Ban ki-moon lies to members states about his 3% cut - the truth is much different

CLICK HERE TO VIEW DOCUMENT @ FOXNEWS

Or click here for FOXNEWS story on "proposed budget cut"

U.N. SCANDAL: Chinese group linked to Ban Ki Moon's Advisory group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC) awarded $80 million UN Contract

a group who participates and attends United Nations highest policy committee on Energy and Climate change has been awarded a "Solar Energy Contract" worth $80 Million dollars from no one else but the United Nations.

What insiders call as a major conflict of interest, seem to be a personal move of Kim Won-so, Ban Ki Moon's personal handler, to secure China's support for a second term for Ban Ki Moon.

How can an insider to United Nations highest body on Energy be awarded a $80 million dollars contract? Only Ban Ki Moon can explain.

Kim Jong Il's 'Cashbox'

Claudia Rosett, 04.15.10, 12:00 PM ET

Despite all the pomp and nuclear summitry, North Korea keeps sliding down President Barack Obama's to-do list. Yet something must be done. The threat here is not solely North Korea's own arsenal, or its role, despite U.S. and United Nations sanctions, as a 24/7 convenience store for rogue regimes interested in weapons of mass destruction plus delivery systems. The further problem is that North Korea provides perverse inspiration for other despotisms.

While Obama talks about a world without nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il sets tyrants everywhere a swaggering example of how to build the bomb and get away with it. Indeed, if recluse weirdo Kim can have the bomb, how on earth could Iran's ayatollahs face themselves in the mirror every morning if they don't have one too?

In the new millennium, Pyongyang has been blazing a proliferation trail that includes illicit nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009; illicit tests of ballistic missiles; and such extravagant stuff as help for Syria in building a secret nuclear reactor (which might even now be cranking out plutonium for bombs, had the Israelis not destroyed it with an air strike in 2007). Coupled with such North Korean habits as vending missiles and munitions to the likes of Syria, Iran and Iran's Lebanon-based terrorist clients, Hezbollah, all this is a wildly dangerous mix.

So what to do about North Korea? Over the past 16 years, nuclear talks and freeze deals have repeatedly failed, under both presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Asked about North Korea in a press conference at the close of this week's nuclear summit in Washington, Obama gave the vague reply that he hoped economic pressure would lead to a resumption of the six-party talks. But he ducked the question of why sanctions have failed to halt North Korea's nuclear program, saying "I'm not going to give you a full dissertation on North Korean behavior."

OK, it's not Obama's job to deliver dissertations on North Korea. But he missed a fat opportunity to say something genuinely informed and useful. The president--and his entire foreign policy team--ought to be reading and talking (loudly) about the material contained in a highly readable 36-page monograph published just last month by the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College: "Criminal Sovereignty: Understanding North Korea's Illicit International Activities."

This study is co-authored by three men who share an unusually clear-eyed interest in exploring the nitty-gritty of North Korea's inner workings, Paul Rexton Kan, Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. and Robert Collins. Among them, going back more than three decades, they have more experience observing North Korea than some of the high-profile diplomats who have parleyed with Pyongyang in recent years from the five-star hotels of Beijing and Berlin. For this publication the three analysts draw on congressional testimony, press reports from around Asia and interviews with North Korean defectors (a resource too often ignored or underutilized by Washington officialdom).

"Criminal Sovereignty" focuses not on proliferation per se, but on a curious institution within North Korea's government, usually referred to as Bureau No, 39. And what, exactly, is Bureau No. 39?

Located in a heavily guarded concrete building in downtown Pyongyang, Bureau No. 39 is the nerve center of North Korea's state-run network of international crime. Its official name is Central Committee Bureau 39 of the Korean Workers' Party. The authors refer to it by what Bechtol says is the more accurately nuanced translation of "Office No. 39."

The mission of Office No. 39 is to generate torrents of cash for North Korean ruler Kim Jong Il, by way of illicit activities abroad. Favorite rackets include international trafficking of drugs produced under state supervision in North Korea, and state production and laundering into world markets of counterfeit U.S. currency, and cigarettes. Such activities are tied directly to the survival of Kim's regime. The authors report "the crimes organized by Office No. 39 are committed beyond the borders of North Korea by the regime itself, not solely for the personal enrichment of the leadership, but to prop up its armed forces and to fund its military programs."

---

What sets Office No. 39 apart from more pedestrian political corruption or organized crime is that this operation is not some wayward private gang or unauthorized appendage of government. It is an integral and institutionalized part of the North Korean regime. As such, it enjoys the perquisites and protective trappings of the modern nation-state, including the use of North Korean embassies and state-run businesses abroad, and the reluctance of other nations to intervene in the sovereign affairs of North Korea.

Office No. 39 is directly tied to Kim himself, who set it up way back in 1974, when his father, Kim Il Sung, was still in power. The authors explain: "This office was established for the explicit purpose of running illegal activities to generate currency for the North Korean government." Since the 1991 Soviet collapse, which ended subsidies from Moscow, Office No. 39 has become ever more important, and especially over the past 10 years, its activities have become more prolific.

Office No. 39 continues to report directly to Kim, who took charge of the regime when his father died in 1994. According to a North Korean defector interviewed by the authors, Kim Kwang-Jin, who has firsthand knowledge of North Korean financial practices, Office No. 39 is also known to North Korean insiders as "the keeper of Kim's cashbox." Organized into 10 departments, specializing in various illicit activities, Office No. 39 serves as a slush fund through which billions of dollars have flowed over the years. In a bizarre personal touch, these funds are collected and presented periodically to Kim in aggregate amounts, labeled "revolutionary funds," on such special occasions as his official birthday, Feb. 12, or the birthday of his late father, Kim Il Sung, April 15th.

This money is not spent on easing the miseries of millions of repressed and famished North Koreans. That effort--from which Kim also has a record of appropriating resources to sustain his regime--is left to the likes of international donors, contributing via outfits such as the United Nations. The authors explain that the profits of Bureau 39 help swell the offshore bank accounts of Kim's regime, used not only to pay for his luxurious lifestyle, but to buy the loyalties and materials that underpin his totalitarian, nuclear-entwined military state.

If Office No. 39 enjoys the amenities of operating as part of the North Korean state, it is by the same token an avenue of vulnerability leading straight to Kim Jong Il. That was evident back in 2005, when the U.S. Treasury caused clear pain for Kim by targeting a major hub of Office No. 39 financial activities in Macau--only to be only to be yanked off the case by a State Department desperate to coddle Kim into a nuclear freeze deal, which then flopped.

