Showing posts with label wall street journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wall street journal. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Did Helen Clark authorized the Manoj Basnyat's slush fund to pay cash bribes to Afghan Ministers that would favor UNDP initiatives ?

UNDP SCANDAL



U.N. Expands Its Probe Into Funding Oversight
WASHINGTON—The United Nations has expanded an internal examination into its largest global development program because of questions over the management of international aid funds in Afghanistan.

The U.N. Development Program's Afghanistan office used a recently established fund to hand out millions of dollars in donated money to Afghan ministries without proper oversight of how it was spent, according to a preliminary report by U.N. auditors.

In a majority of cases they examined, the auditors found "no evidence" that Afghan ministries receiving funds through the UNDP's so-called Policy Advisory and Development program spent the funds for the intended purpose. There were indications that ministry workers received excessive pay raises or double salaries, according to the report, which was completed in July and viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The preliminary summary didn't include detailed allegations about the program, which was established to support special projects at Afghan ministries. But the questions it raised were echoed in recent months by several past and present UNDP employees who have alleged in interviews that the program was used to spread cash to win favor inside Afghan ministries for U.N. initiatives.
The U.N. said the document reflected initial findings that were undergoing further examination. In some cases, it said in a statement, further investigation determined that some of the concerns about misallocated funds and high pay raises were unfounded.

The program was created in 2009 under the UNDP's then-director in Afghanistan, Manoj Basnyat, a long-time U.N. official from Nepal. Soon after arriving in Kabul, Mr. Basnyat and the UNDP established the fund, which handed out about $1 million a year to Afghan ministries.

The U.N. hasn't accused Mr. Basnyat of wrongdoing, and he hasn't addressed any allegations publicly. The U.N. declined to make him available for an interview and said it couldn't comment on personnel matters. The U.N. said it encouraged anyone with allegations of wrongdoing to contact it directly and said it maintains a "zero tolerance" anticorruption policy.

The Kabul office is working to phase out the Policy Advisory and Development program in the wake of the auditing questions, a senior U.N. official there said.

"It is not a slush fund," said the official. "My feeling is that it is a project that was weak in terms of the planning and reporting."

The UNDP has been at the center of a multibillion dollar effort to reform the Afghan government and rebuild the battle-damaged country. In part, it is supposed to serve as a model to Afghan politicians of efficiency and transparency.

But the UNDP became the focus of scrutiny this year amid allegations—by U.N. workers as well as by an international monitoring group—of corruption at a fund it oversees, the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan, a $1.4 billion pool financed by international donors to pay the salaries of the 150,000-member Afghan police.

This summer, the European Union blocked the release of $37 million in funds until the allegations are resolved. In June, the program removed five staff members, including the program's assistant director in Afghanistan. The U.N. didn't say why the workers were dismissed or put on administrative leave. The workers declined to comment or couldn't be reached.

U.N. investigators returned to Kabul over the weekend to continue their examination of the UNDP office in Afghanistan, U.N. officials said.

In April, Mr. Basnyat was replaced after more than three years as country director in Afghanistan by Alvaro Rodriguez, a longtime UNDP employee who had previously held the same position in Pakistan and Somalia. The switch took place under a routine U.N. assignment rotation and wasn't a result of the audit, according to U.N. officials. He is currently on assignment in New York, the U.N. said.

Last year, the UNDP presented Mr. Basnyat with its Julia V. Taft Award, given each year to its most outstanding country office.

—Nathan Hodge in Kabul Afghanistan, contributed to this article.
  Write to Dion Nissenbaum at dion.nissenbaum@wsj.com
 
A version of this article appeared September 11, 2012, on page A9 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: U.N. Expands Its Probe Into Funding Oversight.

Click here to read this article on Wall Street Journal page


Friday, August 24, 2012

WSJ: Obama's U.N. Friends

The Obama Administration has based its global security strategy around the United Nations, and these days that faith isn't turning out too well. Russia and China have blocked any "collective security" action in Syria, and now U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has decided to lend his prestige, such as it is, to Iran.

Despite public requests from the U.S. and what press reports say was a personal plea from Israel ...

