In
UNICEF, Critique of Veneman Is Only Half Answered, Second
Term Questioned
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 27 -- As Ann Veneman's term as UNICEF Executive
Director comes to a close, whether she should get a second term is a
rising topic of discussion, particularly within the agency.
The
publication The Lancet, acknowledging that it "has good reason
to thank Ann Veneman," nevertheless recommended that "UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should announce that the next Executive
Director of UNICEF will be selected through a transparent,
merit-based appointment process. Candidates... should have to declare
themselves,
publish manifestos, and be available for public scrutiny and
questioning."
Since
the UN
increasing refuses to name short lists for its top posts, or as in
the case of the contested Associate Administrator position at the UN
Development Program, even who makes the decision, Inner City Press
has decided to do what it can in terms of making these processes
transparent to the public.
Whistleblowers
inside UNICEF forwarded Inner City Press a detailed critique of
Veneman's tenure. In fairness, Inner City Press asked, with partial
success, UNICEF's chief of media for the Executive
"Director's
responses to each of the following critiques from long time UNICEF
staff / whistleblowers, so that the responses can be included in the
article along with the critiques. Please provide Ms. Veneman's
responses asap the statements by UNICEF staff that 'more serious
charges can be leveled against Ms. Veneman on:
-
her continuing to use Bush administration "Secretary of
Agriculture" stationery even after becoming head of UNICEF;
-
but her total failure to do any effective policy-based lobbying or
even fund-raising with the U.S. Congess and U.S. administration;
-
her frequent, unannounced, mysterious trips to Washington, DC and
failure and unwillingness to visit even nearby Canada, a major donor;
-
her reluctance to cultivate other key donors, e.g. Japan;
-
but her strange willingness to go out of her way to cultivate San
Marino and Gucci
-
her failure to turn up and provide leadership during major
humanitarian emergencies - e.g. in Lebanon during the huge Israeli
attack and massive damage and destruction, in Myanmar / Burma during
Cyclone Nargis, in China during the massive earthquake, etc.
-
her early reluctance to travel to " hot and humid countries";
-
the totally useless, unnecessary, expensive and counter-productive
organizational review and attempt to reorganize UNICEF that had to be
largely abandoned later;
-
her lack of humility, and pretense of seemingly knowing many things,
dismissing the views of many truly knowledgeable and competent staff;
-
her lack of engagement and leadership with UNICEF national committees
in industrialized countries who are among UNICEF's greatest assets;
-
her neglect of major developing and emerging economy countries like
the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China);
-
her total lack of engagement and imagination in dealing effectively
with middle income countries, e.g. in cee/cis
-
her glaring lack of support for the convention on the rights of the
child or for rights-based approach to development as such in the
early years of her tenure;
-
her opportunistic jumping into certain aspects of u.n. "reform"
agenda completely ignoring the considered views and advice of most of
her seasoned senior staff;
-
her failure to connect with field offices and staff to the point that
even after 4 years, many UNICEF staff in the field do not feel they
know who their leader is and what she really wants or stands for.
UNICEF's
chief of
media Chris de Bono answered some but not all of the questions. We
have decided to run his response in full, as well as the initial
questions, to highlight which questions were ignored.
UN's Ban and Ann Veneman, second term not shown
UNICEF's de
Bono wrote:
Subj:
Response
From:
[Chris de Bono at] unicef.org
To: Inner City Press
Sent:
11/24/2009 6:27:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Matthew,
The statements are unsourced opinion and contain a number of factual
errors. Here is my response:
On
leadership in humanitarian crisis and travel to difficult regions:
UNICEF
stands by its excellent record of providing leadership during
humanitarian crises, including through visits by members of the
senior management team. The Executive Director herself travelled to
Sri Lanka almost soon after taking up her position to see first-hand
the Tsunami humanitarian relief operation. She was the first UN
agency head into the Philippines after the recent floods. In October
2005, she went to Pakistan soon after the earthquake. Earlier this
year, she was in Gaza and in Zimbabwe following the cholera outbreak.
She has also travelled to the DRC twice, Darfur and Northern Uganda.
Convention
on the Rights of the Child: The Executive Director regularly speaks
out on violations of children’s rights. The work of UNICEF is
anchored in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As you know,
last week, UNICEF convened a major commemoration of the 20th
anniversary of the CRC with partner NGOs
(http://www.unicef.org/media/media_51843.html). UNICEF produced a
special edition of its flagship State of the World’s Children
report focused on the CRC – looking at achievements and challenges
of the child-rights agenda
(http://www.unicef.org/media/media_51803.html)
On
staff relations: Staff meetings and teleconferences with senior
staff in the field are held on a weekly basis. Staff surveys
conducted in 2008 and 2009 revealed that 93% say they are proud to
work for UNICEF. Eighty-four per cent said they are clear about the
goals that UNICEF is seeking to achieve. The Executive Director
always meets with UNICEF staff when she travels to programme
countries, and wherever possible also meets with the UN Country team.