These days U.S. and U.N. efforts to corral North Korea seem focused narrowly on activities tied directly to nuclear proliferation. It's been a while since Washington complained loudly about the rest of Kim's rackets. Obama needs to think bigger, speak up and solicit the world's help in cracking down much harder on the all the networks of Office No. 39. Emptying Kim's cashbox could go farther toward ending the North Korean nuclear threat than any amount of six-party talks or summits.

Claudia Rosett, a journalist in residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes a weekly column on foreign affairs for Forbes.

Read more Forbes Opinions here.

Ailing Kim Jong-il 'Increasingly Reliant on Inner Circle'

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il apparently had age spots removed from his face to look healthy but is becoming more and more fretful and dependent on old friends or family, the National Intelligence Service said in a report at the National Assembly's Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.

Kim is constantly accompanied by his sister Kyong-hee (64), the head of the Workers Party's light industry department, and her husband Jang Song-taek (64), the director of the party's administration department.

"We believe that Kim is very worried about various issues given his public apology" for failing to fulfill his father's last wishes, NIS chief Won Se-hoon said. "It seems likely that internal chaos will deepen."

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is seen on the left with blotches on his face in 2007, while his face looks clear in the 2010 photo on the right.

Commenting on the succession, he said since the birthday of Kim Jong-un, Kim's third son and heir apparent on Jan. 8 , the regime has been holding "singalongs to pledge loyalty." "It seems that the regime has now moved from helping Kim junior establish a record of achievements to the next phase of assisting him in taking part in policy making processes," he added.

A North Korean source said the same day the powerful National Defense Commission has involved Kim Jong-un in shaping important policies. "Just as his father was when he himself was heir apparent, Kim junior is also involved in recruiting senior officials," the source added.

Won also touched on the aftermath of the North's disastrous currency reform, confirming that there were "serious effects" including a degree of unrest.

When asked by lawmakers if the North Korean leadership is in control, he said, "We believe that they are still in control. There is zero possibility of a coup."

He also commented on rumors that North Korea's recently established official investment agency, the Taepung International Investment Group, has managed to woo US$10 billion in foreign investment. "The rumors have turned out to be unfounded. It's improbable that the North could attract that kind of investment in the circumstances," he added.

Defeat Ban Ki – Moon At UNO

By Nalin de Silva

(March 10, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is clear that the western countries led by USA and UK would like to brand Sri Lanka as a pariah state sooner than later. The fast by Sarath Fonseka on the issue of having telephone conversations allegedly with his daughters is connected with Ban Ki- moon’s decision to go ahead with the appointment of a so called advisory panel on "accountability issues" relating to possible human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Though Fonseka is not the opposition leader in Sri Lanka many news media continue to call him so. There will be economic sanctions imposed on Sri Lanka and these are the well known western tactics used to bring down a government that the west does not like. We should only hope that the government of Sri Lanka would not resort abuse of powers as a response to the pressure applied by the western countries, unlike those countries.

The western countries are reacting in this manner simply because they do not like the victory of the armed forces over the most ruthless terrorist group in the world until they were defeated last year. They had supplied the LTTE with arms and supported them at the so called international conferences had abused diplomacy in order to meet the front organisations of the LTTE, which they sponsored. They would always claim that the LTTE is banned in their countries and that they are meeting either human rights organisation or pressure groups. The west can always hide behind these interpretations as the laws as well as the interpretations are their creations.

The USA and UK had always wanted to take revenge from President Mahinda Rajapakse and the Defence Secretary Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapakse for defeating Prabhakaran and his terrorist outfit. Even before the defeat of the LTTE the USA had indicted Sarath Fonseka and Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapakse in one of the courts of law in California. However, things changed when Sarath Fonseka said on or about 10th July 2009 at Ambalangoda that the Army had shot those who came with white flags. On the 15th of July he was removed from the post of commander of the Army and it is clear from that day onwards (or even before that) he had been in communication with some UNP and JVP members on various strategies. He paid a visit to USA and he had been telling the world since December 2009, through the Sunday Leader the newspaper once edited by one of the people whom he has appreciated as evident by his garlanding of a photograph of the latter by him recently, that the Defence Secretary had ordered Major General Shavindra de Silva to shoot even those who came with white flags. This is a change of position after he has become a "crown witness" of the westerners against the President and the Defence Secretary. This statement by the former commander of the army tantamount to treason whether it is true or not as we have argued elsewhere, and the Retd. General had to be brought before a court martial.

Sarath Fonseka was not arrested as the oppositional candidate at the Presidential elections but as a retired army commander and a retired chief of defence staff and now he is kept in the official residence of a high ranking navy officer. He is not treated the way Colonel Richard Udugama, a former army commander was treated by the then UNP government and then no human rights organisation came in support of the commander. Now Sarath Fonseka has apparently begun a fast until he is allowed to communicate with his daughters through the telephone. I wonder why the army allowed Sarath Fonseka the facility of telephoning the daughters in USA when it would have been obvious that the "crown witness" would have taken the opportunity to speak to his masters in USA and do what they instruct if only to save his life. Would it be possible to have a "journalist" listening to the conversation between Sarath Fonseka and the "daughters" as in the case of the much publicised conversation between the Defence Secretary and Major General Shavindra Silva, on that fateful day in May last year.

Sarath Fonseka would have learnt of these fasts from his allies in the JVP, which has organised numerous "akhanda upavasa" in the recent past. Almost all the fasts have ended up as farce becoming "kanda upavasa". It is clear that the west wants to make a hero out of Sarath Fonseka dead or alive as the westerners are not bothered about the life of a person as long as it serves their political purpose. They could claim that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is horrible as it did not allow a person (the so called leader of the opposition as Ranil is of no use to them now) taken into custody by the military police to telephone his daughters. In any event the strategy is clear. Let Fonseka fast for his so called right to telephone his "daughters" in USA, when there is no right as such, and let the JVP create trouble in the country in the name of democracy. Are there any laws in USA that allows a person taken into custody to telephone his offspring in Russia, China or even in England?

