The UN should be monitored and audited by a neutral external body

In 2007, James Wasserstrom, an adviser to the United Nations mission in Kosovo, raised concerns about conflict of interest and corruption involving senior government officials and UN staff members.

He questioned the Energy minister’s takeover of the electricity corporation, and suspected that senior officials were receiving kickbacks.

His concerns were largely ignored by his superiors. He then did what any conscientious employee would do: he reported these cases to the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services, which began what he thought would be a confidential inquiry.

However, the inquiry was not as confidential as he thought and resulted in retaliatory actions against him. Not only was he fired, he was also detained and harassed by the UN police, who ransacked his apartment and encircled his former office with crime tape. He was made to feel like a criminal.

Wasserstrom sought help from the UN Ethics Office, which is supposed to assist UN whistle-blowers, but he hit a dead end there as well.

However, he did not take this humiliation lying down.

He hired a lawyer and took the case to the newly-established UN Dispute Tribunal, which, in a landmark ruling last month, decided that the UN failed to protect Wasserstrom and that its mechanisms for dealing with whistle-blowers were “fundamentally flawed”. He is now seeking $1 million in damages.

Wasserstrom is among the lucky few. Usually, UN whistle-blowers fail to get any justice. Their cases are often crushed before they reach any tribunal. Most are fired or demoted.

According to the Government Accountability Project, a watchdog organisation based in Washington DC, the UN Ethics Office is particularly notorious for not protecting whistle-blowers. Cover-ups by senior officials are also common.

Corruption is particularly rampant in war-torn countries where the UN operates, partly because war economies are not regulated and the opportunities for making a killing on contracts are enormous.

In some countries, the UN employs private contractors to do its work. These contractors enjoy enormous power, and often abuse it, as Kathryn Bolkovac, a former UN peacekeeper in Bosnia, found out when she discovered that many of her colleagues were involved in sex trafficking. (Her story has been made into a feature film.)

How is this possible in an organisation that is supposed to protect human rights and which, in 2005, adopted a UN Convention Against Corruption that advises governments on how they can tackle graft?

Well, it is possible because there is no independent external body that is mandated to monitor and audit the UN. Incredible as this might sound, the UN is entrusted to monitor itself.

This means that if a donor country wants to find out how its money was spent by the UN, it has to rely on the same organisation to provide it with the accounts.

The UN can say it spent X amount for an irrigation project and Y amount for travel, and the donor has to take the UN’s word for it.

Few donors ask to see or evaluate projects or demand receipts. The European Union, for instance, funds most UN projects in Somalia, but is not mandated to monitor them.

This has given birth to several phantom projects (some operated by politicians) that receive millions of dollars that are largely unaccounted for. Is it any wonder that Somalia remains a basket-case?

Many believe that the UN is not interested in policing itself because it comprises governments that are corrupt. Some countries see the UN as a place where cronies of politicians can enjoy secure jobs.

Senior UN jobs are often politicised and negotiated behind closed doors. The organisation is thus led, not by the most experienced or knowledgeable people, but by people who are beholden to politicians who may not want citizens of their countries scrutinised for wrongdoing.

Some say the UN needs more reforms, but no reforms will be complete without the establishment of an independent external body mandated to monitor, audit and evaluate UN programmes and projects, and which is authorised to punish wrongdoing and, if need be, close down failed projects.

The UN’s ineffective internal oversight mechanisms should also be overhauled and replaced with an independent body that can investigate fraudulent practices.