|
|
 |
|
When a man needs an advisory panel |
|
|
|
by Malinda Seneviratne
Inga-Britt Ahlenius, until recently the UN undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), mandated to fight internal fraud and corruption that has plagued the UN, released an end-of-assignment report that has caused a lot of embarrassment to UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon.
The Swedish auditor does not mince her words: ‘Your (Ki-moon’s) actions are not only deplorable but seriously reprehensible, without precedent and seriously embarrassing for yourself’. And that was just an introductory statement to a 50-page memo.
She accuses Ki-moon of undermining the OIOS and notes inter alia that under his stewardship the UN Secretariat is ‘drifting into irrelevance’. In her view the UN is not on the correct path towards greater transparency and accountability. She points out that there hasn’t been any improvement in the UN’s capacity to protect civilians in conflict and distress and lacks relevance in the push to disarmament in Myanmar, Darfur, Afghanistan, Cyprus and G20. She says finally that the UN is now seen less and less as a relevant partner in the resolution of world problems.’
The lady leaves her job after 5 years, we are told. She’s peeved that Ki-moon has thrown sand in her wheels, blocking appointments and in other ways interfering with her work. Ki-moon has not responded and when he does, I am sure he would offer some kind of refutation. His chief aide, Vijay Nambiar has ‘regretted’ that ‘many pertinent facts were overlooked or misrepresented’ in Ahlenius’ memo. On the other hand, there is no sign of Ki-moon hiring a replacement. He’s busy appointing panels to advise him on non-existing problems. That’s perhaps one way of dodging questions about double-standards, the logic of doing double-somersaults to ‘damage-control’ Navi Pillai’s loss of face and of course corruption, mismanagement and wastage at the UN.
Ki-moon doesn’t seem to understand that there is an issue of moral authority at stake here. During his stewardship, the only truly independent investigatory and oversight body the UN ever had, i.e. the Procurement Task Force, was eliminated. Ki-moon, after discouraging effective and independent oversight in his own office, cannot be holier-than-thou when it comes to propriety issues in member states.
The UN is still to find closure in the Iraqi Oil-for-food scandal used by Saddam Hussein to generate some $ 10 billion in illegal revenue. Then there is the corruption scandal in which more than 40% of UN procurement for peacekeeping was revealed to be tainted by fraud. Ki-moon keep mum for the most part about widespread incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN personnel in Bosnia, Burundi, Cambodia, Congo, Guinea, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Kosovo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Sudan. He badly needs a panel to advise him about how to keep the libido of his staff under control one might say.
The UN Secretary General. That’s not an easy job. Ki-moon is now being classed among the worst to hold that post. Ki-moon, says, modestly that performance is something others need to assess, but has listed among ‘achievements’ three successes: climate change, UN administrative reform and championing of human rights.
If administrative reform includes foot-dragging on necessary investigations, undermining the work of oversight bodies and going out of the way to sweep things under the carpet, then Ki-moon’s is an overwhelming success story and Inga-Britt Ahlenius’ memo a kind of award-citation. Human rights? Ki-moon has spent a lot of time and energy looking in the wrong place and wearing his ignorance and/or disregard of horrendous crimes against humanity that are being perpetrated under his very nose by his task-masters.
He tries to hang on ‘climate change’. What’s he talking about? The Copenhagen summit? That’s a success story? Well, if so, it is news to me. Robert Gallagher, European Editor at Large, Troy Media described the charade thus:
‘The French have an expression for it: leaving “par la petite porte,” by the side door. It usually denotes an uncomfortable departure, for reasons ranging from boredom to disgrace. The saying was particularly appropriate as heads of state left Copenhagen on Friday night, slinking away into their state aircraft to make their personal contributions to increased carbon emissions — without fanfare and with only the thinnest of press coverage.
All references to limiting temperature rise to less that 1.5C during this century were dropped. The earlier 2050 goal of reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions by 80% was unceremoniously dropped. The summit was marked by the lowest ambition-level ever in meetings of this nature. It recognized ‘the scientific case’ but did nothing to curb emissions, no commitments and no measures. This was ‘success’? I think a Grade 5 class in Weerawila could debate for half an hour on climate change and resolve ‘to take note of the need for action’. If this is the best Ki-moon could ‘achieve’ with respect to his closest-to-heart project then he should have resigned at the end of the year 2009. He didn’t. That would amount to being ‘shameless’.
Shenali Waduge, I believe, has made the most pertinent observation on the whole sex-lies-sloth-and-insolence pantomime: ‘An expert panel needed to investigate effectiveness of UN’. Spot on. I can predict the one-word recommendation of any independent and civilized body tasked to investigate the UN’s effectiveness: DISSOLVE! Not because of Ki-moon but regardless of him. He’s but ‘manifestation’ poor man, and that’s why we are seeing the person and not the institution being targeted. But Shanali is right. Ban Ki-moon needs an advisory panel like he needs to breathe. Maybe more than one considering that he’s been assaulted on all sides, especially by those who thought were his friends.
Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
|
|
|
|
|
