens „retaliation‟ against State Dept.”, The New
York Sun, June 15, 2007.
“U.S. [Congresswoman] Ileana Ros-Lehtinen … [and 17 other Members yesterday introduced]
the UN Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act of 2007, … [to link some $5.3 billion in annual U.S.
contributions to broad UN reform.] …
UN budget practices are largely controlled by the General Assembly, two thirds of whose
members … [jointly] pay less than one percent of the UN;‟s regular budget. “This disconnect … creates
significant perverse initiatives to spend without limits or accountability,‟ [Ros-Lehtinen] said. „ [Their]
delay, dilution and defeat of various modest reform proposals … undermines support … among
Americans weary of [the UN‟s] tepid response to widespread corruption.‟
A February 2007 Gallup poll found that 66 percent of Americans think that the United
Nations is doing a poor job, the UN‟s lowest job-approval rating ever.
The legislation, inter alia:
Requires that the UN shift … its regular budget to a system of voluntary contributions;
Creates a U.S. inspector general for [US] contributions to the UN system and makes
funding contingent on … [UN agreement] to cooperate with the IG]; …
Links U.S. support for new [UN peacekeeping] missions … to reforms in the
planning, management, conduct and accountability in [those operations.]”
“Ros-Lehtinen and 17 members introduce legislation to jumpstart efforts to reform UN
budget & accounting”, Press Release, US Congress, June 15, 2007.
“Inner City Press … [asked officials] about UNDP‟s support of the police force of the Somali
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 3 of 16
“Transitional Federal Government”, which is accused of shelling civilian neighborhoods and of war crimes.
[The UN‟s spokesperson answered:]
“The UN does not directly provide any financial assistance to the TFG. Instead,
donor nations channel their aid to the TFG through UNDP. So UNDP is a conduit
for funding by donors: the UN provides no unique assistance.’
But it’s a simple question – how much money has passed through …? Since, although
UNDP seems to forget it, all of „its‟ money comes from donors, the distinction between its funds and those
of donors is false. … The principle is the same: accountability and transparency.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “At UNDP, Melkert‟s spin machine shoots at Khalizad, Somalia
secrets”, Inner City Press, June 15, 2007. [Note: The UN as glorified delivery boy?]
“An audit by the [U.S.] Government Accountability Office of six U.N. agencies, including the
World Health Organization, World Food Program and UNICEF, found that the six have „made progress in
implementing international auditing standards, [but] they have not fully implemented key components.‟
It said most lack resources and expertise, especially outside the main headquarters and
regional branches.
The push for improved auditing and evaluation of agency oversight grew out of … studies of oil-
for-food [which] found widespread corruption involving U.N. and Iraqi officials.
U.S. Republican Senator Norm Coleman, who requested the GAO investigation, said he will
introduce amendments to U.N. peacekeeping legislation this year to use „the budget to bring about
extensive and effective reform‟ at the United Nations.”
“U.S. auditors say U.N. agencies have improved accounting and oversight but not
enough”, Associated Press, June 20, 2007. [Note: The full report is available at the
GAO website.]
“America already gives more than any other country to bankroll the multi-billion dollar UN
activities politely known as „peacekeeping.‟ … But the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has just …
[agreed to] increase U.S. contributions [from 25% of the ever-expanding UN peacekeeping budget] to
27.1%, retroactive to 2005 and extending through 2008, adding another billion or so. …
The UN „peacekeeping‟ record by now includes failure to prevent genocide …, … sexual
exploitation of the people the peacekeepers are sent to protect … and a netherworld of money-
laundering, kickbacks and fraud involving UN peacekeeping supply contracts. And despite the UN
promises of reform, which the UN emits like squid ink every time a new abuse comes to light,
there is still no real system of UN accountability in sight.
The issue isn‟t just whether the average American taxpayer ought to be paying more than anyone
else … for UN peacekeeping, or graft-keeping, or sex-keeping or whatever … It is also whether
Americans really want to be responsible for this kind of behavior – which we are if, instead of demanding
the UN shape up, we reward UN abuse by shoveling in even more U.S. money.”
Claudia Rosett, “More of your tax dollars for UN graft, fraud, rape, and – oh right –
peacekeeping”, The Rosett Report, June 27, 2007.
“Transparency became a taboo word at last week’s meeting of the Executive Board of the
United Nations Development Program, literally. Despite public statements ,,, that audits would be
made available outside the agency, all that was agreed to last week was for a study of the issue to be
prepared for next year. As one wag joked in the wan meeting‟s waning hours, maybe even this report will
be withheld as confidential. …
Various Board member states‟ missions blamed the United States. We were getting toward a
regime of transparency, one said, until the United States brought North Korea up. Now the G-77
[developing countries group] refuses to pass anything with even the word transparency in it, he added. …
The public sessions droned on and on. … [A Northern European representative, speaking
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 4 of 16
anonymously, said] the problem with UNDP and its lack of accountability is not only the absence of
transparency, but the ‘quality of the people’ the Member States send to the meetings. „Look at them,‟
he said. ‘They are entirely unprepared.’ Another participant opines that UNDP keeps what little
substantive discussion there is out of the public view, in „informals‟ that no else can attend.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “At UNDP, hunting down leakers and whistleblowers‟ photos,
hiding disclosure behind a bored board”, Inner City Press, June 28, 2007.