There is no point in discussing double standards of the west in respect of Ban Ki- moon to appoint a so called advisory panel when there are no such panels for Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Recently it was revealed that as a result of USA- UK using poisonous gas in Iraq children with various defects have been born in recent years. It is pointless asking Ban Ki – Moon to appoint panels advisory or otherwise with respect to what is happening in Afghanistan. There are no double standards. The west simply tries to safeguard their culture, economic and political structures and any country going against their wish is punished.

Ban Ki – Moon coming from South Korea knows how American forces are occupying that country but he would not raise a finger against such action. If he does he would not be the UN Secretary General anymore as USA would not tolerate such persons. Ban Ki – Moon is interested in keeping his job for a second time and he would do anything that the west dictates to him. There is no point in discussing so called liberals in the west as they have no power at all. What power or influence Chomsky has in USA? He is better known in Sri Lanka than in USA as the USA knows how to deal with such persons while talking of freedom of speech and other so called democratic rights.

It is necessary to have a different kind of a non aligned group and Sri Lanka could give leadership to the world in this regard. It need not be anti western per se but for example should go all out to protect the sovereignty of the states in the UNO. Ban Ki – Moon is trying to interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka and should be banned from the UNO. The new non aligned group should not only protect the countries from colonial concepts such as R2P that come in the guise of human rights protection, but help each other economically. More trade should take place between these countries and if possible should ban not only Ban Ki – Moon but the western economic products as well. These countries should realise that they can live without the west if there is enough cooperation among them. It is the west that has given us the impression that we cannot live without their products, funds and also their knowledge. Sri Lanka is striving to be the knowledge centre of Asia but it can be achieved only if we create our own knowledge without depending on the western knowledge.

We know that Miliband was in Colombo to save Prabhakaran and with people such as Nambiar of Ununited Notorious Organization (UNO) were here after organizing that ship to carry the LTTE leaders. However, all these attempts failed and now Miliband, Blake and Ban Ki- Moon and others are trying to play chaggudu/ kabadi with Sri Lanka. If there was a kind of non aligned group we could have out played Ban Ki – Moon and voted him out of that notorious organization called the UNO. It is time for the non western countries to take over the UNO and run it on a smaller scale so as to help the world at large and not the western countries at the expense of the others.

Kim Jong-il's Eldest Son Drinks with S.Korean Tourists

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il inspects an air force unit in May 2009. In recent photos including this one, Kim is shown with discolored hands and fingernails, common symptoms of kidney disease. /Yonhap

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's eldest son Kim Jong-nam, who has reportedly been passed over in the succession, can sometimes be found drinking with South Koreans at a bar in Macau.

A government official on Tuesday said, "I've heard that some South Koreans were watching Kim Jong-nam at a bar in Macau recently because he looked familiar, and he suggested they have a drink together. So they drank and had a chat."

The official said a visit to China by Kim senior is "a possibility." Regarding Kim Jong-il's health, he said the dictator seems to be "too busy" to have a serious health problem.

Asked about North Korea's announcement that it detained four South Koreans for alleged illegal entry, the official said, "There was a tip from families about two people who have gone missing after a business failure, so we're checking their whereabouts. But we don't know whether these two are among the four people allegedly in detention."

"It'll be difficult to correctly identify them until the North does," he added.

UN Corruption: At UN, Friends Give Friends High Posts by Doctoring C.V.s, In $300 Million Delayed Umoja ERP

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, March 8 -- Corruption and nepotism have infected the UN's $300 million plus Enterprise Resource Planning computer project, sources and documents indicated.

After Paul van Essche came in as head of the ERP at the D-2 level, he immediately moved to bring in colleagues and friends from Geneva, doctoring their Personal History Profiles to do so.

Jon Solem had applied for a P-5 post in ERP, listing van Essche as his supervisor, but hadn't been selected. Aftr van Essche became the D-2 in charge, Solem applied for a D-1 post, one step down from Van Essche's D-2, but a step up from the P-5 he hadn't gotten.

Suddenly Solem's PHP was doctored to delete references to Van Essche as supervisor. Van Essche served on and chaired the selection panel, and selected his friend Solem, without leaving any paper trail.

The UN's ERP program is behind schedule and over budget. What has been the UN's response? To rename it Umoja, Swahili for "unity." More than a year ago on January 19, 2009, the UN announced

The UN has decided to award a contract for Enterprise Resource Planning software to a European software company called SAP. The awarding of the contract is subject to successful negotiations, which will start immediately and are projected to wrap up within three months. As of now, no contract has been awarded, and the value of any such contract is as yet undetermined.

More than a year later, the contract has still not been finalized. Related, Inner City Press has asked what is the status of the implementation of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards? Four years ago, in November 2005, the High Level Committee on Management recommended system-wide adoption of IPSAS by 2010, and in 2006 the GA passed a resolution (60/283) which set the 2010 deadline. But it now appears that the Secretariat is running four years late, and does not expect to implement IPSAS until December 2014.

Consultants from PriceWaterhouseCoopers are swarming, their meters running, while as one member of the UN's budget committee told Inner City Press, "nothing is being accomplished except high officials hiring their friends."

Sources paint this picture, on which both Mr. Van Essche and Mr. Solem were asked to comment prior to publication of this story, without response:

* In early 2008, several ERP-related Vacancy Announcements (VAs) were announced by the UN including: D2 Project Director, D1 Business Process Reengineering Coordinator and P5 Senior Change Management posts.

* Mr. Jon Solem applied to the P-5 Senior Change Management post and Mr. Paul van Essche applied to D2 Project Director post.

* Mr. van Essche was selected for D2 post and started in September 2008. In October 2008, he canceled the VA for the D1 Business Process Reengineering Coordinator, changed the title to Organizational Change Manager and re-advertised it.

* Mr. van Essche chaired the interview panel for the P-5 Senior Change Management Officer post. Mr. Solem was not selected. These are extracts from the PHP, in which he names Mr. van Essche as his previous supervisor. At the time, he was not sure if Mr. van Essche would be selected Project Director.