Click here to read this in full at Wall Street Journal

Thursday, August 2, 2012

WSJ: Your New Human Rights Councilor -- Vietnam invents a U.N. procedure to silence critics.

Click here to read full article on Wall Street journal

The Security Council's latest fumble on Syria might represent the U.N.'s biggest failure of the last month, but it's hardly the only one. So as a reminder of all the little things the U.N. also gets wrong, we present the latest machinations involving a U.N. group ostensibly concerned with human rights.

Vietnam's Communist Party-led government recently blackballed a nongovernmental organization's attempt to secure accreditation to the U.N. The Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation, or KKF, is a small group based in New Jersey that tracks the plight of the Khmer ethnic ...

Friday, July 27, 2012

FoxNews EXCLUSIVE: Experts charge UN high-tech shipment to North Korea violates UN sanctions; State Department waffles

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/26/legal-proliferation-experts-charge-un-high-tech-shipment-to-north-korea/#ixzz21rPstrHe

The obscure branch of the United Nations that shipped sophisticated computers and other high-tech equipment to North Korea violated the U.N.’s own sanctions against that regime, according to a prominent international legal scholar, who echoed congressional investigators in calling for an “independent, external commission” to probe the incident.

John Yoo, a national security expert during the first Bush administration and now a  University of California, Berkeley, professor who specializes in international and U.S. constitutional law, says that the equipment shipped by the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO, “would allow North Korea to carry out simulations necessary to design highly sophisticated nuclear warheads…without the need for testing.” North Korea set off illegal nuclear blasts in 2006 and 2009, which led to the Security Council sanctions.

Yoo’s charge is at odds with the preliminary conclusion of the U.S. State Department on the same issue. A State Department spokesman said Wednesday that it “doesn’t appear” that WIPO’s actions -- which involved sending the equipment and paying for it via China, to avoid heightened U.N. oversight -- amounted to a violation.

Yoo’s opinion was echoed by other proliferation experts, including former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton and a former top-level expert at the State Department who now heads an important anti-proliferation center in Britain.

Any conclusion that WIPO’s actions did not violate repeated U.N. Security Council sanctions against the insular communist regime, Yoo said, “would assume that the agencies of the United Nations have a mandate to violate the very measures necessary to protect international peace and security -- as determined by the Security Council, the only arm of the United Nations empowered to take steps to prevent such threats.”

For its part, the State Department declared that its own judgment was a “preliminary assessment,” and that it would await a ruling by relevant U.N. sanctions committees looking into the issue. Those committees were not consulted by WIPO’s director general, Francis Gurry, before the controversial equipment was shipped to the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.

The very notion that even fully informed U.N. sanctions committees -- which were unsuccessful in halting the notorious Oil for Food scandal involving former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein -- will turn up much is questionable, according to Bolton, who previously headed the Bush administration’s successful effort, known as the Proliferation Security Initiative. (Bolton is also a Fox News contributor).

“Unfortunately, these committees have been where sanctions go to die,” Bolton told Fox News. “It is a complete abdication of responsibility, not to mention a signal of embarrassing weakness, for the United States to defer to the Security Council sanctions committees. The U.S. government should first decide its own position on sanctions violations, including the possibility of violations of U.S. sanctions, and then present that view in the sanctions committees.”

In an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Bolton also warned that, “By evading sanctions within the U.N. temple itself, these nuclear proliferators show how to defeat even broadly supported sanctions regimes through death by a thousand cuts.”

For his part, Yoo was emphatic that the WIPO shipments, which took place in late 2011 or early 2012, and were revealed by Fox News last April, were in violation of  even stiffer U.S. sanctions that ban all computer exports to North Korea due to its role as proliferators of nuclear weapons technology and ballistic missile know-how.

The State Department, however, is also shying away from that conclusion, as spokesman Victoria Nuland said yesterday. State, she declared, is “seeking more information from WIPO so that we can conclude  our own work on whether there was any violation of U.S. law, but we don’t yet have everything that we need in order to make that assessment.”

Whether the U.S. will ever pry all the facts out of  WIPO is questionable. After earlier declaring that it viewed the issue with “utmost seriousness,” and announcing that it would not make such shipments in the future, Gurry blocked the appearance of two senior WIPO staffers before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, leading to cancellation of a briefing session on the shipments.