“[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.”]
. “In a tightly-controlled press conference on Monday, Ban Ki-moon announced twice that he is
not faceless. …
To quote [a] correspondent from cable television … his network has not used a sound byte from
Ban‟s spokesperson for months. ‘Fewer and fewer people care about the UN,’ the correspondent
said, blaming Ban but even more so his team.
Perhaps unrelated – but perhaps not – a wire service that has long covered the UN is now closing
down its UN bureau. As yet another correspondent added later on Monday, the people to blame for the
bad or disappearing coverage are to be found much closer to Ban than the press.
By far Ban‟s longest response Monday was to a question that mentioned unfavorable media
coverage of his first six months.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “UN‟s Ban denies being faceless, but is obscured by gatekeepers”,
Inner City Press, July 16, 2007.
“The United Nations says it wants to engage with bloggers, but only if it can control them.
Those it cannot control, it wants to exclude [as revealed in minutes of a UN interagency meeting.] …
At least three UN agencies have in the interim adopted policies of not answering questions from
bloggers, no matter how widely they‟re read. From the top of the UN’s headquarters building, it’s a
world of paranoia, a desire to turn back the clock of a type that usually proves fruitless. …
Inner City Press is, for now, the only accredited blogger at the UN. There have been several
threats to revoke accreditation, based on inconvenient questions. …
The proposal … is to exclude any reporter who is not subject [to] a traditionally
hierarchical editing process – that is, to exclude blogs and most participatory media. … So much for
engaging with new media. …
To some, the UN‟s now expressed desire for „recourse … [to respond to factual inaccuracies,
misrepresentations‟, etc.‟ and „hold accredited media accountable to a journalistic code of conduct‟]
smacks of code words for censorship in such countries as Egypt and Sudan, whose crackdowns on
bloggers have extended to imprisonment and expulsion.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “UN mulls banning bloggers, leaked minutes reveal, fearing
coverage not easily controlled”, Inner City Press, July 29, 2007. [Note: this article, at
www.innercitypress.com, ends with a link to a much longer article, with more quotes and
links, about questions which UNDP won‟t answer.]
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 5 of 16
“Human Rights Watch has criticized a United Nations probe into allegations against Pakistani
peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The rights watchdog said in a letter to the UN the report should be the start, not the end of a
process. After an 18-month investigation the UN concluded that only one man was involved in gold
smuggling … [and] refuted allegations that UN staff were involved in supplying arms to militias. …
Human Rights Watch criticised [Jean-Marie Guehenno, the head of UN peacekeeping
operations], for saying that the matter „is now closed.‟
„“A report confirming illegal acts by UN peacekeepers is not the end of a process, but surely only
the beginning‟, said Kenneth Roth, the organisation‟s executive director. “The UN should follow through
on the results of its own investigations.‟ …
The slow process of this investigation and the continued lack of action raise important
questions about how the United Nations investigates itself,‟ the letter said. …
A UN official connected with the inquiry has previously told the BBC there seemed to have been a
plan to bury the results, in order to avoid alienating Pakistan – the largest contributor of troops to the UN.”
“UN attacked over DR Congo report”, BBC NEWS, 23 July 2007. [Note: One of the
most important benchmarks for UN oversight policies states that “the four P’s” must be
applied -- Policy in writing; Prompt investigation; Protection of the victim; Punishment
of the harasser. The UN Secretariat proudly proclaims these policies for harassment
cases, peacekeeper sexual abuse, whistle-blower protection, and internal justice.
However, even in 2007, it almost always fails dismally, and disgracefully, at the other
three. For the excellent “four P‟s” source document, see, in the IO Watch Legal section,
the “panel of counsel” item, pp. 2-3.]
“America‟s ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, is attempting to establish a
détente in Washington‟s age-old battle to clean up Turtle Bay. Perhaps … Mr. Khalilzad has been too
„influenced” by the United Nations. …
He now wants … [the UN and the UNDP] to stop attacking each other in the press. Yet several
recent articles on the North Korea scandal portrayed the UNDP favorably, indicating that unnamed
sources favoring the U.N. agency‟s side continue to talk to reporters even as the Americans clam up. It
seems that Mr. Khalilzad, by ordering his troops to stay mum on the UNDP scandal, has brought about a
unilateral disarmament. …
But shying away from public attacks may not be the answer. At Turtle Bay, public exposure of
scandals frequently helps, while behind-the-scenes attempts at ‘reform’ always fail to promote
any overhaul of the United Nations.
Last week, Secretary-General Ban told top Turtle Bay officials … that the bureaucracy is
too slow in becoming more transparent. But … Mr. Ban himself in not involved enough in
management issues. … [The US has tempered its] public pressure and no one else is … [pushing much-
needed UN] internal changes.”
Benny Avni, “America‟s U.N. envoy takes a new approach”, The New York Sun, August
6, 2007. [Note: At his US Senate confirmation hearings in March 2007, however, Mr.