Application for P5 (Mar-May 2008, VA 417551)
Employer	Type of Business	Year	Supervisor	Location
UNHCR	Snr CM Officer	05/2006-06/2008	Colin Mitchell	Swiss
UNHCR	Snr Business Analyst	02/2005-03/2006	Colin Mitchell	Swiss
ILO	Snr.CM Officer	05/2004-12/2004	Paul van Essche	Swiss
UNHCR	Snr.CM Officer	07/2003-05/2004	Michael Malecha	Swiss
Public relations firm	Indp. Cnslt.	08/2002-07/2003	Illa Thompson	South Africa
LeftBrain	Consulting	01/2002-08/2002	Paul van Essche	Swiss
Health Online	Clinical Laboratory	04/2000-12/2001	Paul van Essche	Swiss
SGS	Testing & Quality	08/1993-04/2000	Robert Collier	Swiss

Mr. van Essche also chaired the interview panel for the D1 Organizational Change Manager. The panel selected Mr. Solem, this time. Mr. Solem however doctored his PHP to conceal his relationship with Mr. van Essche.

Application for D1 (Oct-Dec. 2008, VA 419603)
Employer	Type of Business	Year	Supervisor	Location
Michael O'Neill	Change Consulting	06/2008-11/2008	Michael O'Neill	Swiss
UNHCR	Snr CM Officer	05/2006-06/2008	Colin Mitchell	Swiss
UNHCR	Snr Business Analyst	02/2005-03/2006	Colin Mitchell	Swiss
ILO	Snr.CM Officer	05/2004-12/2004	Steven Townley	Swiss
UNHCR	Snr.CM Officer	07/2003-05/2004	Michael Malecha	Swiss
Public relations firm	Indp. Cnslt.	08/2002-07/2003	Illa Thompson	South Africa
LeftBrain	Consulting	01/2002-08/2002	Richard King	Swiss
Health Online	Clinical Laboratory	04/2000-12/2001	Miguel Payrot	Swiss
SGS	Testing & Quality	08/1993-04/2000	Robert Collier	Swiss

* The questions are why did Mr. Solem doctor his PHP? Did OHRM conduct a background check? Why did Mr. van Essche cancel the previous VA and allowed to rename the post. The GA approved the post as D1 BPR Coordinator.

* Mr. Solem was a P-4 at UNHCR and became a D1 with Umoja.

* A review of Mr. van Essche’s PHP show that he and Jon worked for SGS (Switzerland) at around the same time.

We will have more on this.

An Umoja ERP team on a "World Tour" -- van Essche video here -- friends hiring friends not shown

On March 8, when the UN took no non-Iraq or non-Police questions at its noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about hiring irregularities at the UN, in this case the foreign minister of Sri Lanka asking a high UN official to give his son a job. Mr. Ban said that the UN is transparent. From the UN's transcript of the Q & A:

Inner City Press: the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka, also over the weekend, confirmed that he sought a job for his son with the UN. I wonder if you think that is appropriate, and is such a job going to be given?... Do you think that it’s appropriate for the Foreign Minister of a country with which you are dealing with on possible war crimes to be seeking a job for his son with the UN?

SG: First of all, I am not aware of that particular case of job application of the Foreign Minister’s son. As a matter of fact, any recruitment process will have to be dealt with in a most transparent and objective manner by the selection committee members. That is what the United Nations has been [using] as a principle.

Has the UN been using transparency in recruitment and assessment as a policy? Again, we will have more on this.

UN agency punished Somalia whistleblower

LONDON - The United Nations Ethics Committee has upheld complaints by a former employee of the UN Development Program who said he suffered retaliation from the UNDP for alleging that its Somalia program was corrupt.

The man, Ismail Ahmed, was transferred to another office without proper visa support, and the UNDP Somalia office later told a potential employer not to hire him because of his "silly non-proven accusations", Ethics Committee Chairman Robert Benson found in a report seen by Reuters.

Ahmed has identified one of the main authors of the retaliation as Eric Overvest, a Dutch national who is now in charge of the UNDP office in earthquake-stricken Haiti.

Ahmed's case has been supported by the U.S.-based Government Accountability Project (GAP), a non-profit organization which backs whistleblowers in exposing corruption.

"A retaliator in Dr. Ahmed's case was promoted and transferred to Haiti, where he was the Country Director for UNDP at the time of the devastating earthquake there," GAP said in a statement issued to Reuters.

"The move is a cause for concern as the ability of UNDP to monitor the disbursement of aid in Haiti has been severely compromised by the chaotic aftermath of the disaster."

UNDP spokesman Stephane Dujarric said that following the Ethics Committee ruling, "the matter of individual accountability" for the retaliation against Ahmed had been referred to the UNDP's Office of Audit and Investigations.

"As that aspect is currently pending, UNDP is not in a position to comment further," he said.

He described Overvest as talented, dedicated and skilled in dealing with countries in crisis.

"We are extremely pleased with his critical work in Haiti, where he has been UNDP's Country Director since 2009. Our investigation found no involvement on his part in any of the alleged corrupt activities," Dujarric said.

Overvest did not respond to emailed questions from Reuters on Tuesday. Dujarric said he would not be available for comment.

"SILLY ACCUSATIONS"

Ahmed says it was Overvest, then a deputy country director in the UNDP Somalia program, who flew to Dubai in November 2007 and told the Somali Money Transmitters Association not to take him on as a consultant.

The UN Ethics Committee chairman's report did not mention Overvest by name, but upheld Ahmed's complaint of damage to his professional reputation.

"It is therefore concluded that the UNDP Somalia Country Office as a retaliatory act communicated quite openly in relation to the consultancy contract that 'UNDP cannot accept Ahmed, who is making all these silly non-proven accusations, to work on a project UNDP was funding'," it said.

Ahmed, a British national, worked for the UNDP from 2005-7 on a program to prevent Somalia's money transfer system from being abused for money laundering and terrorist finance.

The Ethics Committee report upheld three of his complaints of retaliation but rejected four others, including allegations relating to the withholding of payments and non-renewal of his contract. Ahmed was awarded undisclosed compensation last month.

In his whistleblowing dossiers, first reported in May 2008 by Reuters, he alleged the existence of fraudulent payments and bogus contracts in the UNDP Somalia program and said it had supported a company with suspected links to Islamist militants.

The company, Dalsan, collapsed in May 2006 and depositors lost more than $30 million, a blow to the Somali economy which depends heavily on remittances from nationals living abroad. The country faces an Islamist insurgency and has become a haven for pirates who extort huge ransoms by hijacking ships.

UNDP spokesman Dujarric said the agency had given "due consideration" to the corruption allegations and engaged an independent international forensic company to investigate them.

"The results of the investigation were that no corruption had occurred," Dujarric said, declining to name the investigating company or release the report.

Ahmed described the finding as "incredible", adding: "The fact they have refused to share any information clearly shows they have something to hide."