On
the organizational review: It is the responsibility of every
organization to regularly reexamine its activities and to seek
continuous improvement. UNICEF’s organizational review was
initiated after meetings of senior management concluded that such a
process would help UNICEF adapt to the changing world in which it
operates. As a result, management changes are being implemented to
more efficiently deliver on our mission and mandate.
On
UN coherence: UNICEF has a longstanding commitment to improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of the UN system, as it is critical to
enhancing results for the most vulnerable.
On
visits to donor countries: Meetings with donors are a constant part
of the activities of the UNICEF Executive Director and senior
management. She recently returned from her fourth trip to Japan,
during which she was the first UN head of agency to meet with the
incoming Japanese government. She regularly meets with donor
governments in capitals, at UN headquarters and at conferences. This
includes Washington where the Executive Director meets with
Government officials, the World Bank and other key partners.
Relations
with National Committees: The Executive Director attends the global
meeting of annual National Committees every year. She has also
personally visited National Committees in 18 countries. National
Committees are very important to UNICEF and their chiefs play a key
role in UNICEF’s global leadership team meetings.
Emerging
economies and Middle Income Countries: Strengthening engagement with
middle income countries is an ongoing focus at all levels of the
organization and with UNICEF’s Executive Board. The Executive
Director has been to all the BRIC countries; Brazil, Russia, India
and China, as well as a number of other middle income countries.
While
we have run
the response in full, several of the questions remain unanswered. Ms.
Veneman, after months without appearing in UN briefing room 226 to
take questions, is scheduled to appear on November 30. At press time,
UN Secretariat sources say she will not appear, since Eric Goosby, US
Global AIDS Coordinator, is no longer coming, they say. Watch this
site.
* * *
UNICEF
Has "No Position" on China's One Child Policy, Lucy Liu Calls It
Tradition, of Stealth MOUs and Re-election Worries
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 19 -- What is UNICEF's position on China's One
Child Policy? It doesn't have one.
In
the run up to a
UN children's agency event featuring Lucy Liu commemorating the
Convention on the Rights of the Child's twentieth anniversary, Inner
City Press asked UNICEF to "please state UNICEF's / Ms.
Veneman's position on China's one child policy."
Inner
City Press
also requested a copy of UNICEF's memorandum of understanding with
the Chinese government's state media organization Xinhua, which has
recently been publicizing the UN's "child protection" work.
On
the eve of the
event, UNICEF refused to provide a copy of the MOU with Xinhua -- it
pointed instead to a press release -- and responded to
Inner City Press in writing that:
"UNICEF
does not work in China on either population or family planning
issues.This relationship is managed by another UN agency, UNFPA,
which works with China's National Population and Family Planning
Commission. UNICEF works only in maternal and child health with the
Ministry of Health. We are not involved in the Government's Family
Planning and Population policies or programmes and as such, we have
no official position on the issue."
Given
UNICEF's
rhetoric about its uncompromising protection of children, to hide
behind UNFPA or say it takes no position on policies until it work
with them seemed puzzling. Inner City Press went to UNICEF's
headquarters on November 19, hoping to ask Executive Director Ann
Veneman directly for her position.
Ms.
Veneman was
appointed by then-President George W. Bush, and many have speculated
that the Obama administration may have someone else in mind for the
post. If this is indeed the dynamic, how would Ms. Veneman's silence
on this issue of human rights in China play?
UNICEF's Ann Veneman, at left, Gucci
but no policy. UNICEF has many good staff, but glitz and politics are
beneath it
At
the press
conference, at which Inner City Press despite raised hand was not
called on to ask a question, Ms. Veneman and Lucy Liu were asked
indirectly about the policy. An intrepid reporter from Xinhua asked
about the
disparity between male and female children in rural China, which is
how UNICEF's relatd "State of the World's Children" report,
at page 22, couched the issue.
Ms.
Veneman replied
that "it is not only China" but that "we need to speak
out." But why then does UNICEF not have a position -- that is,
why does UNICEF not speak out?
