Bitter and twisted old men

The Laurel and Hardy of the Development world, messrs. Kemal Dervis and Ad Melkert has sent a very clear message as to exactly what they think of Office of the Under Secretary for Management at the United Nations in its efforts to improve internal oversight and transparency.
On 19 December 2005 when the Secretary-General issued the bulletin “Protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct and for cooperating with duly authorized audits or investigations” (SGB/2005/21), it seemed as if the United Nations was finally on track in applying common sense best practices in whistleblower protection.
However, since that time, UNDP senior management has made it apparent that they believe quite clearly that they can opt out of the whistleblower protection policy and reject Ethics Office findings, thus causing serious concerns regarding the effective implementation of the policy.
In a letter to the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) expressed these concerns:
“The “UN Delivering as One” initiative cannot be achieved with each unit applying a different set of ethical standards, nor can “One UN” be implemented at the country level if led by a UNDP that insists on its own institutional autonomy in the face of General Assembly resolutions.”
Instead of Ban Ki-moon using his authority to point out to the UNDP management that the bulletin (SGB/2005/21) was issued in accordance with a General Assembly instruction to apply to the whole of the UN system, he allowed UNDP to come up with its own set of rules.
UNDP promptly instructed their feather weight Legal Support Office to come up with an Updated “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With Un Standards Of Conduct” dated 20 September 2007.
GAP responded in some detail to this amateurish piece of nonsense but failed to reiterate clearly enough that above all else it is a document that is functionally illegal.
The one issue that is particularly revealing of the prevailing mentality of UNDP’s top management is contained in “Section 2 - Scope of Application” specifically point “2.2 - To Whom The Present Document Does Not Apply.”
It goes on to state that “6. The present document does not apply to:” and then excluding all seconded staff members, independent contractors, employees under Service Contracts, interns, volunteers, employees without a UNDP letter of appointment, independent contractors under Special Service Agreements and some locally recruited staff.
In other words, excluding exactly the sort of people most likely to raise concerns. Only regular staff can rely on any sort of protection. As a rule regular staff at UNDP only become regular staff once they have amply demonstrated that they are compliant and unlikely to complain.
The report also imposes restrictions on external disclosures, in favour of disclosure directly to the Administrator, thus turning this person into judge, jury, prosecutor, defended and executioner all in one.
It also promotes the fallacy that the Director of the Office of Audit and Performance Review (OAPR) would actually and impartially investigate reports of wrongdoing.
I have no experience of this office doing any such a thing – ever.
As part of its pious promises the report suggests that:
“27. In the event that the staff member fears retribution or retaliation as a consequence of reporting to his or her supervisors, he or she should report the matter to OAPR (by email: hotline@undp.org ; or by telephone: UNDP fraud hotline voicemail system: ((Worldwide)) +l 212 906 5050).
30. Except when an allegation is made anonymously, the individual reporting the allegations will receive an acknowledgement from the office to which the allegations were reported.”
Therefore I wrote to this office. The least I could hope for was an acknowledgement from the office that they had received my correspondence, as promised:
From: Leon Kukkuk Sent: 26 November 2007 09:02To: 'hotline@undp.org'Cc: 'Ellen Gardner'; 'matthew.lee@innercitypress.com'Subject: FW: [Fwd: Defamatory use of online service: http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html]
Failure by UNDP to adequately address the habit of its staff to lie, threaten and deceive.
Dear Madam/Sir,
Please refer to the message from Stephen Kinloch at the end of this correspondence.
I had responded to Stephen Kinloch in substantial detail regarding the issues that he had raised and requested clarification regarding the action he intends taking.
More than a year has now passed since his threat of “severe measures” and he still has neither followed up on this nor provided an explanation for his threats. A brief promise of a much belated OIOS investigation also failed to produce the slightest hint of a possible solution.
This is an issue that remains relevant for the following reasons:
· The actions taken against me by UNDP staff has been devastating and the consequences are ongoing to the present day.
· The same criminals that I had identified as involved in fraud remain employed with UNDP and continue to fail to adhere to the “highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity.”
· Fraud and corruption within UNDP remain systemic, systematic and co-ordinated. Management at all levels continue to act in the best interest of the criminals employed at the organisation. As things stand at the moment the only way to deal with UNDP is to make public at every opportunity the nature and extent of criminality within the organisation and to continuously inform the public and donors about the real motivations behind UNDP management decisions.
Even though I believe the making of threats to be grossly inappropriate behaviour by international civil servants, I nevertheless expect them to either follow through on these threats or provide an explanation or apology for having made them.
Stephen Kinloch has done neither.
UNDP has provided no explanation for this behaviour by one of its managers.
I do not consider the fact that UNDP employs cowards and condone cowardly behaviour as sufficient justification for this attitude.
Could I request you to please correct the present state of affairs?
Best Wishes.
Leon Kukkuk
-------- Mensagem Original --------
Assunto: Defamatory use of online service: http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html
Remetente: stephen.kinloch-pichat@undp.org
Data: Fri, 24 Novembro 2006 00:03
Para: leonkukkuk@publishedauthors.net