GAP International Program Officer Shelley Walden said it was unclear how widely or narrowly the UNDP was defining corruption.

"To a certain extent, this is a semantic trick bag as, strictly speaking, no UN agency finds that corruption has occurred. UN investigators are not agents of law enforcement . . . Legally, UNDP neither clears nor arraigns anyone," she said. GAP urged the UNDP to make its report public.

"In the absence of the investigative report, GAP cannot determine if there was a good faith effort to investigate Mr. Ahmed's disclosures," Walden told Reuters. "Indeed, a failure to disclose it suggests that UNDP is trying to hide something or inappropriately protect a malefactor."

Kim Jong-il Shows Up at Mass Rally

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il attended a mass rally in Hamhung, South Hamgyong Province to celebrate the dedication of the February 8 Vinalon Complex, which resumed operation for the first time in 16 years, the North Korean media reported Saturday.

For security reasons, Kim rarely shows up at outdoor rallies. A South Korean security official said this was the first time Kim ever attended an industrial mass rally. In the past, he sometimes attended only political or military events such as a military parade on the 55th anniversary of North Korea in September 2003 and another on the 75th anniversary of the North Korean Army.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il applauds at a mass rally celebrating the dedication of the February 8 Vinalon Complex in Hamhung, South Hamgyong Province on Saturday. /[North] Korean Central News Agency-Yonhap

The only time North Koreans heard his voice was at a ceremony marking the North Korean Army's anniversary in April 1992, when he uttered the single sentence, "Glory to the heroic soldiers of the People's Army!"

Rumors had it that even such a cry was a result of a "broadcasting accident" -- that his voice was inadvertently broadcast. Meanwhile, his voice was not heard at the latest mass rally.

[North] Korean Central TV and Central Broadcasting relayed a detailed recording of Kim's attendance at the mass rally in Hamhung which drew about 10,000 people.

Kim has taken an unusual interest in vinalon this year, a synthetic fiber North Korea has developed using carbide extracted from anthracite. It is called the "juche (self-reliant) fiber" in the North.

He visited the Hamhung plant for two days in early February and even invited Wang Jiarui, the director of the Chinese Communist Party's International Liaison Department, there for a meeting when he was on a state visit to the country.

Ryu Dong-ryeol, a researcher at the Police Science Institute, said, "Vinalon was a symbol of solutions to the clothing problem in the North in the 1960s and 70s. The North is now touting it to give the people the illusion of a better life."

Ian Bremmer: Iran is ultimately likely to go nuclear as North Korea did

Ian Bremmer is the president of the Eurasia Group, a New York based think-tank. He is one of the leading American experts on Russia, the Post-Soviet states and Asia. Mr.Bremmer is also the author of "The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?" He gives his assessments of the situation around Iran, the problems in negotiating a new agreement to replace the START Treaty between Russia and the United States as well as his point on the political and energy turf wars in Europe, in an interview with RIA Novosti New York Bureau chief Dmitry Gornostaev.

- Iran has said it's prepared to exchange the nuclear fuel on its territory only. Why is this condition unacceptable for the US as it seems to be one of the few ways to make a diplomatic deal with Iran? In the current situation, is the negotiating track still considered to be a realistic one or the US has nothing to do but close the door to negotiations and proceed with sanctions?

- Iran has consistently hidden key components of its enrichment program from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The discovery late last year that Iran had hidden an underground nuclear site at Qom has dampened hopes within the Obama administration that Iran might be willing to make an acceptable deal, and the latest IAEA report on the program argues that the problem continues. Given that history, Washington insists that there cannot be a diplomatic solution unless Tehran’s compliance with the agreement can be easily verified by international inspectors. The US and its European partners will continue with negotiations, but the UN Security Council will likely take up another sanctions resolution soon.

- The idea of new sanctions against Tehran has seemingly got - if not an approval, then at least the concession - of Russia and the only objection is from China. Why is Beijng so reluctant to sanctions even after the new IAEA report only increased the concerns of Iran building a nuclear weapon? Is it possible that China will give up?

- China has been the most reluctant because it imports large quantities of energy from Iran, because it doesn’t like the appearance of doing anything under pressure from Washington, and because Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t pose a direct threat to China’s interests. Yet, China will probably support some form of sanctions, given the IAEA report, Russia’s position on the issue and the latest news from Tehran. They do not want to be the only UNSC permanent member to cast a veto.

- It's a bit surprising to watch the US trying to persuade China on Iran and at the same time kicking Beijing by selling arms to Taiwan and welcoming the Dalai Lama to the White House. Were these two apparently anti-Chinese moves more important for Washington than getting China on board in terms of UN sanctions against Tehran?

- These problems in US-Chinese relationship are not as serious as they appear. There is nothing new about arms sales to Taiwan, and China isn’t particularly threatened by them. The Dalai Lama is a similar story. Every president since Ronald Reagan has met with the Dalai Llama at least once, and the Obama administration was careful to downplay the importance of the meeting after refusing to meet with him last year on the eve of a crucial G20 meeting. Again, China will take the usual diplomatic steps to express disapproval in a case like this, but there are many issues in US-Chinese relations that are far more important to both sides.

- The Israeli prime minister proposed to impose sanctions on Iran without the UN Security Council approval in case China (and possibly Russia) doesn't agree. Do you think that the Obama administration can go for actions bypassing the UN Security Council, as the Bush administration did when starting the war against Iraq?

- The Obama administration sees these as separate tracks. First, let be clear that I do not see any real risk of US military strikes against Iran. On the sanctions process, the US will work through the Security Council, but it will also work with allies and other willing partners to tighten sanctions in other ways. Washington hopes to craft sanctions that will inflict as much financial pain as possible on the Iranian government and the Revolutionary Guard but harm the Iranian people as little as possible. That’s why you do not see more support within the Obama administration for sanctions that would cut gasoline supplies to Iran. That kind of move would hurt millions of Iranians. On the other hand, the US does want to restrict the flow of revenue for Iran’s government—and perhaps the personal financial transactions of those at the highest levels of the leadership. This will not be easy, and it remains very unlikely that sanctions in any form will persuade Iran’s government to renounce its nuclear ambitions.

- Then this means that the sanctions will miss their goal to secure the non-proliferation regime, doesn't it?