Lucy
Liu, a UNICEF
Goodwill Ambassador, said that it is important for UNICEF to respect
countries' "traditions." Whether the current Chinese
government's one child policy can be construed as a tradition is
unclear. Ms. Liu also said that China's greater number of males may
lead to sexual violence and rape, equating a "room full of men"
with "endorphins." Ms. Veneman laughed, seeming
uncomfortable.
The
U.S. Congress
recently heard testimony about China's One Child Policy. Ms. Veneman
is known to micro-manage UNICEF's public communications on such
topics, for example by insisting to see and personally approve any
press release about countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan. In further
micro management, UNICEF sources tell Inner City Press that when
interviewed by her stealth partner Xinhua, Ms. Veneman gave stage
direction such as to only film her from the "third button up." Xinhua,
despite having at the UN several energetic or respected journalists,
apparently complied.
Whether
such
careful management, of camera shots and policy positions, leads to a
second term for Ms. Veneman at UNICEF is not yet known. Watch this
site.
* * *
As Blair Lobbies for
Wataniya, Do Kuwait and JPM Chase's Arranger Role Spell UN Conflict of
Interest?
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 13 -- When Tony Blair does business, who does he
work for? He represents the Quartet, and thus the UN, on development
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He has
been paid by JPMorgan
Chase as a consultant, and presumably works for them. When he acts
in
the West Bank for the Wataniya cell phone company, who is he
working
for?
The
UN has
repeatedly claimed that there would and could be no conflict of
interest between Blair's paid position for JPMorgan Chase and his
work in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. When Inner City Press
asked Blair, after a meeting of the Quarter in the Conference Room 4
in UN Headquarters, about any safeguards in place for his UN and
JPMorgan Chase roles, he scoffed. A Blair staffer confirmed that he
continued in JPM Chase's employ.
This
week, Tony
Blair attended a press conference announcing the finalization of
Wataniya's deal, which Blair "negotiated." At the UN noon
briefing on November 11, Inner City Press asked about this last:
Inner
City Press: yesterday, Tony
Blair was in Ramallah, and he’s
described as having negotiated on behalf of a cell phone company with
the Israeli Government. There’s a whole press conference also that
noted his role for the Quartet and for the UN. So I’m wondering,
did he do this on behalf of the Quartet and the UN and what is the
UN’s knowledge, do they have any knowledge on this business
negotiating activity?
Deputy
Spokesperson Marie Okabe: I have no knowledge of that.
Even
forty six
hours later, no answer has been provided. But even cursory research
reveals that Blair's employer JPMorgan Chase served as a "mandated
lead arranger" for the acquisition of Wataniya. Click here
for
the document.
So
again, what
safeguards are in place? Who is Tony Blair working for?
Tony
Blair
Associates has as a client Kuwait, and by implication its royal
family, while Blair has met with the finance minister of Kuwait while
representing JPMorgan Chase. Wataniya Palestine is substantially
(57%) owned by investors from Qatar and... Kuwait. For the former,
it's Qatar Telecom. But for the later, it's the Kuwait
Investment
Authority, which operates on behalf of the State of Kuwait
-- Tony Blair Associates' client. So when Blair lobbies for
Wataniya, who is he
representing?
Tony Blair and UN's Ban, JPM Chase safeguards not
shown
While
awaiting the
UN's answers, we note that in June 2009, "Wataniya Palestine CEO
Alan Richardson recently called on Middle East envoy and former
British prime minister Tony Blair to intervene on behalf of Wataniya
to get the frequency released. Richardson previously has been
involved in controversial cell phone projects in Iraq, with Orascom
and Iraqna, contracts
which the U.S. Pentagon urged the Coalition Provisional Authority to
cancel.
So
to the degree
Tony Blair is working for Richardson, this too is problematic. But
beyond the UN and Quarter, is Blair working for Kuwait? With JPMorgan
Chase's documented mandate lead arranger role for the acquisition of
Wataniya, there is a conflict which, it would seem, will require
action. Blair is dismissive, and the UN appears cowed. Watch this
site.
* * *
Were
Galbraith's Oil Interests As Undisclosed at UN as at Opinion Pages He
Wrote For?
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, November 12, updated Nov. 13
-- Following reports that former UN Deputy
Special Representative to Afghanistan Peter Galbraith's oil
investments are worth up to $100 million, Inner City Press on
November 12 asked UN Deputy Spokesperson Marie Okabe if Galbraith
disclosed this interest in his financial disclosure form.
Ms.
Okabe stated
that such forms are filled out when a person joins the UN at the
level Mr. Galbraith did, and are "vetted by a professional
firm," namely PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But did Galbraith make the
disclosure which it's now clear was required?
