SCANDAL: UNDP management played a key role in securing Iran and North Korea's votes for Francis Gurry of WIPO (it allowed internal cover up of shipments thru its China Office)

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE ON REUTERS

By Emma Farge

GENEVA | Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:06am EDT
 

(Reuters) - Four months after a U.N. agency's decision to send computer equipment to Iran and North Korea first stirred controversy, a feud has erupted between the body's director general and a suspended senior manager over misconduct allegations.

In a suit filed with a U.N. tribunal, the manager accuses Francis Gurry, the Australian head of the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization, of pledging the equipment to the two sanctioned countries in exchange for their votes.

The suit also alleges Gurry earmarked posts for member states who backed him in his 2008 election and those whose votes he is trying to secure as part of his 2014 re-election bid.

WIPO is the U.N.'s richest body and is almost entirely self funded with annual revenues of over $300 million, mostly earned from patent application fees. It was created in the 1970s to promote intellectual property rights, particularly in the developing world, to further economic progress.

"The evidence suggests that the Director General has a track record of manipulating appointments to WIPO professional posts in exchange for votes," said the complainant's brief to the International Labour Organization's Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) filed on August 20.

The lawsuit was filed by Swiss-based lawyer Matthew Parish, partner at Holman Fenwick Willan, on behalf of a senior WIPO employee, Christopher Mason. Mason contends he was unjustly suspended for corruption in May 2011, wrongly accused of an improper relationship with a contractor at a firm bidding for a WIPO contract.

Gurry denied the allegations, saying he made no deals with any country in exchange for its support. He said a document cited by the claimant, which appears to list political appointments, was fabricated.

"No job pledges were made in exchange for political support, and no such document was ever created or approved by me. I believe that any document purporting to list pledges must be a work of fabrication," he said in an emailed statement last week.

Mason's lawyer Parish said: "The commitments document has been widely circulated throughout the diplomatic community for many months and is an open secret in WIPO."

An International Labour Organization official declined to comment on the proceedings which she said were confidential.

SEEKING REVENGE OR JUSTICE?

Some diplomatic sources in New York, where the United Nations has its headquarters, dismissed Mason's suit as a publicity ploy by an employee intent on embarrassing his former boss. They said they considered it unlikely the equipment in question would breach U.N. sanctions, which are less stringent than those imposed by the United States and European Union.

U.N. sanctions primarily target Iran and North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. They also include a ban on arms exports and, in the case of North Korea, a ban on exports of luxury goods.
One diplomatic source familiar with the case said Mason may be motivated by a desire for revenge after his suspension.

Mason asked the WIPO Appeal Board to review his suspension in August 2011. The board found that the decision to suspend Mason from duty was "flawed" and recommended re-instatement and a moral injuries payment, a document of their conclusions dated March 2012 showed. Mason remains suspended, however.

Although the suit alleges that the transfers to Iran and North Korea were promised in return for their votes in Gurry's 2008 election, it contained no proof to support this claim.

The allegations of vote buying could not be independently verified by Reuters. WIPO records show that Iran and North Korea were among 83 countries on the WIPO committee that selected the director general in 2008 in a secret ballot. The Iranian and North Korean diplomatic missions in Geneva did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Nevertheless, Mr. Mason's supporters maintain that the suit's claims are credible. These supporters include some inside the organization who declined to be named because they are not authorized to speak to the press and said they feared management retribution.

Mason's sympathizers say further that the case offers a rare glimpse into what critics say is a widespread system of political patronage within the United Nations and raises broader questions about accountability at the world body.

For instance, the head of WIPO's staff council Moncef Kateb has complained of political appointments "that contravene the most basic principles of international public service, particularly that of its independence", according to a statement in 2010 before WIPO's Coordination Committee, a body that advises the director general.

Kateb declined to comment for this story because he is not authorized to speak to the press.
"It's totally unacceptable to have this type of deals and it corrupts the system," said Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch, a non-governmental group that monitors the United Nations. "Regrettably, it is common. Governments jostle for their own interests and a lot of unsavory dealings occur."

Officials at the U.N. press office in New York did not respond to repeated email requests for comment.