Khalilzad warned that the UN faced a „mortal threat‟ if it fails to adopt badly needed
reforms, and that the Congress should consider funding cuts if the UN does not address
scandals. In New York, however, he goes back to the old UN “back-room deals”
approach. UN old boys can therefore relax and rejoice, but urgent UN transparency and
accountability needs, US and other taxpayers who fund the UN‟s $20 billion yearly
expenditures, and people worldwide who rely on effective UN programmes, are being
betrayed.]
“When the UN’s top 50 executives go on an internal retreat [in Turin, Italy,] who from outside
gets invited? … At a time when Ban Ki-moon is under fire following his Ethics Office‟s plea to be allowed
to offer protection to a whistleblower retaliated against by the UN Development Program, Ban‟s retreat is
a gabfest with a list of the same-old, same-old UN defenders all. …
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 6 of 16
Will reform and transparency even be discussed? The availability of audits to member
states and to the public? The following-through on the promise of a UN freedom of information
procedure, made repeatedly by Alicia Barcena, who will also be in attendance?
Will the recent strike by UN national staff in the Congo be discussed? Or confirmed reports of
gold trading assistance by peacekeepers in the Congo? Or, since Liberia‟s president will be there, the
UN‟s disbanding of the national staff union within the Mission in that country? …
Ban should be following through on his statements while running for the post [of Secretary-
General] that he would focus on reform and good management. … The UN‟s sense of secrecy –
some call it entitlement – is … very strong.]”
Matthew Russell Lee, Inner City Press, August 30, 2007.
”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.]
“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.]
“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
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 7 of 16
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.
“[While the UNDP has been silent on accepting] … the jurisdiction of the UN Ethics Office,
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has now received a detailed letter from the Washington-based
Government Accountability Project, which in 2005 [assisted] the UN to improve its „internal oversight and
transparency.‟ …
[An October 1 UN Staff Union communiqué] accuses Ban of adopting an „end justifies the
means‟ approach which has „undermined … moral and ethical processes‟ at the UN.‟ … Ban‟s failure …
to apply the Ethics Office to UNDP, like his apparent failure to follow-up [with UN auditors in North Korea]
threaten to become dual albatrosses. It doesn‟t have to go this way, but for now, it does. … The GAP
letter says:
„… [In December 2005], GAP publicly praised the United Nations for
applying best practices in whistleblower protection. However, since that time,
serious concerns have arisen regarding the effective implementation of the policy.
… We appeal to you, Mr. Secretary-General, to invoke your authority to oblige the United
Nations system to abide by a single code of ethics and to address immediately the
plight of those staff … [who] exposed themselves to injustice and retaliation at the
hands of unscrupulous actors.‟”
Matthew Russell Lee, “At UN, Ban‟s hands-off approach to UNDP, on Ethics Office and
audits, draws criticism”, Inner City Press, October 3, 2007. [Note: The complete
Staff Union and GAP letters are available in full via the article at ICP.]
“The future of an internal United Nations antifraud team that has identified more than $610
million in allegedly tainted contracts is in doubt. … Funding for the 15-member … Procurement
Task Force is set to expire at the end of this year. …
The U.N. is facing pressure from at least one member, Singapore, to shut [the task force] down.
… A committee dominated by a bloc of developing countries will determine if funding continues beyond
this year. …
The U.N.’s poor record of self-policing was highlighted by the [Volcker report on the oil-
for-food program. The OIOS] was understaffed and was weakened because some of the programs it
investigated had control over its budget. … To date the task force has identified at least 10 „significant
instances of fraud and corruption‟ involving contracts at the world body. … [A British contractor, for
instance, defrauded] the U.N. of about $860,000. …
Corruption problems in Africa have consumed much of the task force‟s time. … There was a
„collapse of ethical culture‟ among procurement officials in … [the] Congo peacekeeping mission. One
staffer allegedly solicited bribes from vendors for nearly two decades, the report found. The staffer
was placed on leave.”
James Bandler and Steve Stecklow, “U.N. antifraud unit is in jeopardy”, The Wall Street
Journal, October 8, 2007. [Note: On October 9, Singaporean officials issued a very
detailed defense of one of their nationals involved in the procurement investigations,
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 8 of 16
while also stating that Singapore has never condoned fraud or corruption and supports
strong UN internal controls.]
“Substantial progress has been made in the past 18 months in uncovering corruption …
associated with some $1.4 billion worth of [UN] contracts, largely … [in seven of the18] burgeoning UN
peacekeeping missions. … So far the task force operatives have conducted 63 investigations, but …
more than 300 individual cases … still need probing … [including the other 11 peacekeeping
missions] with a 2006-2007 budget of [some $4] billion.” …
Whether – and how – that anti-corruption work continues will go a long way toward determining
whether U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is serious about setting the „highest ethical standard for the
organization‟ as he claimed he would in his January inaugural address. …
The report points to a ‘pressing need to bring sweeping changes into the U.N. procurement
system … especially greater financial disclosure, [penalties, and more vigorous recovery of U.N. money
improperly obtained.] …
If Singapore were able to block … [extension of] the task force, it could well bring an end to the
current [anti-corruption] efforts, even as, the OIOS report says, the task force has now turned its „full
attention to large contracts in the peacekeeping missions and other large scale matters in the
headquarters.‟”
George Russell, “Report details progress in battle against corruption at U.N. office”,
FOXNews.com, October 11, 2007. [Note: The many further details in this article are
available via search for the author and title at Fox News.]