Dear Mr. Kukkuk,
It has just come to my attention that my name, together with that of several colleagues who either work or have worked for the United Nations (UN) and the United Nations Devlopment Programme (UNDP) in Angola or elsewhere, is mentioned in hidden (but searchable and readable) text, together with defamatory terms such as 'fraud' or 'corruption' in your webpage:
http://www.publishedauthors.net/leonkukkuk/events.html
As you are probably aware, the use of a computer or online service to defame a person carries with it severe potential liability, including for any related claims, proceedings, damages, injuries, liabilities,losses, costs, and expenses.
Therefore, I would like to kindly request you to immediately and completely delete all personal reference, whether hidden or visible, to my name and that of other colleagues from the above mentioned website, and any other website that you may have published.
I have already alerted PublishedAuthors.Net. In order to avoid further measures, I would appreciate your acknowledging receipt of this email and confirming that you have made taken appropriate corrective action.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Kinloch
Advisor, Strategic Planning
Office of the Resident Coordinator
United Nations - Port-au-Prince
To date no acknowledgement had been received from this office. Makes one wonder what they think of their own rules, or more pertinently, of people who have the audacity to complain.
The Purpose of the “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With Un Standards Of Conduct” has absolutely nothing to do with dispensing justice.
It is simply a roundabout way for UNDP management to declare that at UNDP there will be no justice –ever.
Management will continue to lie, delay, intimidate and threaten.
If this does not work then, quite simply, the feather weight Legal Support Office will be co-opted to come up with yet another new set of “rules.”
At UNDP the management has obviously sat down and done a cost/benefit analysis.
They realised that no matter how embarrassing their stonewalling tactics are, how much it harms their credibility, it is still preferable to allowing the full extent and scope of UNDP dysfunction to become public.
Consider “Section 4 - Prohibition of Retaliation against Outside Parties:”
“50. Any retaliatory measures (including threats) against a contractor or its employees, agents or representatives, or any other individual engaged in dealings with UNDP because such person has reported allegations of wrongdoing by a staff member will be considered misconduct that, if established, will lead to administrative and/or disciplinary action.”
Imagine the following, very typical, scenario:
You are a senior manager at UNDP, in charge of some outpost somewhere about which you know absolutely nothing and in whose culture you have no interest whatsoever.
For a number of months you had designed all manner of convoluted and complicated programmes and projects. They all involve a staggering number of UN agencies, NGO’s, businesses and government departments. Their complexity belies the fact that accounting and audit procedures are either non-existent or at best inadequate. A labyrinth of duplicate and often contradictory reporting procedures quickly create even more confusion. None of the senior managers have any clarity with regard to their mandates or responsibilities. Lies, delays and obfuscation further prevent anybody from asking too many questions. One or two compliant local staff members with political connections keep nosey local politicians at bay, either through intimidation or by paying them off.
You are convinced that nobody will notice the steady steam of public funds flowing into your bank account in Panama. Neither will they notice the number of sub-contracts issued to companies and NGO’s that just happen to belong to your wife, family or close friends.
Granted things do not always run smoothly.
In 2005 the UNDP administrator, the very sympathetic and supportive Mark Malloch Brown, departed suddenly to go and hold the hand of his friend Kofi Annan, embroiled in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Much is being made about the fact that Mr. Brown is being replaced by a real development professional, Kemal Dervis.
Real development priorities may prove somewhat problematic for your own carefully constructed projects, in which you had invested so much effort.
Then, no sooner had Kemal Dervis indicated that at UNDP it is business as usual when the impetuous new Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, promised an independent review of all Programmes and Funds.
Fortunately even this potential threat soon passed as the independent review was reduced to only an audit of North Korea before dissipating altogether.
Imagine now that out of the blue there appears some UNV or independent contractor asking all manner of pertinent and impertinent questions.
Do you:
a.) Graciously refrain from taking any retaliatory action against this individual since you are kindly requested to do so by the “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With UN Standards Of Conduct” or
b.) Retaliate against this individual since the same “UNDP Legal Framework For Addressing Non-Compliance With UN Standards Of Conduct” makes it quite clear that this individual has no protection or recourse under UNDP rules?

Been reading your Blog on UNDP

and thought this would be of interest...

http://www.whistleblower.org/template/index.cfm

10/11/2007

UNDP Draft Whistleblower Protections Inadequate


In the past few months, numerous whistleblowers have come forward with allegations of corruption and retaliation at the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Many of them believed that they would be protected by UN Secretary General Bulletin ST/SGB/2005/21 (SGB), approved in December 2005, entitled "Protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct and for cooperating with duly authorized audits or investigations." Recent developments, however, show that they were mistaken.