The equipment in question, including servers, firewalls and computers worth roughly $200,000, was sent to Iran and North Korea, without the knowledge of other member states, according to a statement by Esther Brimmer, U.S. assistant secretary of state, earlier this month.

The 185-member agency says the transfers were legal and form part of a technical assistance program involving more than 80 countries to help them develop their patent offices.

U.S. SCRUTINY

The transfers of equipment by WIPO to Iran and North Korea are the subject of two U.S. government probes to establish whether they represented a breach of U.N. and U.S. sanctions aimed at curbing the development of nuclear technology.

The U.S. State Department said in July it was reviewing WIPO's dealings with countries that are under sanctions after media released documents showing WIPO had been involved in shipments to Iran and North Korea. The Department's initial conclusion is that there was no breach of U.N. sanctions because the items in question did not appear to be subject to a ban. The review is ongoing.
A U.N. Security Council diplomat said it was unlikely that its sanctions committees would take any action regarding the WIPO transfers of technology to Iran and North Korea for the same reason.
The U.N. panel of experts on North Korean sanctions said in its latest annual report that it was continuing to collect information on the WIPO case in relation to North Korea.

The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs is not yet convinced the transfers were legal, suspecting they may have involved banned items, a senior Congressional official involved in the investigation said. It is also reviewing a possible breach of the United States' own sanctions as some of the equipment may have been produced by U.S. computer maker Hewlett Packard Co, the official added.

The company did not respond to a request for comment.

Lawmakers on the bi-partisan House Committee raised concern about possible WIPO retaliation against whistleblowers in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on July 12 and in a letter to Francis Gurry on July 16, both seen by Reuters.

"I can't think of any action that has been taken against any whistleblower," Gurry told Reuters in July.
Email correspondence dated July 20 from Gurry to WIPO senior staff member James Pooley, seen by Reuters, indicated that the director general denied him permission to give evidence to the House Committee. Pooley declined to comment for this story because he is not authorized to speak to the press.

Members of the Committee said a second senior WIPO staff member was prevented from testifying at the committee hearing in a letter to Gurry dated August 1, forcing the cancellation of the session.
Asked in July about claims that witnesses were being blocked, Gurry said he would allow any "properly competent person" on the Iran and North Korea projects to testify.

Gurry said in a statement on the WIPO website on July 19 that supplies to sanctioned countries would in future need to be referred to legal counsel, which would consult the U.N. Sanctions Committee where necessary. WIPO has also commissioned an external enquiry to review the projects with Iran and North Korea, led by a Swedish police official and a U.S. attorney.

(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in New York; editing by Will Waterman and Janet McBride)

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE ON REUTERS 

Will the U.N. Apologize?

Editorial of The New York Sun | October 20, 2011

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/will-the-un-apologize/87533/

In the wake of the death of Colonel Gadhafi, the United Nations is being asked to apologize for “legitimizing” the Libyan tyrant with key posts. United Nations Watch, a particularly vigilant observer of the world body, is calling on the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and the U.N. human rights commissioner, Navi Pillay, to acknowledge that the U.N. “was wrong to support Gadhafi by granting him key posts on its most influential bodies.” Hillel Neuer, the executive director of United Nations Watch, says that the U.N. “should also apologize for choosing Gadafi's regime to head the planning of its 2009 world conference on racism, and for designating Colonel Gaddafi’s daughter Ayesha a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador.”

It would be hard to make such stuff up. But it gets even worse. It turns out that a member of the advisory committee to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, a one-time Swiss parliamentarian named Jean Ziegler, is, according to U.N. Watch, a co-founder of something called the “Gadhafi Human Rights Prize.” The 45 NGOs are calling for Mr. Ziegler to be fired from his advisory post at the U.N. Mr. Neuer called the Gadhafi prize “propaganda tool for the regime.”

The prize, which Wikipedia reports as running as high as $250,000, has been given out by a Swiss-based foundation; Wikipedia’s list of its winners includes, among others, Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, “the children of Palestine,” and, last year, the prime minister of Turkey, Recep Erdogan. The 45 NGOs who want Mr. Ziegler out of his U.N. advisory role are from a broad range of countries and people embarrassed by the United Nations willingness to bring Gadhafi into its human rights work.