“One of the most important tests facing Secretary- General Ban is a scandal involving the U.N.
procurement department, … a former U.N. procurement chief, Andrew Toh of Singapore, a former …
[UN top manager, Christopher Burnham], who tried to clean up the operation by forming a task force to
investigate the procurement department; … [US] federal prosecutors, who have yet to lose a case
against U.N. officials, and Mr. Ban, who wants his top aides to account for their holdings and assets. …
Before Mr. Ban contemplates removing Mr. Burnham‟s immunity [because Mr. Toh cites
harassment], let‟s be clear: the task force‟s investigation is far from over, and … Mr. Toh [did inter alia fail
to properly declare his financial assets.] …
Without subpoena powers, which the procurement task force lacks, it is hard to investigate
anyone who declines to cooperate by disclosing his or her assets. … In January 2006, [Kofi] Annan
created the task force at Mr. Burnham‟s prodding. Eight procurement staff members, including Mr. Toh,
were suspended at the time, although they continued to receive their salary. … [Mr. Ban] also has made
the disclosure form a signature piece of his management style.”
Benny Avni, “U.N. chief faces a test over misdeeds”, The New York Sun, October 15,
2007. [Note: so, to sum up the items above, hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud and
waste of UN funds in UN procurement and tsunami relief operations might be allowed to
fade away uncontested, because of a feeble OIOS, dismissive top Secretariat leadership,
and uncooperative Member States. What a shameful and flagrant failure of
accountability for global taxpayers’ funds, from the UN Secretariat, its Secretary-
General, and its Member States!]
“The Sixth Committee [of the General Assembly] decided … to establish a working group [to
consider legal aspects of the] accountability of United Nations staff and experts on mission with
respect to criminal acts committed in peacekeeping operations. …
[The Working Group] organized its work … around the following clusters: (a) the scope ratione
personae; (b) the crimes; (c) the bases for jurisdiction; (d) investigations; (e) cooperation among states
and cooperation between States and the United Nations; (f) the form of instrument; and (g) the way
forward. …
The details concerning the form of a possible legal instrument to be adopted were deferred for
consideration at a later stage. … [The Working Group agreed] to focus at this stage on some short
term measures in order to address the problem of criminal accountability. … Work on the draft
resolution … is continuing in the context of informal consultations. … [It is hoped that] the consultations
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 9 of 16
will … allow the General Assembly to send an urgent and strong message that States will not tolerate
criminal conduct by United Nations officials and experts on mission.”
“Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission: Oral report
of the Chairperson of the Working Group”, Sixth Committee, Agenda item 80, 26
October 2007. [Note: Broad General Assembly resolutions have only modest effect,
especially on stubbornly-resistant Member States, and Secretariat “zero tolerance‟ of
field abuses has been an empty slogan for years. However, after years of serious concern,
the words “accountability for criminal acts” at last appear clearly in UN documents on
field operations, even if planned progress again appears quite slow. Three key
documents, by an Ad Hoc Committee, a Group of Legal Experts, and the Secretariat, can
be obtained under their respective UN symbols: A/62/64, A/60/980, and A/62/239.]
“Yes, in the giddy afterlife of his departure from the UN Executive Suite, Kofi Annan has now
received an honorary knighthood … in a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace. …
But honestly, who can keep up? Regardless of performance, UN high officials – past and
present – seem to move these days through an endless shower of prizes and awards. …
Why? Annan … [failed] to blow the whistle on a global gala of …[oil-for-food] corruption … He
failed abysmally to reform the UN – bequeathing his successor a minefield of scandals still going off,
and leaving U.S. federal prosecutors to sift through assorted cases of UN-related bribery, money-
laundering and fraud which inadequate UN oversight and poor management had (to put it
generously) failed to stop.
Were there awards for such behavior as bureaucratic passivity in the face of genocide … or
hypocrisy in lecturing the world on good governance … or evasion and obfuscation [all centrally involving
Annan], there might be arguments for an endless cascade of trophies. … But the way these UN door
prizes keep piling up regardless, I‟m not sure the prize-winners, or … the prize-givers, could tell the
difference. By now, it‟s all part of the ritual.”
Claudia Rosett, “Kofi‟s knighthood”, The Rosett Report, October 28, 2007.
“Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and … [the Chief Executives Board (CEB) of top officials from
across the UN] have agreed on the need for a system-wide approach on ethics. … Mr. Ban believes that
it is „crucially important for the UN system to uphold the highest ethical standards‟, according to a
statement issued. …
[The] statement adds that the UN and its funds and programmes „had agreed to establish one
ethical code and one system of ethics within which they will all operate,‟ and that specialized agencies
had also expressed an interest in such an approach. …
Members of the CEB … [also] agreed to move toward the development of „a common policy for
the disclosure of information … [especially internal audits and] would approach their respective
governing bodies [who have their own „particularities‟] in this regard. …
The need for a common ethics code among all UN entities has gained increased attention in
recent months along with issues relating to whistleblower protection …
[UN] Member States, at the 2005 World Summit, urged a scrupulous application of existing
standards of conduct and the development of a system-wide code of ethics for all UN personnel.”