State Department spokesperson Nuland sidestepped a question at the daily briefing yesterday as to whether the small U.N. agency was providing “enough cooperation.”

Nuland’s reply:  “Well, we are continuing to work with them and that is a conversation that is ongoing.” She cited a number of “positive steps” taken by the agency in the wake of the cash-for-computers revelations -- but only on future projects, not those that have already taken place. One of those steps is a “commission that will have an external and independent auditing ability’’ to vet projects -- but  only in the future.

The under-the-radar shipments of Hewlett-Packard computers and servers by WIPO shipments took place in late 2011 or early 2012, and were financed through the Beijing offices of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). They were revealed by Fox News last April. The U.S. was not informed of the shipments even though the goods were of U.S. manufacture.

Hewlett-Packard has declared that the shipments of laptops, printers and servers violated the company’s strict ban on exports of its high-tech equipment to such rogue regimes.

When the State Department began investigating the North Korea incident, it learned that WIPO and UNDP had also made a similar shipment of 20 less-sophisticated computers to Iran.
According to Yoo, the equipment transfer gives the regime of fledgling leader Kim Jong Un a significant boost in hardware and software “that could quite conceivably contribute” to North Korea’s nuclear-related programs

That alone, he argues, is enough to cross the threshold of the first U.N. sanctions resolution against North Korea (known in UN-speak as DPRK, for Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), enacted in 2006. That resolution urges U.N. member states to prevent the “direct or indirect” supply of goods and technology “which could contribute to DPRK’s  nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other weapons of mass destruction-related programs.”

Yoo emphasizes the world “could,” which, he says, means that the U.N. sanctions resolutions were intended to “cover a broad, non-exhaustive list of items and circumstances.” He also noted that other Security Council resolutions explicitly called on “relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties,” as well as nation-states, to cooperate “fully” in the sanctions efforts.

Yoo offered his legal opinion jointly with another Berkeley law professor, Laurent Mayali, at the behest of a WIPO whistle-blower who first brought the issue to public attention by alerting the U.S. mission in Geneva, among others, to the agency’s actions.

Click here to view the legal memorandum. 

Their contentions were backed up by a sanctions expert who is not involved in the whistle-blower imbroglio: Mark Fitzpatrick, head of the Non-proliferation and Disarmament program at Britain’s prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies, or IISS, and a former long-time top-level proliferation specialist at the U.S. State Department in the Bush and Clinton administrations.

“Dr. Yoo's argument is correct,” Fitzpatrick emailed in response to questions from Fox News based on the Berkeley professors’ arguments. “Regardless of whether or not the computers in question could allow North Korea to conduct simulations that would enable the development of smaller weapons, it seems unquestionable to me that the computers could aid the program.”

The fact that North Korea -- not to mention Iran -- is looking for ways and means to boost its nuclear capability also seems unquestionable. Immediately prior to the initial WIPO revelations, the Kim regime shocked the world -- and embarrassed the Obama administration -- by announcing that it was about to undertake a rocket-powered satellite launch that Washington considered a cover for work on missile-ready weapons programs.

The administration quickly canceled a freshly-minted deal to ship  some 264,000 tons of food aid to the poverty-stricken rogue country. The satellite launch subsequently did not take place.
For its part, Iran earlier this month launched a variety of ballistic missiles, including a longer-range version, as the U.S. and Europe ratcheted up sanctions intended to stop the Islamic Republic’s increasingly overt nuclear programs, which Iran claims are peaceful. So far, the regime does not seem deterred.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/26/legal-proliferation-experts-charge-un-high-tech-shipment-to-north-korea/#ixzz21rPstrHe

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

WallStreetJournal: What America Gets for Its U.N. Blank Check

Bureaucrats give 'technical assistance' to Iran and North Korea.

Leave it to a small, little-known agency to prove just how out of control the United Nations can get.
We learned last month that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which oversees multilateral treaties involving patents, trademarks and copyrights, has been delivering computer hardware and "technical assistance" to none other than Iran and North Korea. The U.N. body's actions are in blatant disregard of Security Council sanctions on Tehran and Pyongyang, prompting House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to call last week for freezing U.S. contributions to the organization.

