UNDP
Blames
Arab Spring
For Losing
$27M
Documents, of
$800
Afghan
Shredder
By
Matthew
Russell Lee,
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
June 11 -- The
"Arab
Spring" was
cited Monday
by the UN
Development
Program as an
excuse for
financial
opacity and
loss. Inner
City
Press was the
only media
covering a
June 11
session about
UNDP and
audit, which
was once a hot
topic at the
UN.
UNDP's audit
droned on in
the front;
an audio
connection
from the field
could not be
hooked up.
Then this
factoid
emerged: the
"loss of
supporting
documentation
in Egypt,
where $27.3
million in
project
expenditures
could not be
audited due
to the
destruction
and loss of
documents
following the
political
crisis."
Hearing this,
Inner City
Press went
to the front
of the large
conference
room and asked
for a copy of
the
audit. It was
not there.
UNDP fell
under fire in
the past for
withholding
the audits of
its program in
North Korea.
It promised to
do better.
Monday the
proposal was
to essentially
presume that
audits
would be
public -- but
to give "the
country
concerned" the
right to argue
for redaction
or even
withholding in
full. We'll
have
more on this.
UNDP is run by
Helen Clark,
who has not
held a Q&A
press
conference in
UN headquarter
for a very
long time,
like Ban
Ki-moon's top
lawyer
O'Brien.
Ban's
Peacekeeping
chief held a
press
conference,
but refused to
answer Inner
City Press'
questions
about he and
Ban accepting
as an adviser
an alleged war
criminal, Sri
Lankan general
Shavendra
Silva, and his
department
introducing
cholera to
Haiti.
Ladsous told
Inner
City Press:
"Well,
Mister, I will
start
answering your
questions when
you stop
insulting
me and making
malicious and
insulting
insinuations."
That video,
at Minute
28:10, is
online here.
On June 11 he
told Inner
City Press,
regarding his
French
nation's
former colony
Cote d'Ivoire,
"I'm
not talking to
you, sir,"
Ladsous told
Inner City
Press. Perhaps
"sir" is
progress from
"Mister."
Earlier on
June 11 in the
North Lawn
conferenc room
there was the
surreal claim
that
having two
UNDP auditors
in Kuala
Lumpur could
help stop
corruption
at UNDP... in
Afghanistan.
On May
11, Inner
City Press asked
about
corruption in
Afghanistan:
Question:
On
Afghanistan?
There is a
report that
the Monitoring
and Evaluation
Committee, the
Afghan
Government,
and the
international
donors have
said that the
UN system's
role in
funding the
Afghan
national
police may
involve false
receipts, what
is the UN
system’s
response? Does
it believe
that there are
problems with
the program or
that
everything is
running well?
Spokesperson:
Seen the
story; speak
to UNDP
[United
Nations
Development
Programme].
Thanks very
much.
And
here's from
the response
UNDP put out,
and the UN
sent to Inner
City Press:
UNDP
has
a zero
tolerance
policy towards
any form of
mismanagement
or corruption
for its entire
country
program in
Afghanistan.
Your article
refers to the
Law and Order
Trust Fund for
Afghanistan
(LOTFA), which
is part of our
program and
helps increase
security by
training the
Afghan
National
Police—including
through
payment of
salaries. It
is audited
every year by
a globally
respected and
independent
third party
auditing firm.
A
financial
audit recently
conducted by
KPMG of the
2011 project’s
expenditure
concluded that
there were no
financial
irregularities.
In addition, a
comprehensive
evaluation of
the previous
LOTFA phase,
also conducted
by an external
evaluation
firm, found no
cause for
concern.
UNDP
notes
with concern a
statement in
your report,
which
describes a
"pattern of
bad behavior"
at LOTFA –
comments you
have
attributed to
an
anti-corruption
body set up by
the Afghan
government,
the Monitoring
and Evaluation
Committee.
However, their
report was
released the
day before
your article
was published
and makes no
reference to
“bad
behavior”. It
does recommend
improved
oversight and
monitoring and
UNDP is
committed to
diligently
following up
on this.
Moreover,
we
would like to
set the record
straight on
the following
additional
allegations in
your piece:
1/
For
example, a
10-seater sofa
set and four
tables costing
$6,000 --
which the
article refers
to as “luxury
furniture”
that might not
even have been
purchased –
were procured
with full
procedural
checks and are
still being
used by the
head of the
Afghan Border
Police.
2/
The
purchase order
of a paper
shredder,
mentioned in
your report,
matched its
$800 price.
The purchase
was in line
with our
procurement
policy and was
only approved
after the
project
justified its
need for a
more robust
product...
Yours
truly,
Satinder
Bindra,
Director of
Communications
- UNDP
So why
the long -- if
factually
challenged --
response to
the WSJ about
Afghanistan,
including
10-seater sofa
set and
"robust" $800
shredder?
Are
these the
audits which
would be
redacted or
withheld?
Watch this
site.
, 