“Top UN officials back system-wide approach on ethics, information disclosure”, UN
News, October 29, 2007. [Note: This bland UN article, which contains many “weasel
words,” avoids discussing the widely-reported UNDP punishment of whistle-blowers and
refusal of a UN-wide protection policy supposedly already in place during 2007. Any
new policy effort, especially one to be discussed with diverse governing bodies , may
drag along for years. UNDP gets a free pass, whistle-blowers suffer, top officials’
impunity continues , and uncontested reports of serious waste of funds can be ignored.]
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 10 of 16
“After the UN Chief Executives Board meeting … [where] availability of program audits to member
states was to have been resolved, U.S. Ambassador Mark D. Wallace called the outcome „disappointing.‟
He analogized it to members of a corporation‟s board of directors being denied information about how the
company is run. „It‟s been bounced from individual‟ funds and programs „to the CEB back to individuals
and back to the CEB, it‟s not clear what‟s coming out yet. I think that‟s disappointing.‟ …
The lack of clarity … is emblematic of continuing … lack of focus on real UN reform. … If it
is always the U.S. leading the charge for reform, with countries like the UK saying that issues of
transparency in procurement are issues „for the UN‟ Secretariat and not for them … then when the US for
various reasons steps back … UN reform is blocked. …
Some say that without … [reforming the Security Council veto system] the UN is destined to go
the way of the League of Nations. In the interim, there should be availability of audits, protection of
whistleblowers, and transparency in procurement. There is a long way to go on each of these.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “UN reforms still „disappointing,‟ secret audits and also no-bid
contracts blamed”, Inner City Press, October 31. 2007. [Note: this sorry situation of
UN agencies’ perpetual resistance to transparency and accountability in 2007, not only
after the 2005 Summit reforms but in light of the management accountability called for
by the UN General Assembly repeatedly ever since 1993, is an insult to the world’s
taxpayers and those in urgent need of effective UN services. “Perhaps someday” is not
a proper response, unless indeed the UN is heading toward the League of Nations‟ fate.]
“The United States has started a new initiative to force dozens of U.N. independent agencies to
publish detailed budgets in an effort to see how U.S. contributions are being spent. … The initiative is
called the U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative, or UNTAI. …
The U.N. system includes some two dozen agencies of varying independence. … Most fund their
programs with voluntary contributions, and [U.S. diplomat Mark Wallace] hinted that Washington may be
reluctant to continue funding programs that reject the suggestions. The U.S. pays close to $3 billion
annually to U.N. entities. …
The latest initiative grew out of frustration with the [UN Development Program], which has
been running … operations in dictatorial countries … of undisputed need, but [where] Washington
suspects their leaders demand kickbacks and favors in exchange for allowing relief work. …
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has spoken often of renewing the United Nations and
building trust … [However,] he has not decreed that Secretariat standards will apply to [the other bodies,
which irks some U.S. lawmakers and accountants concerned about recent procurement and
administrative irregularities.]
… But the agencies and programs say they are independent of the Secretariat and intend
to remain that way.”
Betsy Pisik, “U.S. presses U.N. agencies on budget transparency”, The Washington
Times, November 1, 2007.
“The initial UN management reforms authorized by world leaders at the September 2005
Summit have began to take shape through the introduction of a number of initiatives relating to increased
transparency and accountability in the UN Secretariat affairs. Unfortunately, the UN Funds and
Programs have lagged far behind in the adoption of any such reform measures. …
Many of these transparency and accountability reforms … already exist in some form within the
UN Secretariat. UNTAI is therefore a practical effort to begin to establish within the UN Funds and
Programs a similar or greater level of transparency and accountability to ensure that the billions in
international aid contributions are delivered efficiently and effectively to the world‟s neediest peoples.”
“United Nations Transparency & Accountability Initiative”, United States Mission to the
UN. [Note: the UNTAI provides considerable information on relevant guidance, reports
and fact sheets and an extensive set of OIOS reports. It is now tracking the status of
transparency and accountability reforms in the various UN funds and programs.]
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 11 of 16
“There is a lot of talk in the UN about protecting whistleblowers. But the desire by some at the
top of the System to maintain control cuts in the opposite direction. …
[A] critique by the UN‟s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions [after
having called the Department of Management’s consolidated report essentially useless, notes
problems in reforming the UN‟s internal justice system.] The Department will have a … [meeting] said to
concern the UN‟s [long-delayed] computer system. … And still, ten months in, no freedom of
information/access to documentation policy has been released. …
The ACABQ report also makes reference to „the Organization‟s responsibility to ensure that the
daily paid workers in peacekeeping missions (3,312 individuals as of September 2007) are made aware
of their rights and obligations and have access to suitable recourse procedures within the framework of
the United Nations.
As Inner City Press has previously reported, the „daily paid workers‟ of the UN‟s Mission …in
Liberia, UNMIL, have complained of hiring discrimination, so far without redress. Until UN workers at all
levels have legal recourse, and whistleblowers are protected, these problems will continue.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “UN management seeks to block access to justice, while
achievements seem few”, Inner City Press, November 8, 2007.