- Yes, Iran is ultimately likely to go nuclear, just as North Korea did—though Tehran may avoid actually testing a weapon in order to maintain a kind of ambiguity on the issue. There is deep division within Iran on many questions, but this is not one of them; there is broad and deep support for the nuclear program both within the leadership and the general public. The international non-proliferation regime is broken, and only a serious crisis is likely to create real momentum behind efforts to fix it.

- The White House said it didn't exclude any option on Iran, including a military one. But it's obvious that it has to say that in order to maintain pressure on Tehran. In practical terms, do you think that a military strike against Iran or even a limited ground military operation against its nuclear sites is possible, and can this be effective in longer terms?

- In the military sense, damage could certainly be inflicted. But the effectiveness of strikes would depend on the attacker’s goals. It is extremely unlikely that Iran’s nuclear program could be destroyed, though it could certainly be delayed for some time via damage to key underground sites.
But neither the Americans nor the Israelis appear to believe that the benefits that might come with a military attack are worth the potential costs. There are many opinions on these questions, but there are also two very important facts to consider: Neither the US nor Israeli government has undertaken any attack on an Iranian nuclear facility. This is a reflection of their growing skepticism that any military option can achieve its goal at an acceptable “cost.” That cost would take many forms—political, diplomatic, security, economic, etc.

- What is your assessment of the process of negotiating the new START agreement between Russia and the US? Many promises have been made from both sides that the deal would be sealed pretty soon, but it's still unfinished. What is the main obstacle for this delay? Do you think that it can be removed to open the way for conclusion by the April nuclear summit in Washington?

- Reaching a new strategic arms control treaty is an important near-term goal of the "reset" in US-Russia relations, and while the two sides failed to conclude a deal by the end of 2009, as Presidents Medvedev and Obama suggested they might, intensive negotiations are ongoing. The key sticking point concerns missile defense capabilities. Russia insists that the treaty cover not only offensive weapons, as in the past, but also includes more transparency on US tests of defensive systems. Washington has always promised the Russians a degree of transparency about its missile defense plans but is reluctant in practice to allow its ballistic missile defense programs to be compromised in any way by treaty obligations. This is particularly true given Moscow's bristling displeasure with the missile defense plans. Presidents Obama and Medvedev may personally discuss the issue again in coming days, and while the April deadline may be in some doubt, this is an issue of sufficient mutual interest that a deal is still expected at some point this spring.

- Do you think that the announcement of the possibility to deploy the BMD elements in Romania and Bulgaria can affect the arms reduction process? Many Russian experts say that the last year Obama's decision on ABM defense in Europe was in no way a move toward Russia but a more sophisticated reshaping of the future ABM system. Saying that means that this problem will continue to be a major irritant in Russian-American relations. What is your point on that?

- Missile defense is not a high priority for the Obama administration, but I do think it has the potential to continue to impact US-Russian relations. Moscow finds missile defense an irritant, but I don't believe that Washington is willing to completely give up on it. We have to remember that this issue is not simply about Russia. It’s a key principle in America’s relations with its NATO allies in Eastern Europe.

- But at the same time Washington doesn't like the idea of submitting the decision on missile defense deployment in Europe to NATO in Brussels, while some in the Alliance, (Germany, for example) have indicated at least reservations, if not opposition to US plans. Does the current situation mean that Obama's decision to shelve the deployment hasn’t changed at all the US strategy on missile defense in Europe?

- The Obama administration will not push on the issue of missile defense, but it is not going to eliminate the idea either. Missile defense remains a part of US strategy in the region.

- On NATO, a decision was made not to make any decision in regards of accepting Ukraine and Georgia into the Alliance. For how long will this uncertainty last? Can Mr. Yanukovich's victory in the presidential elections in Ukraine stop the previous efforts of the political elite of Ukraine to join NATO. I mean not the general process of building closer ties with the Euro-Atlantic community but, precisely, the issue of joining NATO.

And the same question is on Georgia - can the present uncertainty with the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia block Tbilisi from joining NATO, at least unless their status is resolved?

- I think that the election of Yanukovych will end the conversation about Ukraine joining NATO for the foreseeable future. But talk of membership for Ukraine and Georgia was always a long-term issue. The US and Europe have too much lose in terms of stability along the former Soviet periphery from dramatically worsened relations with Russia. Neither country was ever going to join NATO in the next five years. Recent developments simply ensure that a long-term project will take even longer—if it EVER happens.
I wouldn't say that recent developments will put a permanent end to NATO enlargement, but we should see much less talk about (and tension over) the issue over the next few years. For the moment, there is very little support for further expansion within Europe.

- NATO is preparing a new concept for the Alliance. What should it inherit from the previous 1999 concept and what should be abandoned? Why did it decide to create a new concept?

- The need for a new concept is obvious: There is no longer a Soviet and Warsaw Pact threat to NATO member states, and the organization must build a broader mandate--Afghanistan isn't part of the “North Atlantic.” Some will argue that NATO has outlived its usefulness and should be abandoned. But the need for collective action on common security challenges remains vitally important for its member states. NATO should be working on more complicated threats, not simply traditional issues of war and peace. Security threats have become more sophisticated and flexible, and so should NATO. It’s not just about terrorism. Cyber-security, for example, is becoming more important by the minute. These are areas where NATO member states (and others) can benefit from a collective approach to security.

- At the same time Russia is pushing forward its idea of a new European Security Treaty, and it seems that these two processes can come into contradictions because Russia is trying to create an environment that will allow Moscow a say in the broader European Security system while the West wants to prevent Russia from blocking any possible options within the Euro-Atlantic security structures, like further enlargement of NATO or using the military structure of its future partners. What is your opinion on that? Will these two processes come into a clinch?

- The Russian government has been increasingly unhappy with the post Cold War regional balance of power, particularly following the so-called Rose and Orange revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. With the 2008 war in Georgia, launched as Prime Minister Putin and President Bush sat side by side during the Beijing Summer Olympics, Russia moved suddenly and dramatically to shift that balance.

But tensions in the post-Soviet space have diminished quite a bit. There are several reasons. First, economic troubles in Russia forced Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev to focus their time and energy on keeping banks afloat, factories open, and workers in their jobs. Second, the US now plays a less visible role in the region as the Obama team tries to reset relations with Moscow and to win Russian support for sanctions on Iran. Building out NATO is not on the agenda. Third, Russia is feeling more secure about how things are going in Georgia, where President Saakashvili has been tamed, and in Ukraine, where the Russia-friendly Viktor Yanukovych has been elected president. Yanukovych is not a Kremlin puppet, by any means. He cannot afford to be if he hopes to maintain his political credibility at home. But Ukraine’s NATO bid will remain on hold for years to come.