WIPO says it is merely fulfilling its responsibilities, in this ...

Click here to read the full article on Wall Street Journal 

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Euroepan Union doesn't trust Helen Clark's UNDP anymore. EU pulls the plug$$$ from Projects in Afghanistan (Calls it a corrupt structure)

Wall Street Journal: - EU Freezes Cash for U.N.'s Afghan Police Fund

KABUL—The European Union is blocking the release of €30 million ($37 million) to a United Nations-run fund that finances Afghanistan's police force amid an investigation into alleged mismanagement and corruption at the U.N. program, Western officials in Kabul said.

The EU had previously put the funds on hold pending a determination that the Afghan police force had made certain improvements, the officials said.

European leaders, adding a new condition, decided to keep the funds frozen until they are also satisfied that the U.N. has addressed allegations, reported by The Wall Street Journal on May 10, that officials running the program ...

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ON WALL STREET JOURNAL 

Friday, October 28, 2011

Does U.N. Anti-Poverty Cheerleader Have Conflict of Interest?


By

Published October 27, 2011

| FoxNews.com


CLICK HERE FOR STORY ON FOXNEWS



Economist Jeffrey Sachs, the director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and special adviser on millennium development goals to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, is one of the world’s most outspoken promoters of the U.N.’s anti-poverty agenda.

He has now become a high-profile supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement, personally joining the throng of protesters earlier this month in lower Manhattan to excoriate “reckless billionaires” for “wrecking this planet” and demanding that President Obama “stop catering to the billionaires ... send [your advisers] back to Wall Street.”

Sachs is also a strident critic of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and of News Corporation, the parent company of both. Last week, the Harvard-trained economist led demonstrators in chants of “Wall Street Journal, Fox News! You’re wrecking this country with your lies!”

Click here to view Sach's Oration.

But when it comes to disclosing his own interests, especially those related to the United Nations, Sachs is more circumspect. And in at least one major instance he appears to have a financial conflict of interest.

One of the most high-profile projects that Sachs is involved in overseeing, the Millennium Villages Project, is a mammoth program aimed at eradicating extreme poverty in portions ofAfrica, in line with the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Fox News has learned that Sachs’ Earth Institute was paid about $5 million toward the project between 2006 and 2010 by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the U.N.’s flagship anti-poverty agency, with $290,000 still in the pipeline.

UNDP also has been working as the “implementing partner” of Millennium Villages Project, meaning UNDP is in charge of the overall project management — under a separate budget raised by another not-for-profit institution co-founded by Sachs and the Earth Institute, known as the Millennium Promise Alliance.

As director of the Earth Institute, Sachs occupies an academic niche inside one of the world’s most important private universities: Columbia University.

The Earth Institute, according to its website, comprises more than 30 research institutes and upwards of 850 scientists, researchers and students, who “study and create solutions for problems in public health, poverty, energy, ecosystems, climate, natural hazards and urbanization.” Elsewhere, the Institute has described itself as “the world’s leading academic center for the integrated study of the Earth, its environment and society.”

“Earth Institute experts work hand-in-hand with academia, corporations, government agencies, nonprofits and individuals,” the Institute’s website says. “They advise national governments and the United Nations on issues related to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals.”

Sachs is also a key member of the U.N.’s MDG Advocacy Group, which will be helping to raise and direct donated resources to a variety of other U.N. branches, including UNDP, the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP) and UNICEF, among others, for a wide variety of MDG work.

Click here for details of Sach's MDG advocacy role.

Sachs has also partnered closely with multibillionaire George Soros, and a host of other wealthy private donors, in the ambitious Millennium Villages Project, which aims to help 500,000 people in 10 countries meet all of the U.N.’s MDGs by 2015. These include halving the local extreme poverty rate, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, and ensuring universal primary education, among other things.

Soros has already given $50 million to the project, established in 2006, and promised another $27.4 million over the next five years, along with $20 million in business loans. Other partners in the Millennium Villages project include Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the U.N.’s World Food Program, the U.N. Population Fund, and UNAIDS — as well as the Earth Institute, described in a 2010 Villages report as a “core partner” along with UNDP.