“On December 6, 2005, Corinna Perelli was summarily dismissed as Director of the [UN]
Electoral Assistance Division … by then Secretary-General Kofi Annan on charges of harassment,
sexual harassment and abuse of authority. The case was much publicized at the time, with innuendo
and leaks to the media galore. …
Ms. Perelli‟s case [was later extensively reviewed by the UN‟s] Joint Disciplinary Committee. …
[It] found a flawed process in which no real effort was made to establish the facts … [and] in its own
investigation found that none of the facts against Pirelli could stand. … [This differed from a recent
case with] proven allegations of sexual harassment, abuse of authority and attempts to influence the
outcome of the investigation.
The JDC Panel unanimously recommended … [to the Secretary-General on June 13] that the
decision to summarily dismiss M. Perelli be rescinded. Since then … the Administration has kept
silent.
Twenty-three months after she was escorted out of the building, TV cameras rolling, Perelli still
waits for the Administration to take action. We can only [recall the Secretary-General‟s] words at one of
his first Town meetings: „Justice delayed is justice denied.‟”
“Perelli‟s case: Still waiting”, UNforum, 15 November 2007. [Note: the parallel and
concurrent case involved the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Mr. Annan defended
him vigorously, rejecting an investigation which decided against him and then pressing
for his resignation only after very negative media articles appeared.]
“The rebuilding of Aceh after the tsunami included a projection of 360 schools to be rebuilt by …
[UNICEF]. Now according to … [an Indonesian official], that number is being sharply reduced, …
[because] „the number of children vanished or destroyed by the tsunami was staggering, we had to rectify
the numbers.‟ … The same applies to shrimp ponds and rice paddies, and to village health clinics [the
national standard is 1:28,000 villagers per clinic, on Aceh it is already 1:14,000 ] so „we have to slow our
progress.‟ …
There has been controversy about [the Indonesian government reconstruction agency] setting
aside over $100 million in funds unused in 2006 into a trust fund, which Indonesia‟s Supreme Audit
Agency and legislature have called illegal. Inner City Press asked about this. … [The official said] that,
yes, the trust fund has been closed down due to the dispute, but that it was opened with the guidance of
the Minister of Finance, and it is now between the minister and the legislature.
But why was the trust fund set up, if it is not permitted under Indonesian law? It was a
helpful mechanism, [the official said.]”
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 12 of 16
Matthew Russell Lee, “Scaled-back rebuilding of Aceh raises issues of Shari‟a and trust
funds, even One UN”, Inner City Press, November 18, 2007.
“When high UN officials give talks about accountability, expect … the dodging or deferral
of questions, … [as experienced at] the UN University‟s public forum.
… [UN Ethics Officer Robert Benson called] online disclosure the best accountability mechanism.
The next speaker, Jane Hall Lute of the UN‟s Department of Field Support … derided those who say that
transparency means letting everyone know everything. … That‟s „gossip … which is also prevalent‟ at the
UN, she said. …
Inner City Press asked about … [her support for] the UN‟s $250 million no-bid contract with [a
Lockheed Martin subsidiary.] She replied that this was not the right forum to discuss a particular contract,
but that all rules were followed. …
In fact, rules were waived to circumvent bidding. Tuesday in the Fifth Committee, Russia
demanded an investigation into the no-bid contract … [adding to similar criticisms] by the African Group,
Egypt and even Canada. … „I wasn‟t in the Fifth Committee yesterday‟, said Jane Hall Lute. …
[The outgoing chairman of the UN‟s administrative advisory committee, Rajat Saha, cited] in the
past ten years … a ‘breakdown of trust between the Secretary-General and the member states.‟”
Matthew Russell Lee, “On UN accountability, many words but few answers, „growing
mistrust‟ noted”, Inner City Press, November 20, 2007.
“[The annual UNAids/WHO report has good news.] … There are a lot fewer people infected
with HIV than we had thought – about 7m fewer, in fact. … [But the bad news is that] most of it came
from fixing flawed statistics. … A quarter-century into an epidemic that has killed millions, the
organization that leads the fight admits that it has been doing so with shaky data. …
There is no occasion for complacency. … But those who have been skeptical for years about …
the UN … [measurement model of] HIV and Aids have been vindicated. …
Whether errors were mistakes or intentional does not matter. What matters is accountability.
Who vets the UN‟s scientific assertions? If the answer is „no one‟, then it is fair to ask: how much of
what the UN is saying about global warming, or Darfur, or infantile dysentery is genuine analysis and
how much is hyperbole meant to rally troops and raise resources?
We have assumed that … multinational structures would possess the same accountability that
nations do. They don‟t. …
This new system can be [better.] … But it will lose legitimacy if the reports of [“fire!”] prove
politicized or exaggerated.”
Christopher Caldwell, “Noble truths about HIV/Aids”, The Financial Times, November
25, 2007. [Note: the full article on this newly-very-important issue is available at
Google search under the title and author. For more, see Craig Timbers, “U.N. to cut
estimate of AIDS epidemic”, Washington Post, November 19, 2007;
Donald G. McNeil, Jr., “U.N. denies inflating cases of H.I.V. deliberately”, New York
Times, November 21, 2007;
Claudia Rosett, “It‟s a disaster! It‟s a looming catastrophe!! It‟s … UN science!!!”, The
Rosett Report, November 20, 2007;
IO Watch Overview Quotes X, item 494d, of September 2007, citing a “dire warning”
from UN AIDS demanding “quadrupled” funds, and 553 following;
and especially James Chin, The AIDS pandemic: The collision of epidemiology with
political correctness, Radcliffe, March 2007.]
