|
As UN's Ban Says Nobody Follows
Him, He's Presiding Over Chaos on Ethics and Disclosure
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of
Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis
UNITED
NATIONS, September 2 -- Ban
Ki-moon, one third of the way through his five year term as Secretary
General,
is lamenting that nobody is following his leadership. In a speech to
senior UN
official in Turin on August 29, Ban lamented, "I tried to lead by
example.
Nobody followed." And so he tried to make clear he is in charge: "When
we work for the UN -- when you work for me -- please leave your ego at
the
door."
But listeners have highlighted to Inner City Press a
contradiction in
Ban's speech. Ban said, "in choosing my senior advisers, I have always
cared less about a person's intellectual attainments than his or her
ability to
work well with others." Meanwhile he complains that UN officials are
not
obeying, or working with, him and his senior advisers. How can an
advisor be
said to "work well with others" if the others don't agree?
Is a person a leader if "nobody
follows"?
While speaking in favor of "One UN" and against turf
wars, Ban
allowed UN Development Program Administrator Kemal Dervis to rebuff the
UN
Ethics Office, which had preliminarily found retaliation by UNDP.
Dervis
instead was allowed to create his own, friendly ethics office. Can one lament turf wars when one allows this
fragmentation and duplication of resources?
Another example is Ban's lack of follow-up on his
suggestion that senior
officials make at least basic public financial disclosure. Several
officials
simply checked a box, "I choose not to disclose." And when the UN's
top lawyer Nicolas Michel purported to disclose, but did not list the
$10,000 a
month he was taking from the Swiss government for his housing,
nothing was
done. So much for zero tolerance.
Most recently, the head lawyer of
the UN Mission in Kosovo admitted
lobbying for recognition of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of
independence
while working for the UN. Again, nothing has been done. So much for
impartiality.
When documents
were leaked showing that a senior UN official, Jane Holl
Lute, had pushed to steer a no-bid $250
million contract to US-based military
contractor Lockheed Martin for peacekeeping camps in Darfur,
against the advice
of the Controller and of the Headquarters Committee on Contract,
nothing was
done, except that Ban expressed exasperation at being asked questions
about the
contract. Attempts to find the source of the leaks were made. While the
previous
head of UN Management had promised a UN Freedom of Information Act, no
steps in
this directly have been made.
Ban Ki-moon and senior advisor in hard hats -
much work to be done
Ban also
focused on so-called mobility, decrying that 790 of 900 surveyed UN
staff had
been in their position for five years or more. But
Ban has yet to do anything about the
inability of so-called G or General staff to move in to the
professional ranks.
And officials expected to leave have been kept on in other positions,
for
example the Lockheed
contract pusher in a Peacebuilding role. Or the disgraced
Millennium Campaign director Eveline Herfkens, who took $280,000 from
the Dutch
government while ostensibly serving only the UN, now recycled at a $1 a
year
"advisor" -- in line for up to $100,000 in "Daily Subsistence
Allowance." Click here
for Inner City Press' story on this.
In terms of openness to the press, Ban is lagging
behind his predecessor
Kofi Annan. Annan held a number of sit-down press
conferences, taking 20 or
more questions including on such topics as housing subsidies. Ban
on the contrary
has recently done a brief series of by
invitation only press lunches, insisting
these be "off the record." Ban rarely does press conferences, and
his
Spokesperson carefully chooses who is allowed to ask questions. As reported,
those holding the microphone boom at the Security Council stakeout have
been
told not to allow particular investigative journalists to ask questions.
This
is leadership? Perhaps those Ban has selected believe in teamwork in
such a way
they believe their job is to insulate Ban from the press, and try to
silence
those who question.
When Ban's Office of the Spokesperson was asked for
clarifications of
Ban's August 29 speech, they said since it hadn't been publicly
released, all
questions should be to the director of the Office of Communications. Is
this
office working well with others?
For ten days now, the UN has been under fire for its
Myanmar envoy's
pro-junta trip to Yangon, for failing to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi or
even
General Than Shwe. Day after
day of unanwered questions. Ban said it is not
about process but results. In this case, where are the results? What
was done about the UN's loss of 20% of aid funds to government-required
games with Foreign Exchange Certificates? Click here for
that. There is much work to be done.