Ms.
Okabe refused to
answer, instead referring the question to UN Ethics Officer Robert
Benson, who oversees the financial disclosure regime. Inner City
Press asked Mr. Benson by both e-mail and telephone, early and late
on the afternoon of November 12, but received no answer by the
evening.
Update: on November 13, UN Ethics
Officer Robert Benson wrote to Inner City Press that "The
Ethics Office can confirm that although Mr. Galbraith is
no longer with the United Nations, he was a participant in the United
Nations Financial Disclosure program following his appointment;
however, as provided for in GA Resolution A/RES/60/238, the
information disclosed remains confidential."
Inner
City Press
is informed that Galbraith is now being barred from the op-ed pages
of major American media based on his failure to accurate disclose his
financial interests. The New York
Times confirmed this on November 13. Galbraith is arguing that
he didn't read the
form, a strange argument for a diplomat who argued that the U.S.
didn't have to comply with UN Security Council resolutions regarding
the Balkans as long as they were under Chapter VI and not VII of the
UN Charter.
Earlier,
just
after Galbraith was fired by Ban Ki-moon, Ban's deputy chief of
peacekeeping Edmond Mulet told the Press that Galbraith had some
ulterior motive which would soon become clear. On November 12, Inner
City Press asked an involved UN official if Mulet had meant the oil
investments, or that he might want to run for lieutenant government
of Vermont. "The latter," the official said. Only at the
UN.
Galbraith and Scott Ritter, disclosure of
$100 million oil investment not shown
From
the
November 12 transcript:
Inner
City Press: ...about Peter Galbraith, former Deputy UNAMA
representative and his interest in oil contracts in northern Iraq. I
wanted to know when he became a Deputy Special Representative, did he
fill out the financial disclosure forms, and I’d also like to know
whether this investment was disclosed in those forms.
Deputy
Spokesperson Marie Okabe: As you know, the financial disclosure
forms are something that the Secretary-General has instituted, it’s
part of his UN reform, and all staff, once they’ve joined the
Organization as senior staff and those in positions that require
financial disclosure, are required to fill that form out upon entry
into the Organization. So it’s a requirement.
Inner
City Press: [inaudible] It seems, this article would make it
important to know whether this, they say the investment is worth up
to $100 million, whether that was disclosed in the form and if it
wasn’t, what were the reasons…?
Deputy
Spokesperson Okabe: As you know, these forms are vetted by a
professional firm and if they see fit that they need to follow up on
any questions that they have, that is done. I think Robert Benson,
when he was here last time, gave you a briefing on how that procedure
works. And just because they are not made public, it does not mean
that they have not been vetted, and the firm that goes through it
does the vetting and if they have any questions, they do get back to
the staff member and do the follow-up on that.
Inner
City Press: [inaudible] is it possible to just, and I don’t expect
you to do it right this moment, but to get a yes or no answer,
whether that investment was disclosed in the forms. Is that going to
be possible?
Deputy
Spokesperson Okabe: You know, you can ask that to Robert Benson, but
that’s his call.
But
Benson has yet
to return a call, nor an e-mail asking the above and the following
questions, below.
Update
of November 13, 2009 -- the following was received:
Subj:
Re: Press questions,Galbraith, whisteblowers etc, thanks in advance
From:
Robert Benson [at] un.org
To:
Inner City Press
Sent:
11/13/2009 9:23:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Dear
Mr Lee:
Responses
provided:
Hi.
At today's noon press briefing, I asked if Peter Galbraith (until
recently Deputy SRSG in Afghanistan) had filled out a UN financial
disclosure form, and separately if he had disclosed the oil interests
in Iraq reported in today's NY Times.
Marie
Okabe
referred me to you on both questions.
A1
-- "The Ethics Office can confirm that although Mr. Galbraith is
no longer with the United Nations, he was a participant in the United
Nations Financial Disclosure program following his appointment;
however, as provided for in GA Resolution A/RES/60/238, the
information disclosed remains confidential."
Q2
-- I have also been told that in a recent UN Dispute Tribunal
hearing, about the UNDP - North Korea whistleblower case, that OLA
said they would not "allow" you to testify in the case. Are
you aware of this? What do you think of UNDP's failure to follow your
recommendation?
A2
-- "Since this is a matter that is before the UN Dispute
Tribunal, I prefer not to make any comment regarding the matter."
Q3
- How many whistleblowers deserving protection have you certified /
found in the past two years? Based on how many applications /
approaches?