“The United Nations announced plans … to unify ethical standards across its system after
allegations it failed to protect a whistleblower who criticized spending by a U.N. agency in North Korea. …
That has led to charges, especially from the U.S. administration and Congress, that a whistleblower policy
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 13 of 16
set up two years ago to allow U.N. staffers to expose wrongdoing without fear of retaliation was not being
properly applied. …
Ban‟s directive said that in the future there would be „a uniform and consistent application of
ethics-related issues within the United Nations system.‟ [A UN spokesperson said that] „Employees in the
funds and programs will be extended the same ethics-related programs and protection as are already
afforded to their colleagues in the secretariat.‟ …
The measure, however, still does not give the Ethics office direct and immediate
jurisdiction over cases in the agencies, which are invited to set up their own ethics offices, with
similar principles.”
Patrick Worship, “U.N. announces new ethics rules after N. Korea case”, Reuters,
canada.com, December 3, 2007.
“Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pledged, when he took office in January, that the UN would
commit itself to the highest standards of ethics, integrity, accountability and transparency. … [His
spokesperson] said that even after [the new] UN-wide ethical code is established, Mr. Ban will continue to
work with the leadership of the specialized agencies to ensure that the ethical standards and programmes
are as uniform and harmonized as possible.
„As we strive for ‘One United Nations’, the United Nations must be governed by a single code of
ethical standards,‟ [she] said. …
At the World Summit at UN Headquarters in New York in September 2005, Member States
called for a scrupulous application of existing standards of conduct and the development of a
system-wide code of ethics for all UN personnel.”
“Ethics code for UN Secretariat staff extended to cover all funds and programmes”, UN
News Service, 3 December 2007. [Note: The announcement contained many
“weasel words.” The most important words, “scrupulous application”, appear only in the
General Assembly‟s September 2005 statement, now more than two years old.]
“Three and a half months after the UN Development Program disputed the jurisdiction of the UN
Ethics Office to continue investigating the case of a UNDP whistleblower, a Secretary-General‟s bulletin
was released which formalizes this fragmentation, while saying that common „principles‟ will apply. …
[The dispute] … led to the policy announced Monday: not One UN but a collection of fiefdoms in
which every chieftain is his or her own judge. …
[Further,] UNDP Executive Board chairman Carsten Staur, … asked if and when UNDP will
make copies of internal audits available at least to member states, who contribute the money to
UNDP, ... indicated that the issue is still developing, and said he wasn‟t sure if it would require additional
voting by the UNDP Executive Board. There has seemingly been no progress on this issue. …
One possibly saving grace … for whistleblowers, … the seeming right to appeal to the UN Ethics
Office … does not even take into account the danger of agencies‟ in-house ethics offices delaying action
on requests for protection against retaliation [during which time they can be punished] …
Some start for stripped-down powers, limited as to funds and programs to an ill-defined appeals
process, of the UN Ethics Office.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “UN ethics system formalized but in fragments, whistleblowers in
wilderness of fiefdoms”, Inner City Press, December 3, 2007.
“The [new UN] codification of ethics standards … [creates] an entirely new level of
bureaucratic dispute, delay, cost and inefficiency for those who report corruption in UN
operations and suffer retaliation as a result, in the opinion of the Government Accountability Project
(GAP). …
„This bulletin … [creates] proliferating ad hoc internal ethics offices, operating at the pleasure of
the heads of these agencies,‟ said Bea Edwards, GAP international program director. … New offices will
hear retaliation cases according to yet-to-be-elaborated ethical standards, which will then be „harmonized‟
by a UN Ethics Committee. …
The new bulletin is flawed by glaring omissions. First, it sets out no parameters for
establishing the new ethics offices. … The number of UN „separately administered agencies‟ that will
establish separate ethics offices … could be as many as fifteen. … The UN system is poised to assume
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 14 of 16
extra costs of about $4.5 million per year for the purpose of avoiding the application of meaningful
ethical standards.
„By allowing [UNDP head Kemal] Dervis to retaliate with impunity, Ban Ki-moon is now
promoting a Potemkin Village of costly ethics offices through the system without independence,
credibility or standards,‟ said Edwards.”
“New UN Ethics Guidelines greatly misleading”, Government Accountability Project,
December 4, 2007. Note: the full article is available at www.whistleblower.org, under
“International Reform”, “United Nations.”
“With yet another scandal erupting in UNDP, one cannot help concluding that something is
seriously wrong with the United Nations. There is simply no room for complacency. …
In September 2007 … [the UN Staff Council] deplored what it described as ‘a culture of
impunity permeating the higher levels of the organization.’ …
All of this came … in the wake of „decentralization,‟ which gave the „programme managers‟ … the
power to hire and fire and virtually total control of their respective staff. … Other important developments
were the drastic reduction of „permanent‟ appointments … a dysfunctional internal justice system … [and
accountability mechanisms on paper but not in practice.] … The message to the staff … [is] to play it safe
and look the other way in the face of arbitrariness, malfeasance or mismanagement. …
[This] ‘culture of impunity’ … [comes from] the primacy accorded to ‘fund-raising’ and
‘resource mobilization.’ … Sound bites and style over substance become the rule of the game. …
One hopes that this will change… [but only by (a list of six elements follows and)] … (g)
significantly raising the effectiveness, autonomy and independence of the accountability mechanisms and
ethics infrastructures.”