Soros’ money, and many other donations, is funneled through the Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit co-founded by Sachs and the Institute in 2005, and incorporated in Delaware, which calls the Villages effort its “flagship initiative,” and oversees a budget of more than $25 million a year dedicated largely to the Millennium Village project. Sachs is the Millennium Promise president, and a member of its board.

According to Alliance website, “at least 89 percent of these funds go directly to the Millennium Villages Project” -- or to “other programs designed to help communities escape extreme poverty.” The “implementing partner” of the Villages project is UNDP, which “has provided project management and operational support.” According to the Millennium Promise website, UNDP, “as the project’s implementing partner would also be key to ensuring the project’s success.”

Just as Sachs helps to send money toward U.N.-supported projects, and U.N. institutions that help carry them out, U.N. institutions have funneled money toward Sachs’ Earth Institute and on to the Millennium Villages project -- while Sachs, through the Millennium Promise Alliance, with the Earth Institute as a partner, is overseeing UNDP’s “implementation” of the Project.

A Fox News examination of U.N. procurement statistics for the years 2006 through 2010 (the most recent available) show that UNDP has made payments to the Earth Institute of $4,755,630 for the Millennium Villages project. The payments did not go directly to the Earth Institute, but were made out instead to the “Trustees of Columbia University,” which is a registered vendor with the U.N. Procurement Department.

The Institute itself is not a registered vendor. But the fragmentary project details published with the Trustee payouts -- evidently copied and pasted from other project documents -- make clear that the Institute, and the Village Project, are the intended beneficiaries.

Taken together, the details reference a series of sequential payouts to the “African MVs budget,” “MV Breaking the Bottleneck” (a reference to an anti-malarial effort within the Village health approach), “EI” and the Earth Institute. Virtually all of the payments are percentage payouts (or advances) on two overall sums of $2,340,530 and $2,915,100.

Click to view the UNDP payments made to the Earth Institute.

The source of the funds is listed in the procurement reports as UNDP, Sachs’ implementing partner in the Millennium Village Project, and a major manager of the project funded and overseen by the Millennium Promise Alliance.

In other words, the payouts seem to show that Sachs at various times, while serving as Ban Ki-moon’s special adviser on the MDGs, acts as the external fundraiser, overseer, and partner of various U.N. organizations including UNDP -- while the Earth Institute, where Sachs earns his salary as director, simultaneously receives money from UNDP for its own work on the Villages project.

Details of the two multimillion-dollar payouts were confirmed by UNDP’s director of communications, Satinder Bindra, in an email to Fox News. According to Bindra, the two contracts were approved in 2006 and 2008, respectively, with the second contract being an extension of the first.

They covered “the provision of technical advisory services” for the Millennium Villages Project, Bindra wrote, done by the Earth Institute “mainly in the field of agriculture, infrastructure, education, health, and monitoring and evaluation. They also included the implementation of one new MV project in northeast Kenya.”

He added that in 2006 another contract worth $500,000 was signed with Columbia University for “Earth Institute services including technical support to a specific malaria initiative.” The funding for this originally came from the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships, a U.N. “interface” that in turn gets money from the United Nations Foundation, originally established by billionaire Ted Turner.

Bindra said that all of the funding to the Earth Institute was related to phase one of the Millennium Village Project, and aimed to “standardize interventions and methods” across 12 Millennium villages in Africa. The project was subsequently “scaled up in size,” in a second phase. He emphasized that the Earth Institute “has not been hired or paid under MVP2 funding.”

On the contrary, the Earth Institute is a founding partner of the Millennium Promise Alliance, and Earth Institute director Sachs is the Alliance president. So while the Institute received funding from UNDP in phase one of the project, it and Sachs were linked to the handing out of the funding to UNDP, and supervision of UNDP “implementation” in phase two. In any case, UNDP’s payments to the Earth Institute were spread across 2006 to 2010, the entire life of the project to that point.

Binda did not answer email questions from Fox News about whether UNDP considered the complex issues of the relationship or discussed them with the Earth Institute or its director. He emphasized, however, that “both contracts were awarded based on UNDP’s rules and regulations.”