With less tension in the region, I don’t think we will see the sort of confrontation you’re describing any time soon.

- I will put this question in a different way. Will the Russian push for a new security Treaty in Europe have a positive or negative response from the Obama administration?

- The US reaction would be negative, because Washington sees the new treaty as an attempt to create an alternative to NATO. But there isn’t much urgency behind the new treaty proposal, and I don’t think there is much chance that it will create significant trouble.

- We see similar trends in the energy security in Europe. Russia is pushing the South Stream project while some other countries support the de-facto competing Nabucco pipeline. What is your scenario of the competition between these two major energy projects?

- Europe is taking small but real steps to diversify gas supplies away from Russia. Yet, progress on the larger multi-country projects, like the Nabucco gas pipeline, will remain slow because of an ongoing inability to secure large enough gas supplies and financing to make the project viable. Smaller regional energy projects, like the Italy-Greece-Turkey Interconnector (ITGI), will make faster progress, and could end up competing for some of the same supplies that Nabucco wants.

Gazprom and the Russian government are making progress with the South Stream gas pipeline project and effectively undermining Nabucco. The Russian side is striking bilateral agreements with potential transit countries for the two-branch route, including Bulgaria, Serbia, Italy and Greece. Russia has signed a deal with Slovenia, but Romania is still on hold. Gazprom is, where possible, buying existing gas storage or planning the construction of new units along or near the South Stream route. EU law could complicate further acquisitions, though regulatory enforcement may be uneven and companies, including Gazprom, might work around the law by acting via third parties. South Stream is progressing faster than EU-backed alternatives, but the economic environment and remaining political hurdles could still delay Russia's project.

Geneva Summit Will Focus on Countries Ignored by U.N. Human Rights Council

(CNSNews.com) – When the U.N. Human Rights Council continues its month-long session in Geneva on Monday, a coalition of human rights groups will hold a parallel event focusing on some of the items kept off the HRC agenda by its powerful members.

The human rights of Iranians, Cubans, Tibetans, Uighurs and Burmese will be the focus of the two-day Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy.

The summit is co-sponsored by several dozen rights-oriented nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from developed and developing countries. Its honorary committee is being chaired by the former presidents of Poland and the Czech Republic, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, both leading anti-communist dissidents during the Cold War.

Organizers say the summit offers a global platform and forum for dissidents and human rights advocates to discuss their struggles and visions for bringing about change.

“Regrettably, the chief international body charged with protecting human rights is failing to live up to its mission to stop … abuses,” they said in a statement, in reference to the 47-member HRC.

“Strong politicization of the council, driven by bloc-based voting patterns, has led to inaction in face of atrocity and abuse.”

Critics note that in the almost four years of the HRC’s existence, the only condemnatory resolutions passed relating to the world’s worst rights abusers have been those relating to North Korea and Burma.

Logo of the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy.

With support from developing world allies, countries like China, Cuba, Iran and Saudi Arabia have managed to avoid censure, while Israel continues to draw disproportionate scrutiny.

In a recently-released scorecard on the HRC’s performance over the past year, the Geneva-based NGO U.N. Watch said 18 out of 30 key resolutions passed were “actually counterproductive to human rights.” They included resolutions on Sri Lanka, Sudan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and religious “defamation.”

The scorecard also found that only 13 of the council’s 47 members had voted in a way deemed positive in upholding human rights – European countries plus Canada, Japan and South Korea (The U.S. was not a member for the whole year under review.)

The worst scoring nations in this regard were Islamic states, plus Russia, China, Cuba, South Africa and the Philippines.

‘World’s worst’

“The UNHRC failed to adopt any resolution, special session or investigative mandate for Belarus, China, Cuba, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya, Morocco, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe – all on Freedom House’s list of the 20 world’s worst abusers,” U.N. Watch said in the report. “The same holds true for Iran, despite ongoing show trials and executions.”

It is not by coincidence that some of those countries will feature most prominently at the Geneva Summit on Monday and Tuesday.

The program of speakers includes Caspian Makan, the fiance of Neda Agha Soltan, the young Iranian woman who became a symbol of the post-election protests after her death by gunfire last June was captured on amateur video and the clip posted on the Internet. Makan was subsequently detained and escaped from Iran late last year.

Also speaking are exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer, Burmese dissident Bo Kyi, Dong-hyuk Shin, a survivor of North Korea’s notorious prison camps, and Phuntsok Nyidron, a Tibetan Buddhist nun who was accused of spreading “counter-revolutionary propaganda” and jailed by the Chinese government from 1989 to 2004.

Nestor Rodriguez Lobaina, the president of the Cuban Youth for Democracy Movement and a former prisoner of conscience, was also on the program but the organizers say the Cuban government has barred him from leaving the country to attend.

This week 30 NGOs submitted an appeal to the U.N.’s top rights official, High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay, asking her to urge Havana to let Lobaina travel.

During an interactive session at the HRC on Thursday, U.N. Watch director Hillel Neuer asked Pillay about Lobaina, but Cuba’s envoy interrupted the session, objecting to the raising of an issue which he said was not on the meeting’s agenda.

Lobaina was imprisoned from 2000 to 2005 for the offenses of “public disorder,” “disrespect” and “damage.”

The Geneva Summit also plans to explore ways of using the Internet more effectively to advance human rights.

The summit is the second of its kind. The inaugural one was held on the eve of the controversial HRC-hosted “Durban II” racism conference last April.

ACABQ Report: - Ban Ki Moon more corrupt than Kofi Annan

Ban Ki-moon Tries Again on U.N. Efficiency

Friday , March 05, 2010

By George Russell

ADVERTISEMENT

What is the definition of accountability? United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon may be about to find out.

Nearly a year ago Ban got a semi-public spanking from branches of the world organization that are supposed to oversee and fund his 22,000-person bureaucracy, including the 192-member General Assembly itself, for his proposals to reform the organization.

Now Ban is apparently back for more. The question is whether the result will be the same. The object of the institutional overseers' disdain a year ago was Ban's — in their view — less-than-impressive proposals to make the sclerotic and underperforming organization with a soaring budget, more efficient, effective and accountable.