A3
- "The detailed information regarding the number of requests for
protection against retaliation received by the Ethics Office and
their disposition can be found in the Office’s Annual Reports for
the previous two (2) years; that is, paragraphs 59-66 of A/64/316 and
paragraphs 47-53 of A/63/301."
Q4
- Finally, does your Office cover local staff of UN Peacekeeping
Missions? There is a recent case of a former MONUC local staffer,
alleging MONUC involvement in / knowledge of diversion of jet fuel
among other things, who has told me he feels retaliated against.
Would your Office have jurisdiction?
A4
- "Yes, our Office would cover a request for protection against
retaliation by local staff member from a UN Peacekeeping Mission. May
I suggest that you have the individual contact our Office, in that
way we would be able to advise the him/her directly."
Q5
- How long more do you remain in Office?
A5-
"My three (3) year appointment as the Director of the Ethics
Office will end on 30 April 2010, following which I will retire.
During my tenure as the United Nations first Director of Ethics, I
have indicated on numerous occasions that I considered it important,
particularly in relation to the independence of the Office, that I
serve for a fixed term and that I leave at the conclusion of that
term. The Secretary-General has been informed and has accepted my
plans to retire."
While
the answers,
even the next day, are appreciated, one wonders in light of Q&A
2, above, who would want this job after the retirement announced in
A5 takes place. Watch this site.
* * *
On
Food Speculation, UN's Expert Says Nothing's Being Done, S. Korean Land
Grabs from Madagascar to Sudan, Brazil on Ethanol
By
Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, October 21 -- After many speeches at the UN about the need
to crack down on financial speculation in food, nothing has been
done, the UN's expert on the right to food told Inner City Press on
Wednesday.
Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian law professor just back
from a visit to Brazil about, among other things, the loss of land
for food to ethanol, replied that "nothing is moving at the
inter-governmental level." This despite a statement by the G-20
in April favoring the regulation of hedge funds which present
systemic risk. The argument is that commodities index funds which
speculate in food present systemic risk to net food importing
countries. But nothing has been done.
De
Schutter spoke
about the monopolization of the seed industry, and made a slew of
recommendations for governments. The three top monopolizers --
Monsanto, Dupont and the Swiss-based Syngenta -- are all members of
the UN Global Compact, and claim to comply with human rights. De
Schutter pointed out the antitrust law is directed as national and
not global or subnational markets. It is all very heady but one
wonders what effect it has.
Brazil
might be
one of de Schutter's claims to impact. He spoke glowingly of
President Lula, saying that Brazil has said that only 19% of land can
be used for sugar cane for ethanol, and has committed to monitor
labor rights. But what about, for example, Indonesia and Malaysia?
De Schutter, action on food speculation not shown
After
De
Schutter's briefing, Inner City Press asked his staffer for an update
on the proposed land grab in Madagascar by South Korea based Daewoo,
which was reputed after the coup in that country. De Schutter had
been scheduled to visit, but it was put off by the coup. The same
thing happened in Honduras. So perhaps De Schutter does have an
effect after all, mused one wag.
Footnote:
immediately after De Schutter's briefing, the UN's Haile Menkerios
was scheduled to speak to the Press about Madagascar. While the UN
usually compartmentalizes its work such that a rapporteur looks at
land grabs, while the Secretariat remains on "political affairs"
narrowly defined, this land grab played a role in the change of
government. Now it's said the South Korean deal is being pursued from
India, while South Korea appears to have moved on to 690,000 hectares
in Sudan. Watch this site.
Click
here
for an Inner City Press YouTube channel video, mostly UN Headquarters
footage, about civilian
deaths
in Sri Lanka.
Click here for Inner City
Press' March 27 UN debate
Click here for Inner City
Press March 12 UN (and AIG
bailout) debate
Click here for Inner City
Press' Feb 26 UN debate
Click
here
for Feb.
12 debate on Sri Lanka http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17772?in=11:33&out=32:56
Click here for Inner City Press' Jan.
16, 2009 debate about Gaza
Click here for Inner City Press'
review-of-2008 UN Top Ten debate
Click here for Inner
City Press' December 24 debate on UN budget, Niger
Click here from Inner City Press'
December 12 debate on UN double standards
Click here for Inner
City Press' November 25 debate on Somalia, politics
and this October 17 debate, on
Security Council and Obama and the UN.
* * *
These
reports are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for a Reuters
AlertNet piece by this correspondent
about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click
here
for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali
National
Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an
undefined trust fund. Video
Analysis here
Feedback: Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com
UN
Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017
USA
Tel: 212-963-1439
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
2006-08 Inner City Press, Inc. To request
reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com -
|