A Blind Eye:  Is corruption diminishing the influence and credibility of the UN?

By Efrem Berhane

 Jan 22, 2007

As the United Nations continues to focus on reform, a number of serious challenges lie ahead.  While in no way a blanket condemnation,  internal issues of corruption, mismanagement as well as a lack of accountability and transparency have attacked the organization at its core and appears to be diminishing its reputation and influence.

The call by the new secretary general’s,  Ban Ki-moon, for system-wide audits seems to be an immediate response to these issues.  The calls came after accountability issues surfaced questioning payments to local UNDP staff in  North Korea.  However, the improprieties in North Korea may turn out to be a small challenge as other problems and issues are exposed.  More significantly, it is questionable whether or not this call will bear any merit and some would even question the new administration’s ability to muster the internal muscle and determination necessary to push the inquiries forward.

Because he called for a system-wide audit, in a way the Secretary General has exposed that these problems are not specific to a region, subdivision or particular office.  “System-wide” implies that issues have culminated into a need for a full internal review.  Thus a decentralized process has to follow.  Yet, can UN Headquarters, based in New York, bring the renegade elements back into the fold?

As a senior UN employee with more than 20 years of UN experience and 12 at a regional commission, the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), it appears that nothing can be further from the truth.   Consensus here among most professional staff is that mismanagement and corruption will continue to flourish and the reforms will not address or eradicate the root causes. 

If what we’ve seen from management here is anything like what is expected from New York, the institutional weaknesses that are being exploited and which are feeding the crisis are being overlooked.  It’s not that the rules and regulations are not there but rather an inability to enforce them.  With no ability to enforce accountability standards, the UN is as susceptible to rogue elements as any other institution, private or public, international or local.

Some of us wondered why and how Kofi Annan could task the reform and change management calls to internal parties.  Again, management has underestimated the thrust of the problem.  The easiest way to describe and explain this is probably as follows: there exists within the UN networks of individuals situated in strategic positions who are willing to exploit resources for themselves and their allies.   Within investigation whether or not division chiefs, project managers and financial officials are embedded within these networks, it’s impossible to weed them out.

In a sense, by contextualizing the review in this manner, management pretty much asked the criminals to judge themselves. And what do we expect? Do we expect to discover the answers as to how managers could arrange for contracts for their friends, allies and even family members?  Do we expect to find out how these illegal activities go unnoticed by HR consistently. Will they explain how a division can have outstanding obligations with unjustifiable outputs?   Maybe somebody will step forward and admit that are being duped in to supporting ghost conferences,  projects and programs that only keep the same network of individuals who are part of the same game employed? Don’t count on it?

Is this a Blind Eye or a lack of focus?  Whatever the case, the lack of transparency and accountability are the ultimate weaknesses.   The UN needs a process to review every hiring, promotion, contract, travel plan, equipment purchase, use of XB funds if the reforms are to some have effect.  And the corrections need to be stern even if it leads to 40% of the personnel facing reassignment or dismissal.  The rampant abuse of political favor to warrant appointments and promotions, even in the lack of merit or qualification needs to be stopped immediately. 

Reassignment appears to be the likely recourse because it is the easiest of solutions presenting the least amount of legal hassle to the UN. The ironic thing, however, is that a large number of bad people will be afforded the opportunity to relocate to new environments, start new corrupt networks and will spread their influence. In this case, good or clean environments may be affected negatively by bad elements.  Therefore, it may be necessary to remove such individuals from within the system regardless of the costs.

What will the UN do?  Something has to happen fast because internal apathy is spreading rapidly and a number of good people are leaving the organization. In addition, if the trend continues  the UN might completely loose any moral footing it has in dealing with moral issues. 

Whatever the case, time will tell if the UN can salvage one good eye.