Ban
Handed Out
Rights Job to
Gilmour With
No Notice to
States, In
Denial
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 18 --
Entering the
last six
months of Ban
Ki-moon's
second term as
UN Secretary
General, not
only Ban has
his eye on
future jobs
(South Korea
presidency)
and paydays.
On the Andrew
Gilmour move
of June 24,
Inner City
Press on July
25 asked more
questions.
From the UN
transcript:
Inner City
Press: I asked
you before
about the ASG
(Assistant
Secretary-General)
of Human
Rights
position for
Andrew
Gilmour, and I
asked about
whether there
had been… the
type of
recruitment
that is
usually done,
and I think
you said,
yes. But
since now
having heard
from a number
of people,
including in
Geneva, that
would have
wanted to run
for the post
and from some
countries, in
the case of
the ASG post
of Kyung-wha
Kang, they
post on
Delegate a
notice to
Member States
and there is
an ASG post
open and
people can
apply for
it. I
wanted to
know, just
"Yes" or "No",
was that done
for the ASG of
Human Rights
Post and if
not, why not?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Different
announcements
are posted in
different
ways; but the
policy, yes,
this was
filled through
the regular
policy for
staffing
posts.
ICP
Question:
Right but why
would the ASG
for OCHA
(Office for
the
Coordination
of
Humanitarian
Affairs) be
posted and the
ASG of Human
Rights not be
posted, unless
you come back
and say that
it was posted?
Deputy
Spokesman:
here are
different
times when
different
things are
posted.
Sometimes ads
are placed in
Economist and
sometimes
not.
That is
different;
but, yes, the
procedure was
followed.
ICP
Question:
But the rights
of nations
seem
different,
Economist, and
maybe it's up
to you where
to advertise,
but the
countries
themselves say
they never saw
a notice and
it was filled
kind of
quickly.
I guess was
Prince Zeid
conferred with
on this
appointment?
Deputy
Spokesman:
I don't
comment on how
the procedure
was followed;
but, yes, the
proper
procedure was
followed.
Have a good
afternoon,
everyone.
On October 18,
Ban's outgoing
lead spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
returned with
a fulsome
denial - but
no other
answers.
Dujarric used
the top of the
briefing to
say: “And in
response to a
question that
I think you
Matthew had
asked on
Friday, after
checking with
our colleagues
in Geneva, I
can confirm
that the
allegation of
a letter from
D-2s of the
Office of the
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights
protesting
about the
appointment of
Andrew Gilmour
as the new
Assistant
Secretary-General
for Human
Rights on the
grounds that
the post
wasn’t
advertised is
completely
false. I
can also
confirm, as I
said, that
Kate Gilmore,
and that’s
G-i-l-m-o-r-e,
has only one
nationality
and it is the
proud passport
of Australia.”
Later
in the
briefing,
Inner City
Press asked:
Inner City
Press: on what
you said at
the top, I
wanted to ask
you the
following and
just if you
can explain
this.
The ASG
[Assistant
Secretary-General]
post that went
to Mr. Andrew
Gilmour and
without any
rancour of his
record or
anything else,
you may not
believe it,
but a number
of ambassadors
through G-77
and elsewhere
said they
never got a
letter.
And so they
look at the
ASG of OCHA,
for example,
Kyung-wha
Kang, and they
did get a
letter saying
put forward…
how is it
decided?
They thought…
so, I'm asking
you… that when
ASG posts
become open
that the
Member States
are told they
can put in
candidates.
Even if you
have somebody
in mind, you
go through the
motions.
Why was that
not done in
the case of
ASG for Human
Rights?
Spokesman:
I don't know
that it was…
that Member
States were
not
informed.
The
Secretary-General…
the
Secretary-General
has the
authority to
appoint ASGs
or USGs
[Under-Secretaries-General]
without
posting…
posting the
post as it is
being done for
OCHA.
That is his
prerogative.
It is within
the
well-established
rules and
regulations of
the
Organization.
The procedure
for the hiring
of Andrew
Gilmour was
clearly within
the
established
rules and
regulations of
how these
posts are
named.
The
Secretary-General
has various
options and
uses those
various
options for
various posts.
ICP
Question:
So, now that
Kyung-wha Kang
is part of the
transition
team for
António
Guterres,
what's the
status of that
post and of
the
recruitment
part? It
would seem to
make more
sense to do
that one fast,
given the…?
Spokesman:
I appreciate
your HR [human
resources]
advice.
I think…
ICP
Question:
Sure.
Well, where
does it
stand?
It's not
really
advice.
It's a
question.
Spokesman:
She had
indicated and
announced her
departure
months
ago.
That
continues.