They have been told that UNDP has opted-out of coverage by the SGB in favor of its own protection policy. GAP, which provided counsel and technical assistance in the formulation of the SGB, has obtained a draft copy of the UNDP policy, dated September 20, 2007. This "Updated UNDP Legal Framework for Addressing Non-Compliance with UN Standards of Conduct," sets out UNDP's procedures for investigating misconduct and retaliation. Although the UNDP Framework has not yet been finally approved, the Legal Support Office maintains that its provisions are currently in use as a guide for investigating retaliation.

To address the discrepancies between the two policies, GAP has prepared a comparison of the proposed whistleblower provisions in the UNDP Legal Framework and the SGB, using "International Best Practices for Whistleblower Policies at Intergovernmental Organizations" as a guide. GAP found the UNDP Legal Framework to be substantially weaker than the SGB in several key areas including: due process rights, the statute of limitations, staff covered, the burden of proof, interim relief measures, retaliation sanctions and the provisions for reporting misconduct through external channels.

The UNDP Legal Framework often borrows paragraphs virtually verbatim from the SGB, deleting (or adding) only select words and phrases, apparently for the purpose of restricting the scope of coverage and compromising the objectivity of investigations. In doing so, the UNDP Legal Framework weakens the original policy developed for the organization.

Overall the UNDP Legal Framework also disregards the developments of the past two years during which management, staff, and member states have shown a determination to move the United Nations system toward an integrated and impartial internal justice system.

Click here to read GAP's comparison between the UN and UNDP policies.

Click here to read a chart comparing International Best Practices, the UN and UNDP policies.

Click here to read the Updated UNDP Legal Framework for Addressing Non-Compliance with UN Standards of Conduct

Click here to read International Best Practices for Whistleblower Policies at Intergovernmental Organizations


(The information above was received from a kind person who sent me an e-mail in this regard.)


On 20 December 2005 The Government Accountability Project (GAP) praised the United Nations for issuing a new standard of whistleblower protection in an anti-retaliation policy released today as a Secretary General’s Bulletin.

Then on 26 July 2007 The New York Sun reported in an article “Whistleblower Cases Highlight Capricious U.N. Enforcement:”
“The Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based organization that helped the United Nations write whistleblower protections two years ago, is following several cases at the United Nations. "It appears that the Secretariat makes the rules as it goes along," the international director of the project, Beatrice Edwards, said yesterday.”

In response to the e-mail I wrote:

“Thank you very much for your kind letter sending me this information.

I do of course follow the work of GAP quite closely and am very pleased that their attention has finally come to focus on UNDP.

The problems with UNDP are quite serious, I do maintain that it functions and reacts more like a crime syndicate than an international institution. The way that they are reacting to the jurisdiction of the Ethics Office and their insistence of wanting to play only by their own rules are further proof of that.

It will take a concerted effort as well as a thorough independent investigation to bring them to task. The fact that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's promise in January 2007 of a "world-wide audit of all programmes and funds" has since come to nothing, makes it even more imperative that outsiders should drive the process of reform, not only of the United Nations in general, but specifically and urgently of UNDP.”

GAP has done some outstanding work in dealing with corruption, their campaign against the World Bank standing out in this regard, as well as protecting whistleblowers in both the UN and the World Bank.

On 25 March 2005 GAP reported that: “U.N. whistleblower and Government Accountability Project (GAP) client Dr. Andrew Thomson returned to work Monday, March 21, with a promotion and new contract, four months after effectively being terminated for co-authoring a book highly critical of the United Nations and its peacekeeping operations. This follows U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s leadership in ordering, under pressure from members of Congress and GAP, a two-month reprieve of Thomson’s dismissal last December 31.”

The book, which became a minor bestseller and apparently is soon to be made into a mini-series is “Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth” by Andrew Thomson, Kenneth Cain and Heidi Postelwait.

Thomson noted, “Now it is illegal to harass whistleblowers the way I was openly retaliated against before last Christmas.”

And GAP supported this optimism with: “For many who have suffered reprisal for reporting misconduct, this policy offers vindication and hope that their service to the mission of the United Nations will henceforth be acknowledged and rewarded.”

Fat chance.

There is still a lot to be done and it would probably be a long-term effort. I maintain that most of these people at the UN and especially UNDP are common criminals that would not let go of their privileged lifestyles outside and above the law without putting up a fight.

I had in the past requested assistance from GAP and include their response to me as a comment to this post.
It is not meant as a complaint or criticism.
If anything it should highlight the difficulties we all face in investigating accountability issues, especially within the very complex arrangements characterized by International Institutions.
It will take a concerted effort by many people – organizations as well as individuals – to improve the current shameful state of affairs.