Since it wasn't
publicly distributed, here is Ban Ki-moon's speech:
SG:
"Our job is to change the UN —and, through it, the world"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted:
Tuesday, 2 September 2008, Turin | Author: EOSG
In the evening of Friday, 29 August, the
Secretary-General spoke to senior officials at the retreat in Turin,
Italy,
about how they can lead in transforming the Organization. Below is a
transcript
of his remarks.
"This
evening, if I may, I would like to return to the theme with which we
began
today's discussions. We spoke about our vision for the coming year. We
discussed how to make our UN more modern—faster, more flexible and
responsive.
We
agreed that our focus must be on results—on action, delivery and
effectiveness.
We also agreed, above all, that the only way to change the culture of
the UN is
through teamwork.
I
invited you to reflect on how well our team is doing. I wanted us to be
frank
and open with one another, even blunt, to speak from the heart.
As
we enjoy this excellent meal, let us sit back, then, and take stock.
We
have many reasons to be satisfied with our progress. But let me speak
this
evening about what has most frustrated me over the past year, and
continues to
frustrate me today.
We
all know the UN is a huge bureaucracy. Coming here, 20 months ago, that
prospect did not bother me. After all, I was Korean foreign minister. I
spent
many years in large organizations.
Trust
me. I knew how to play the game.
Then
I arrived in New York. There is bureaucracy, I discovered … and then
there is
the UN.
We
must admit this. We must acknowledge how resistant we are to change. It
cripples
us in our most important job -- to function as a team.
As
a manager, as a leader, what I have always valued most is teamwork. In
choosing
my senior advisers, I have always cared less about a person's
intellectual
attainments than his or her ability to work well with others. I always
ask
myself: how will this person help promote teamwork, the sense of
working
together as one.
Here
at the UN, unfortunately, I see people too often putting their own
interests
first. I see too many turf fights, too much intramural wrangling, too
much
protectiveness of the status quo.
People
forget. It is precisely the status quo, "the way things are
done"—that we are trying to change. Why should we be so afraid to
change?
I
made these points last year, forcefully. But I see little evidence of a
change
in mindset. As a team, we are still too process-oriented. We get too
bogged
down in internal or bureaucratic technicalities. We waste incredible
amounts of
time on largely meaningless matters.
People
forget. The clock is ticking. We are one-third the way through our
mandate.
People
forget. We are here to act. We are here to deliver results. We are
agents of
change.
Our
job is to change the UN -- and, through it, the world.
This
is the big picture. I am frustrated by our failure, so often, to see
it.
Department
heads squabble among themselves over posts and budgets and bureaucratic
prerogatives, as though as they somehow owned them. But our
departments,
agencies and programmes are not personal fiefdoms.
We
are just passing through. We are temporary caretakers.
Always,
we must keep the larger interests of the organization at the forefront
of our
minds. We must work together and compromise to reach solutions that are
in the
best interests of the UN and the global public good.
I
am frustrated even more by our slowness. By the micro-managing of our
Secretariat. By business as usual.
We
often complain that Member States micro-manage us. But I have found
over the
past 20 months that it is more us, rather than Member States, who are
the
micro-managers.
As
I said this morning, we must change our UN culture. We must move
faster.
Simplify. Deregulate. De-centralize. Break down barriers and create
more
mobility within the organization, so that we can draw more fully on the
talents
of our staff.
I
mention staff mobility, because it illustrates the problem. How often
do we
hear the lament: "O, if only we had more resources. If only we had more
people or more money."
Well,
we do not have more posts and more money. Ten to 20 years from now, we
will
still be complaining about shortages of resources. We must do better
with what
we have. Key to that is better use of our staff, with better training.
And the
best training is mobility and breadth of experience.
That
is why I have turned over almost 100 percent of my staff on the 38th
floor. We
hired new people from inside the UN and from outside, from other
departments at
headquarters and from faraway field postings. What we might have lost
in
institutional memory we have more than made up for in new energy.