She's no
longer on that
post, so that
recruitment
continues.
Despite the
intentional
opacity of
Ban's outgoing
spokesperson,
Inner City
Press reports
that Andrew
Gilmour states
that he was
not present in
any intra-Ban
Ki-moon
meeting on
Guterres'
denied request
for extension,
only a P5
lunch at which
the topic
arose. We
believe him.
He seemed
unaware both
of Dujarric's
refusal to
answer basic
questions, and
of Team Ban's
/ Gallach's at
least eight
months of
harassment of
Inner City
Press. We hope
to have more
on this.
In the July 15
UN Journal Ban
quietly gave
himself "the
authority to
laterally
transfer staff
members of the
Executive
Office of the
Secretary-General
to any of the
activities or
offices of the
United
Nations,
including to
any vacant
position in
any
organizational
unit or duty
station with
or without
advertisement
of the job
opening or
further review
by a central
review body."
This is
lawless,
analogized by
one wag to a
refugee
resettlement
program for
Ban's staff
who would
otherwise
become
homeless once
a new SG
clears house
and handpicks
new staff. But
Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric
might, it
seems, call
reporting on
it "stalking."
Video
here. Where
might Dujarric
show up,
without
competition?
On July 15,
Inner City
Press asked
Dujarric's
deputy Farhan
Haq about it;
Haq never did
email the
answer he got
but instead
waited to read
it out on June
18, then email
after Inner
City Press
asked about it, video here:
"The General
Assembly, in
resolution
57/305,
approved
Secretary-General
Kofi Annan’s
proposal to
grant
discretionary
placement
authority of
staff leaving
the Executive
Office at the
end of their
service. In
his proposal,
Secretary-General
Annan had
explained that
in staffing
the Executive
Office, the
required
expertise was
often
available
within the
Organization,
and while the
Secretary-General
could bring
staff into his
Executive
Office outside
established
procedures,
this action
separated the
staff from
their posts in
their previous
office. The
Secretary-General
was of the
view that,
logically,
there should
be a
corresponding
arrangement,
allowing him
authority to
outpost staff
from his
Office as
well, which
would ensure
that the
career
opportunities
of these staff
are not
jeopardized by
service in the
Executive
Office of the
Secretary-General.
In addition,
such placement
facilitates
providing an
incoming
Secretary-General
with the
possibility of
selecting
staff of his
or her
choosing. The
decision
remains in
force until
and unless the
General
Assembly
decides
otherwise.
Since the
Assembly’s
decision, the
Secretary-General
has exercised
the authority
granted in
certain cases.
In the
interest of
good
administration
and
transparency,
a
Secretary-General’s
Bulletin was
recently
promulgated,
setting forth
the
eligibility
criteria for
placement and
the process."
Here's the
Staff Union
view Inner
City Press has
asked Haq
about:
"At this
April’s
meeting of the
Staff-Management
Committee,
management
representatives
proposed a
policy whereby
staff in your
executive
office (EOSG),
recruited
through the
established
procedures and
subsequently
appointed to a
position in
EOSG, may be
placed on any
vacant post
anywhere in
the
Secretariat,
whether
advertised or
not.
The staff
unions of the
United Nations
raised
concerns as
the proposal
was a
fundamental
variation of
the staff
selection
system that
you yourself
put in place.
As staff
unions we are
mandated to
represent the
rights of all
staff,
including
those serving
in EOSG.
Your proposal
referred to
General
Assembly
resolution
57/305, which
states:
“Approves in
view of the
special
circumstances,
the proposal
contained in
the report of
the
Secretary-General,
while
emphasizing
that the
process must
be transparent
and in
accordance
with the Staff
Regulations
and Rules, and
requests the
Secretary-General
to report on
the
implementation
of this
procedure to
the General
Assembly as
appropriate.”
It should be
noted that
this
resolution was
issued in 2002
and makes
reference to
the Galaxy
staff
selection
system. It
also pre-dates
mobility. The
General
Assembly
passed the
resolution in
the context of
a system now
judged
obsolete. In
determining
the new staff
selection
system in
2009, it is
not clear that
resolution
57/305 was
taken into
account.
Therefore, the
resolution
would now
appear to be
moot.
Further the
resolution
requested a
transparent
process. When
we questioned
management
representatives
on this, we
were unable to
obtain
assurances as
to how such
transparency
would occur.
We are also
concerned that
you are ready
to outplace
staff from
your office
without
acknowledging
that such a
policy would
give rise to
legitimate
expectations
by equally
hard-working
staff
elsewhere,
affected by
budget cuts,
to be placed
on more secure
posts.