“A culture of impunity at the United Nations”, UNDP Watch, December 13, 2007.
[Note: The full article, and many similar ones, is available at
www.undpwatch.blogspot.com.]
“When a U.S. ambassador convenes reporters outside a closed-door meeting about the UN‟s
budget, is it a glimpse of transparency usually lacking? … On Tuesday Mark D. Wallace … appeared
in the UN‟s basement with copies of a statement … [to a] General Assembly Fifth Committee session …
[which] is a breath of fresh air. …
His statement riffs, „As my colleagues from the G77 and China rightly point out … approximately
75 percent of the budget resources are related to salaries and common staff costs. … We must be fully
and truly informed on the whole budget before we can take an informed decision on the budget.‟
… According to … [his chart, the U.N.‟s regular budget has risen from $3.656 billion in 2004-05
to fully $5.2 billion in 2008-09. [And senior advisory committee (ACABQ)] sources noted that … [their
report on actual past biennium expenditure] has not yet been released, and should be consulted
before the next budget is considered. …
[A Spokesperson promised status information] „as soon as the coast is clear.‟ As Wallace said on
Tuesday, that could be next spring. … Until then, [such impromptu conferences] provide the only
window into the UN’s finances.”
Matthew Russell Lee, “US talk on UN budget called transparent by some, maligned by
others”, Inner City Press, December 11, 2007. [Note: The Ambassador‟s informative
charts on the huge proposed budget increase are available at Inner City Press under this
article. (UN Secretariat officials have, for decades, hated charts and graphs because of
their simplicity and clarity.)]
“The General Assembly yesterday approved the budget for the latest … plan to renovate [the
landmark UN building], … but [it] was only the beginning of a much larger fiscal war, in which a new two-
year U.N. budget proposal was heavily criticized by all sides, including America, which pays the
largest share of the organization‟s funding.
American officials said that at an estimated $5.2 billion … the United Nations‟s „regular budget‟
represents the largest funding growth in the organization‟s history.
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 15 of 16
This figure, they stressed, does not even account for many independent U.N. funds, and it
excludes not only such special projects as the building‟s renovation plan, but also one of the United
Nations‟s most prominent, and most, expensive activities: peacekeeping. …
[American ambassador Mark Wallace] … protested a piecemeal approach to presenting the
budget, estimating that „add-ons‟ would balloon it up to a figure „in excess of] $5.2 billion … not only the
largest … [UN regular budget in history], but also the largest budget increase on a dollar basis. America
is concerned, he said, that the budget includes „no substantial cuts of offsets‟ to compensate for such
expenditure growth.”
Benny Avni, “Green light for renovations is start of U.N. fiscal war”, The New York Sun,
December 12, 2007.
“Rajat Saha … [has served for] nine years on the [UN‟s] ACABQ (Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions) …and for almost two and a half years … as its Chairman [after
his predecessor] was found guilty of money laundering. …
Speaking in his personal capacity, Saha admits that the Secretary-General is being given more
and more tasks by the General Assembly and Security Council … [and then, as usual] responds to the
new tasks by demanding additional posts and other resources.
But unless the Secretariat improves its business practices and institutes some real change,
things are unlikely to improve. Member States are now expecting considerable improvement … better
efficiency, more transparency, less fragmentation, more cohesiveness. Accountability is the
fundamental issue and incentives or sanctions will need to be put in place in order to change
things.”
Lydia Swart, “Secretariat accountability is the fundamental issue for Member States: An
interview”, Center for UN Reform, 18 December 2007.
“One legislative provision that is not likely to survive in this year‟s [US Congress] is a simple,
straightforward and common sense provision that will require the United Nations to post online
information about how it spent its money in 2007 before the U.S. taxpayers give the U.N. another $5
billion for 2008. …
When I offered this provision as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 Foreign Operations
spending bill, 91 of my Senate colleagues supported this policy while only one voted in opposition. …
[However], the Senate‟s true intent [is] to tell the American people it supports transparency and reform in
public while doing everything it can privately to avoid embarrassing the U.N. …
The world‟s dispossessed and oppressed as well as U.S. taxpayers deserve nothing less than a
full accounting of the U.N. finances. Yet … [a recent audit of U.N. contracts showed that $610 million out
of $1.4 billion] … was tainted by 10 „significant fraud and corruption schemes.‟ …
The greatest threat to the U.N.‟s credibility is not our foreign policy, but the U.N. itself. …
Taxpayers expect elected officials to safeguard their money, not the U.N.’s penchant for secrecy.”
Senator Tom Coburn, “Congress defends the UN: Coburn opposes”, Human Events
(US), December 13, 2007.
This topic continues in Accountability and Transparency in the UN, IV,
which follows
www.iowatch.org 29/01/2010 Page 16 of 16