And
in the end, that is what counts. Energy. Dynamism -- the dynamism that
drives
change. If water does not flow, what happens? It grows stagnant. I want
continuous change, dynamism, creativity.
I
tried to lead by example. Nobody followed.
That
is why I have now challenged the new USGs for Management and Human
Resources to
come up with a plan.
Soon,
we will be launching a new pilot program in inter-departmental
mobility. You
will hear more about it from Angela Kane and Catherine Pollard.
But
bear in mind this revealing statistic, which sums up our problem: of
some 900
UN employees surveyed for this new initiative, 720 have been on the job
more
than five years—and many considerably longer.
The
UN has tried to change before. Guidelines for mobility were written in
the
1970s. Our current policies were launched in 2002. But nothing has
happened. My
challenge to you—let me be very clear—is to deal with this
all-important issue,
decisively.
In
the past, I have joked—or half-joked—about resorting to "shock
therapy." Perhaps we should "mobilize" by fiat and simply direct
DPA and DPKO to simply swap 20 percent of their staff.
So,
in our deliberations, I ask you: how are you doing on mobility? How can
you do
better, so that a year from now we will have accomplished what we need
to
accomplish.
I
urge you to ask the same tough questions about other vital issues, such
as
gender equality and budget management.
Above
all, I invite you to ask: am I doing my best for the team?
Do
not mistake me. I value independence. Initiative too. But we must
remember that
independence is not absolute. We are part of one organization, one UN.
Independence does not free us from the need for consultation and
collaboration
and teamwork.
There
are no exceptions, even in offices intended to be the most independent.
Those
of us who act otherwise need a personal reality check. Ego may be
getting in
our way.
When
we work for the UN—when you work for me—please leave your ego at the
door.
Today's
most vibrant enterprises are networks. Let us build networks within the
UN to
break down bureaucracy.
I
made this point last year, and I do so again. In our work together, I
want you
to cross lines. I want you to consult colleagues beyond the usual
sphere,
connect throughout our organization. Instead of commissioning
subordinates to
write long and dense memos—scarcely ever read—pick up the phone. Come
to my
office, or the residence on weekends. Sit down with me.
Go
see colleagues and sit down with them. Amazing work gets done when two
senior
people sit down for five minutes and decide something.
Our
work is urgent. Let us infuse it with a sense of speed and urgency --
the
passion of accomplishment. Let us not confuse our inner world -- the
physical
halls of this UN -- with the real world. Let us always put real-world
results
ahead of bureaucratic UN process.
When
you are trying to do something that is tough, when you are trying to
change the
status quo, people will resist. Your subordinates will come to you and
whisper
in your ear.
"Boss,"
they will say. "Your leadership will be undermined. We will lose power
within the organization. Resources will be taken away by So and So."
Don't
listen to them. They are thinking of their own position or benefit, not
the
larger interest of the UN, or what we are trying to accomplish as a
team.
This
is what I told the opposing parties in Kenya. Compromise. Give way to
one
another. This is the way to make friends, gain good will and trust.
Whether it
is two months or two years, you will be compensated.
Remember:
often as not, losing can be winning, and giving is gaining. This I
know. It is
what brought me to become Secretary-General. It is my life philosophy.
When
I leave this place, I will be remembered for what I managed to
accomplish. How
many countries I visited, how many presidents I met, the fine words I
uttered
-- none of that will matter.
So
it is for you. In the end, we will all be judged not only by what we do
in our
own departments, but by the successes of the UN as a whole.
We
left Torino last year determined to build a Stronger UN for a Better
World.
This year, we must take stock of how we have done, and where we can
improve.
One
UN is not a slogan. It is a management imperative. It is the first
principle of
effectiveness. It is the thing I will watch most closely.
We
must all be on notice: working together shall be the litmus test of
your
success in heading our departments, agencies and programs.
I
know you agree. That's why you are here—because, in your previous
lives, you
demanded excellence and got results. Now it is time for us to bring
your abilities
fully to bear -- together -- on the world's problems.
Thank
you."
Watch
this
site. And this (on
South Ossetia),
this, on
Russia-Georgia,
and
this --
|