* * *

It’s anyone’s guess whether the United Nations will accede to the request of the NGOs for an apology. But the world body’s record in respect of Gadhafi will stand for many years as one, if only one, reminder of where the United Nations has stood during the long struggle for human rights in the Middle East. And of why it is so important for the United States Congress to brush aside Secretary of State Clinton’s objections and pass United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act. The measure is being advanced by the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. It has cleared her committee. If passed it would give the Congress a stronger hand in denying funding for the absurd programs of a United Nations without shame.

________

* According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Mr. Ziegler once served as a chauffeur in Geneva for the South American communist Ernesto “Che” Guevara.

When In Doubt, Slam Israel

by Claudia Rosett

PajamasMedia.com

For the Islamic despotisms of the Middle East, it’s an old rule of thumb. When things get tough, or confusing, or frustrating, or when you simply want to deflect anger in the direction of a communal scapegoat, go on the offensive and blame the Jews.

In the United Nations Assembly, where the 56 states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference pay a pittance of the dues but hog a plethora of the policy, it’s standard practice. Gang up on Israel. At the UN Human Rights Council, it appears to be mandatory for the majority of members. Bypass such gross violators of human rights as Cuba and Zimbabwe, gloss over the provocations of such terrorist outfits as Hamas and Hezbollah, and, as UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer testified recently to Congress, devote 70% of the resolutions to condemning Israel.

Now we come to a moment in which the Middle East is in turmoil. Protests began in Tunisia, ousted the aging dictator, spread to Egypt and ousted another aging dictator. In Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Algeria, Iran and Libya, across a spectrum of polities that range from autocracy to some of the world’s most brutal despotisms, people are rising up. What better time for the despots of the Middle East to push to the fore a Palestinian campaign for the UN Security Council to — you guessed it — slam Israel.

What’s different is that this time, the U.S. administration, perhaps suffering its own doubts and frustrations over what to do in the Middle East, is reportedly about to join the lynching party. The Palestinians, while refusing to engage in good faith in negotiations with Israel, have been pushing for a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements as illegal. This has been brewing for a while, but the Security Council member-state of Lebanon (where Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been consolidating control) now deems it urgent business — so urgent that a vote might come in the next day or two. (The Security Council is chaired this month by Brazil; you remember Brazil — the country whose president turned up in Tehran last May, hand-in-hand with the prime minister of Turkey and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, exulting over a sham deal for an Iranian nuclear climbdown).

It seems the Obama administration doesn’t want to vote for this resolution. But neither does the U.S. administration want to upset the Security Council by actually wielding its veto for the first time since President Obama took office. Apparently the world’s former superpower would no longer dare to defy a group that includes the likes of Russia, China, Lebanon, and, of course, Gabon, Portugal and Bosnia and Herzegovina. So, according to a Foreign Policy report by Colum Lynch, the Obama administration has been haggling behind the scenes — not to use America’s clout to persuade the Security Council members to drop the entire thing, but to hash out with Arab regimes a Security Council “statement” that attacks Israel.

Israel, a democratic ally of the U.S., is right now quite beleaguered enough. Iran’s regime, while pursuing nuclear weapons and bloodying internal dissent, proposes to wipe Israel off the map . Iran’s terrorist clients stand ready to help, including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah again stockpiling missiles under the gaze of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. Egypt’s Lotus Revolution may hold great promise, but Egypt’s future — jihad-dedicated Muslim Brotherhood and all — is still in play. This is a volatile moment in the Middle East. So what is the U.S. doing to clarify its policies and priorities? In the diplomatic back rooms of Washington and the UN, U.S. appeasement may be playing right now as a delicate balancing act; an attempt to cope with the pressures of a Middle East in tumult. But it boils down to the Obama administration embracing the same ugly policy as Middle East despots: when the going gets tricky, never mind the real problems and the real dangers. Go along with the free-riders of the Security Council, placate Nigeria, bow to Russia and China, follow the lead of Lebanon — and slam Israel. Is that really what Americans want?