When Fox News questioned Sachs by email about the tangle of relationships, and whether they posed a conflict of interest, the Earth Institute’s director of communications, Erin Trowbridge -- formerly a UNDP communications officer working on the MDGs -- declared by return email that “the premise of your questions is incorrect.”

“Professor Sachs is an unpaid adviser to the U.N. Secretary General,” Trowbridge declared.

“He does not receive payment from the U.N. or Millennium Promise.” The funds from UNDP to the Earth Institute, she said, were a “pass-through” of funds originally donated by Japan’s Human Security Trust Fund. “No money from Millennium Promise to the UNDP comes to the Earth Institute.”

She added that Sachs holds a “purely advisory role at the U.N. -- both as an adviser to the U.N. Secretary-General and as a member of the MDG Advocates.” Sachs’ U.N. role “has no budget oversight nor does it carry any type of managerial responsibility.”

While rebutting any notion that Sachs benefited directly in any financial sense from the relationship, however, Trowbridge did not address the possibility of any other form of conflict of interest, including the Earth Institute’s benefits from the arrangement. Moreover, Trowbridge did not address an additional issue raised by Fox News: Sachs’ role as a facilitator in a more than $1 billion fundraising effort that will also send money to UNDP.

The skein of relationships in which Sachs plays such a variety of high profile and complementary roles, however, raises the question of whether Sachs, as the secretary-general’s special adviser, might be involved in the kind of broader conflict of interest situation that is proscribed in U.N. rules and regulations for regular staffers.

Under Rule 101.2, section (o), the U.N. declares that “A staff member who has occasion to deal in his or her official capacity with any matter involving a profit-making, business or other concern in which he or she holds a financial interest, directly or indirectly, shall disclose the measure of that interest to the Secretary-General and, except as otherwise authorized by the Secretary-General, either dispose of that financial interest or formally excuse himself or herself from participating with regard to any involvement in that matter which gives rise to the conflict of interest situation.”
A subsequent section declares that “The Secretary-General shall establish procedures for the filing and utilization of financial disclosure statements.”

Under a secretary-general’s bulletin published by the U.N. on April 10, 2006 -- the same year in which the Earth Institute began receiving money from UNDP, and while Sachs was in his first term as the secretary-general’s special adviser on the MDGs -- all staff members at the director level or above are “obliged” to file an annual financial disclosure statement with the U.N. Ethics Office, and $1 per year appointments -- like Sachs -- are obliged to file a declaration of interest statement. (On official U.N. protocol lists, Sachs is referred to as an Under Secretary General, a ranking higher than Director, as well as a special adviser.)

A footnote to the 2006 bulletin declares that “Staff members should also be aware of staff regulation 1.2(m) prohibiting staff members from active association in the management of a profit-making business or other concern where there is the possibility of a conflict of interest.”

This year, Secretary-General Ban added to his view of the staff regulations on conflict of interest in a report to the U.N. General Assembly, dated June 27, 2011. It notes that his rules include “provisions governing actual or potential conflicts of interest arising from financial interests, personal relationships between staff members and other stakeholders, the receipt of honors, decorations, favors, gifts or remuneration by third parties, as well as parameters addressing conflicting loyalties that may result from outside employment or occupation or other outside activities, including political activities.”

The report also says that “the experience of the Secretariat and that of some United Nations funds and programs, as well as of other public international organizations” has identified a number of situations as “commonly posing potential conflict of interest.” One of them is “leadership, policymaking or advisory role in external entities (e.g. a governmental or other political role, corporate or for-profit board, not-for-profit board, advisory committee, etc.).”

Click to view Ban's June 27 update.

Ban added another tweak to the conflict of interest issue in 2007. He added a section to thesecretary-general’s website for the voluntary public disclosure of the financial and other interests of senior U.N. officials, including $1-a-year special advisers.

The reason, according to Ban, is that “public disclosure is considered to be an important voluntary initiative as it demonstrates that U.N. staff members understand the importance of the general public and UN Member States being assured that, in the discharge of their official duties and responsibilities, staff members will not be influenced by any consideration associated with his/her private interests.”