They were contained in a turgid 53-page document entitled "Accountability framework, enterprise risk management and internal control framework and results-based management framework," which it turned out was not written in Ban's office but came from a management consultant firm, which was paid $1.8 million for the effort.

The General Assembly sent Ban and his consultants back to the drawing board and told him, in remarkably sharp prose, to try again. One thing that made the episode particularly painful for the South Korean secretary-general — for whom "face," or public respect, is especially important — is that some of the storm of criticism came from parts of the bureaucracy that report directly to him, as well as from the nation states that sign the checks.

And already this time, a key U.N oversight body, representing all the 192 countries in the General Assembly, has fired off a 13-page broadside, obtained by Fox News, which takes Ban to task for some new and old failings in his latest purported effort to shake up the system.

The views of the oversight institution known as the Advisory Committee on Budgetary and Administrative Questions (ACABQ) are important because they are usually adopted by the U.N.'s budgetary committee and by the General Assembly itself.

Among other things, the new ACABQ report says that:

• Ban still did not consult enough with the U.N. bodies that criticized his earlier efforts;
• Ignored some of the important recommendations made earlier to improve his reforms;
• Is still suggesting relatively toothless ways to make his top managers accountable for their actions;
• Has not established an effective system of internal controls for the U.N. bureaucracy; and
• Has not yet even provided an acceptable definition of what the word "accountability" means.

This time, however, the ACABQ stops short of a blanket rejection of all of Ban's efforts. Instead, it balks at some of them, snipes skeptically at others — especially Ban's bureaucratic proposals to reinforce "accountability" under whatever definition — and proposes further submissions by Ban to buttress his proposed changes.

Click here to read the ACABQ report.

"There is more work still to be done," says a Western diplomat familiar with the reform effort. "We are getting there, but slowly." Ban's efforts mean things were "getting better in some areas," he said. "And in others, not."

At issue is a 26-page document (with 39 pages of annexes) Ban submitted to the U.N. General Assembly for consideration this week entitled "Towards an accountability system in the United Nations Secretariat."

Click here to read the main report.

The tentative title on the document — implying that more negotiation lies ahead — is already a concession on Ban's part, and its first-person narrative is a signal that this set of proposals was actually written in his own office.

But this is the U.N., meaning that fluency, clarity and jargon-free coherence are still not the new document's strong suits — starting with an 85-word definition of accountability that includes the notion of the "obligation of the Organization and its staff members to be answerable for delivering specific results."

The same wordy definition, however, also includes the provisos that accountability depends on "a clear and transparent assignment of responsibility, subject to the availability of resources and the constraints posed by external factors" — a very sizeable trap door in an organization notorious for under-performing, over-spending and rarely if ever bringing punishment down on its top managers for their behavior.

Among other things, the ACABQ report points to that wording, which it says "may provide grounds for not holding the staff accountable under certain circumstances."

The overseers also note the "lack of reference to efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness" in Ban's definition, along with the omission of "personal responsibility for results." The ACABQ calls the "lack of clarity" in the definition to be one of the "fundamental weaknesses" in Ban's overall "accountability architecture," and suggests that a common definition of the term used by all U.N. bodies would be "desireable."

When it comes to making the U.N. focus on results, an area where all its internal critics agree it has been badly lacking, Ban admits candidly that a "chain of cause-and-effect relationships from inputs through outputs to outcomes" at the U.N. is "broken in several places."

Reverting to the U.N.'s customary opaque prose, he then says this "makes it impossible to advance the results-based management framework in a coherent and holistic manner and, at the same time, adversely affects the accountability framework of the Secretariat."

To fix that, Ban returns to an idea from his previously rejected proposals: yet another new mini-bureaucracy, nestled in the controller's office in the U.N.'s department of management. Ban calls it a Results Management Unit. (In his last attempt to outline reforms, Ban called it the Division for Accountability and Results Management.)

The Unit would have a variety of coordinating and monitoring roles, and would provide "training and guidance on the results-based management concept" across the U.N.'s sprawling area of departments and functions. It would also support a "network of results-based management/results-based budgeting practitioners across Ban's Secretariat."

All of this, Ban says, would be part of his attempt to change the entire culture of the bureaucracy — which he evidently agrees is not oriented toward a performance ethic that other organizations would consider basic and fundamental.

"I intend to promote a cultural change within the Organization," he asserts, "whereby staff understand that they will be held accountable for the quality and timely delivery of their work and supervisors understand they will be held accountable for effectively managing their staff towards that end."

"Training," he adds, "will be essential to effect this cultural change." He soon intends to announce a whole new set of management tools that will increase evaluation of managers, as well as "creative ways to reward, recognize and motivate staff and strengthen the remedies to address underperformance."

All of this comes atop a system Ban installed to sign contracts, known as "compacts," with his senior managers aimed at specifying their performance, which he also sees as a significant reform.

The ACABQ is only grudgingly impressed. While acknowledging the existence of the "compacts" the budget overseers note the "insufficient accountability awareness of all levels in the Secretariat," and says acidly that "thus far, the impact of the compacts on enhancing accountability at the United Nations has yet to be felt."

In the process of preparing its rejoinder to Ban's report, the committee also notes that it held a number of hearings with the Secretary General and complains that it "was not provided with adequate explanations ... as to the consequences stemming from mismanagement or wrongful or improper decisions." It wants more specifics from Ban as he defends his proposals before the General Assembly.

Nor is the committee impressed with Ban's proposed Results Management Unit. Rather than a bureaucratic add-on, the report would have "no objection" to a "dedicated focus" on results that would start with a "clear conceptual framework of results-based management," which the U.N. evidently lacks.

The ACABQ further complains that the bureaucracy has a bad habit, "year after year," of ignoring recommendations by its auditors and other bodies charged with overseeing its operations that would reduce the U.N.'s financial and other kinds of risk.

In other words, the U.N. does not pay timely attention to the overseers who already tell it where the bureaucracy is going wrong, or violating its own rules.

The ACABQ clearly feels it's time for Ban to begin asking why, through "a review of the underlying causes." It also offers one possible cause of its own: in Ban's report, "the Secretary-General does not make mention of the consequences in cases when [his] delegated authority is mismanaged or abused."

What Ban himself thinks of the ACABQ's criticism is not known. A detailed series of questions sent Wednesday from Fox News about the Secretary General's reactions to the main elements of the ACABQ report had not received a reply before this article was published.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News.