We regret that
without even
waiting for
the SMC
decision
process to
take place via
this
submission,
you have
already and
unilaterally
implemented
this policy by
personally
approving and
signing
ST/SGB/2016/8,
even though
this item had
still to be
concluded by
you through
the SMC
process. We
are concerned
at the signal
this may send
out about your
commitment to
genuine
staff-management
dialogue and
the precedent
that it sets.
As such we do
not recognize
the legitimacy
of this
policy.
And while we
fully respect
the hard work
and loyalty of
your staff, we
believe that
placement of
staff should
be made on an
equal basis
for all, and
that
transparency
measures be
implemented."
On June 24
when Ban's
office
announced a
promotion for
Andrew Gilmour
of the United
Kingdom to
Assistant
Secretary-General
for Human
Rights and
Head of the
Office of the
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights (OHCHR)
in New York,
there were
near-immediate
grumbling from
the developing
countries int
the Group of
77.
Several
who contacted
Inner City
Press asked,
Why was there
no open
recruitment
process? Why
did Ban,
having
“already
picked an
Australian in
Geneva [Kate
Gilmore] now
choose a Brit
in New York?”
Others said
there is an
attempt to
move people to
new jobs so
that when the
next Secretary
General comes
in, the
argument can
be made that
they haven't
enough time,
leave them in
place. On June
27, Inner City
Press asked
Ban's deputy
spokesman
Farhan Haq, UN Transcript:
Inner City
Press: And
you'd
mentioned
this, that Mr.
[Ivan]
Šimonovic will
be replaced by
Andrew
Gilmour.
Since then,
I've heard
from a number…
I guess I want
to just to ask
factually,
what was the
recruitment
pol… pr … was
a call put out
for an ASG
(Assistant
Secretary-General)
post?
Because people
in G-77 (Group
of 77) are
saying there
was no call,
and there's…
there's some…
some pushback
to it.
And also some
people that
work in the
human rights
at D2 and
other levels
are saying
they couldn't
apply.
Isn't it the
norm for an
ASG post to
write a letter
to Member
States and
saying send in
names or do
interviews?
Was that done
or not done?
Deputy
Spokesman:
As far as I'm
aware, the
standard
process for
filling that
post was
followed as
with all
senior posts.
Inner City
Press:
Can… I mean, I
guess… can you
check on
that?
Because maybe
these people
are
ill-informed,
but they seem
to think that
didn't take
place.
Deputy
Spokesman:
As… like I
said, I mean,
as far as I'm
apprised of
the process,
it was filled
in the
standard way
of previous
posts, with a
short list of
candidates and
interviews and
so forth.
Inner City
Press:
But is it the
norm to inform
Member States
that an ASG
post is
becoming empty
and for them
to write in if
they have a
candidate?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Ultimately,
things depend
on the level,
but I believe
that all the
appropriate
policies for
that post were
filled.
Countries,
too, have
their
strategy.
Several
sources tell
Inner City
Press that
Herve Ladsous
might have to
leave before
the end of
Ban's term --
good -- but
not as
accountability
for
peacekeeper
rapes and
justifying
them, nor more
recently for
the failures
at Malakal in
South Sudan.
No, the
idea is that
if France
wants to hold
on to the
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations, it
will be better
with a
recently
appointed USG
in place than
Ladsous and
his stench.
There was talk
of the Obama
administration
wanting
Peacekeeping,
now the talk
has turned to
the Department
of Management.
We'll have
more on this.
As to Ban
himself, when
he wrapped up
his five day
campaign trip
in South Korea
with a
three-question
"press
conference" at
the UN's
DPI-NGO
conference, he
criticized
"coverage of
what was
supposed to be
off-the-record
meeting with
the Kwanhoon
Club" of
political
correspondents.
Even during
Ban's long
visit to South
Korea, Inner
City Press in
New York where
it has been
evicted from
its long time
shared UN
office and
confined to
minders, told
not to
question
diplomats
asked the UN
why no
transcript was
provided of
Ban's session
with the
Kwanhoon Club.
It asked again
on June 10,
the day after
Ban himself
called such
questions
"undue."
On June 16, as
Inner City
Press
continued to
ask Ban's
spokesman
Dujarric about
Ban's role in
retaliation -
and Dujarric
refused to
answer - it
was told by
other sources
that the South
Korean mission
has come out
defending its
role in
promoting
meetings for
Ban with South
Korea
political
figures,
defending its
travel with
Ban and
specifically
denying the
Mission wrote
speeches for
Ban.
* * *
These
reports
are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for Sept 26, 2011 New Yorker on Inner City
Press at UN
Click
for
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN
Corruption
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest service,
and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2015 Inner City Press,
Inc. To request reprint or other permission,
e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
|