Sachs was one of several special advisers who is not listed on the section of Ban’s website devoted to the voluntary public disclosure of financial assets of U.N. officials and declarations of their private interests, although seven special advisers working on the same $1-a-year basis chose to disclose in 2010, the last year on record. Many of these, however, made use of a loophole Ban wrote into the disclosure deal that allowed them to publicly disclose the fact that they were not publicly disclosing anything.

Click to view the declarations.

For his part, Secretary General Ban had not replied before this article was published to questions asked by Fox News about the various activities of his special adviser.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter @GeorgeRussell.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

WSJ: - Iran's Hong Kong Shipping Shell Game

CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY ON WALL-STREET JOURNAL


A Chinese state-owned firm has been helping Iranian ships get around U.S. sanctions

This June, a merchant ship flying the Hong Kong flag and sailing under the name of the Atlantic called at the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas—the southern end of a trade corridor to the U.S., advertised as "the fastest route to the heart of North America." That might be unremarkable, except the Atlantic, formerly called the Dreamland, and before that the Iran Saeidi, belongs to a curious network of 19 bulk carriers, all flagged to Hong Kong and all blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury for their links to Iran.

According to a recent transcript of Hong Kong's Marine Department Shipping Register, the Atlantic is owned by a Hong Kong-registered company called Harvest Supreme Limited. Scratch the surface and Harvest Supreme tracks back to an Iranian address, as do 18 other obscure and interlinked Hong Kong ship-owning companies with names such as Grand Trinity Limited and Sparkle Brilliant Development Limited. These are the hallmarks of the global shell game with which Iran continues to dodge U.S. and U.N. sanctions.

This shell game began around 2008, when the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran's state shipping company, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, or IRISL, for its role in provisioning Iran's rogue missile and nuclear programs. The U.S. Treasury also blacklisted a slew of IRISL affiliates and 123 of its ships, including all 19 of these merchant ships now flagged to Hong Kong, making it potentially a crime under U.S. law to do business with them. Treasury also began pressuring players outside U.S. jurisdiction to shun Iran's proliferators, or risk being cut off from commerce with the U.S.

IRISL responded by camouflaging much of its fleet, reflagging and renaming scores of its blacklisted ships. It parceled out some to newly minted affiliates and created shell companies abroad to serve as nominal owners. Behind the scenes, IRISL retained control.

The ships themselves remain easy to identify via their permanent hull numbers, or IMO numbers, which the International Maritime Organization issues to all cargo vessels over 300 gross tonnage. Treasury posts blacklisted or "blocked" IMO numbers on its website, and these lists are the basis for identifying the ships described in this article—all designated by Treasury for their links to IRISL. But these numbers don't always appear on cargo-shipping documentation. This can make it difficult for people to understand with whom they're doing business.

This has sparked a game of whack-a-hull. Treasury over the past year alone has added to its blacklist more than 100 additional IRISL-affiliated individuals, companies and ships, in places from Germany to Malta, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore and Hong Kong.

The game continues, or so it appears from information uncovered by my recent inquiries at Hong Kong's corporate and shipping registries, combined with interviews and information from a leading global shipping information database, IHS Fairplay, formerly Lloyd's Register-Fairplay (the source for shipping movements cited in this article).

Associated Press

In 2008, the Delight, now the Adrian, docked in Germany.

Since Iran launched its shipping shell game in 2008, Hong Kong has become the corporate home to 19 ships blackballed by Treasury as affiliated with IRISL and listed by IHS Fairplay as formerly flagged to Iran and owned by IRISL. Before these ships were reflagged to Hong Kong, they had names, according to IHS Fairplay, such as Iran Mufateh and Iran Navab. In their initial Hong Kong incarnation, most were given new names starting with "D," such as the Diplomat and Destiny. In 2009, they were renamed again. Currently, all 19 of these IRISL-affiliated ships reflagged to Hong Kong have names starting with the letter "A." These include, along with the Atlantic, such monikers as the Admiral, Adventist, Amplify, Angel, Ajax, Apollo, Agile, Alameda and-my favorite—the Alias.

By early this year, all 19 ships had gone through two rounds of nominal ownership by shell-companies registered in Hong Kong, as detailed at the time by the South China Morning Post. The U.S. Treasury has blacklisted the shell companies involved in these past two iterations, issuing the most recent bout of designations in January.

But as of late July, Hong Kong shipping registry transcripts showed that all 19 vessels had already come under new ownership, by 19 new companies not on public watch lists, one ship per company. These companies, unreported until now, have grandly generic names, e.g., Modern Elegant Development Limited (owner of Amplify) and Eternal Expert Limited (owner of Alias).

All 19 of these new ship-owning companies share the same Hong Kong address, that of their shared corporate secretary, Honorway Secretaries Limited—one of many Hong Kong companies offering incorporation services to a wide array of clients. At Honorway's small office, the only sign of these 19 companies is a lineup of green file boxes in a cramped back room. Honorway director David So Kam Hung says he has never set eyes on the actual owners. "Is anything wrong?" he asks.

Corporate documents for all 19 ship-owning companies show that each has as sole shareholder the same corporate nominee, a firm in the British Virgin Islands called Nominee Director & Shareholder Limited. For each of the 19 companies, this BVI shareholder has appointed the same sole director. That director is yet another new Hong Kong company, incorporated last November: King Power Holdings Limited.

And King Power Holdings, the linchpin of this ship-owning portfolio, leads to an address in Iran. According to Hong Kong corporate registry papers, King Power's sole director is an outfit called Kish Roaring Ocean Shipping Company (Private Joint Stock). The address for Kish Roaring is given as Unit 3, 3rd Floor, Sadaf Tower, P.O. Box 112, Kish Island, Islamic Republic of Iran. Kish Roaring Ocean Shipping Company is not on Treasury's blacklist. As far as I could discover, it has no publicly available records, history, email address or phone number.

For the 19 ships at the Hong Kong end of Kish Roaring's interests, there are two more common threads. Shipping data from IHS Fairplay shows that all have called at Iran within the past 18 months—13 of them within the past five months, four within the past four weeks. For all 19 vessels, the Hong Kong shipping registry lists as their agent a company called H&T International Transportation Limited, which according to a Jan. 15, 2011, article in the South China Morning Post served as agent for the same ships under their previous, now U.S.-sanctioned, nominal owners.

H&T is majority-owned by China's state-owned China Hualian International Trading Company, with offices in Hong Kong run by one of H&T's directors, David Mak Chi-ming. Until three weeks ago, H&T had been describing itself on its website, since at least last year, as an agent for IRISL. Earlier this month, I emailed H&T's Mr. Mak, asking if H&T is still doing business with IRISL. He ducked the question, writing back: "We are working with different principle from many years ago when we are welcome." A few days later, the paragraph advertising H&T as IRISL's agent vanished from H&T's website. But on one of its web pages, under the heading "Vessel Schedule," H&T continues to host a live link to IRISL's website. Mr. Mak did not respond to my further emailed questions and phone calls.

For Hong Kong companies to do business with IRISL and its network is not illegal under Hong Kong law. But the U.S. Treasury suggests it is risky if they also wish to do business with the U.S.

For at least the past three years, H&T's Mr. Mak has been working with the Texas foreign trade complex of Port San Antonio, to beef up shipping and air freight traffic between Asia and the trade corridor connecting San Antonio with the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas. In 2008, as noted in an article posted on the Port San Antonio website, Mr. Mak joined a delegation of business leaders organized by Port San Antonio to visit Lazaro Cardenas and cultivate business ties.

In a recent phone interview, Port San Antonio's vice president for business development, Jorge Canavati, said the Port San Antonio authorities have continued to work with H&T's Mr. Mak: "We're developing projects together." He said Mr. Mak had not informed him that H&T in Hong Kong has been serving as an agent for 19 ships on Treasury's Iran sanctions blacklist.

Meanwhile, at least seven of these 19 Iran-linked, Hong Kong-flagged, U.S.-blacklisted ships have visited Lazaro Cardenas in the past 15 months: the Agean, Agile, Apollo and Attribute; plus the Aquarian and Atrium this April, and the Atlantic in June. Perhaps it's time the world's sanctions enforcers took a closer look at this setup.

Ms. Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.