Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report Finds UN Ignores, Denies Corruption

Report Finds UN Ignores, Denies Corruption

Can we kick them out of New York now?

The UN’s Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) has found during their nine month investigation that the organization simply ignores corruption when it comes to light.

The investigators found that UN officials remain in a “state of near denial” about this corruption:

“The report is pretty devastating,” observes Brett Schaefer, an expert on U.N. finances at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “The U.N. apparently has very little interest in policing fraud, and there is very little reason to believe its own figures and data about it.”

The JIU performed the investigation after numerous independent auditors “suspected fraud reporting statistics and erupting procurement scandals.” They found that over half of UN staffers and executives believe fraud goes unpunished in the organization. Those who spoke out do not believe they will receive protection if they point out or report fraud.

The findings back their suspicions:

Even when individual U.N. organizations claimed to have strong anti-fraud policies, the inspectors found, by and large, they were mostly backed up by fuzziness: “a lack of clear definition of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities, or a lack of clear guidance on how to operationalize the policy.”

Moreover, there is “little, if any, information on the performance of anti-fraud activities based on specific performance indicators, the level of fraud exposure . . . credible fraud statistics, sanctions, fraud losses and recovery of assets and lessons learned.”

They also discovered that the UN does not have a “system-wide definition of the term ‘fraud'” as well. Some officials tried to define it in 2005, but the effort fizzed. JIU inspectors could not find a reason why. Maybe that’s why fraud investigations often end without punishment:

Fraud investigation efforts, the report says, are not only underfunded but, in complicated cases, nearly endless: it can take an average of 12 to 18 months to complete a fraud investigation, followed by another 4 to 8 months of management “follow-up.”

And follow-up often just ends: the U.N. bureaucracy is reluctant to prosecute fraudsters even when discovered. The reason: it may involve lifting “the immunity of witnesses and related United Nations documents, and may exposure the United Nations organizations to counter-claims.”

The brakes on prosecution, in other words, come from the U.N.’s own lawyers, who the report says “were very direct in expressing reservations about the United Nations system’s ability to effectively pursue cases with national authorities.”

The same reluctance apparently also applies to recovering stolen money and property.

Last month, the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) pushed aside two whistleblowers who have experienced “reprisal for exposing crimes or misconduct must now rely only on the determinations made by the UN Ethics Office that very rarely supports them.” From Whistleblower.org:

In refusing jurisdiction in a judgment read today for the cases of Florin Postica and Ai Loan Nguyen-Kropp, the UNAT underscored its repudiation of whistleblower protection, which it first set out in a 2014 ruling.

Postica and Nguyen-Kropp, have sought relief from retaliation for over six years. In 2010, they reported that their supervisor, Michael Dudley, then the Officer in Charge of the Investigations Division in the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), had tampered with evidence in a case assigned to them. In their Tribunal complaint, they alleged – and the UN Dispute Tribunal concurred – Dudley subjected them to an unfair and irregular investigation.

But due to red tape, Judge Goolam Meeran had to dismiss the complaint:

In Nguyen-Kropp and Postica UNDT/2013/176, the Dispute Tribunal found that the investigation was retaliatory, failed to follow due process, and paid scant regard to the risk of reputational damage to the Applicants. The Respondent was ordered to pay compensation to the Applicants. The Appeals Tribunal vacated the Dispute Tribunal’s judgment in Nguyen-Kropp and Postica 2015-UNAT-509, finding that the appeals were not receivable because the decision to initiate an investigation was preliminary in nature. Thus, the Applicants were denied a remedy based on another technical finding of the Appeals Tribunal on receivability.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Corruption is the status quo.

“Can we kick them out of New York now?”

Yes. And about a decade or two too late…!!!!

Get them out of here and our money largely out of THERE.

If we wait a bit longer, till Barack Hussein O becomes Secretary-General, we can kill two birds with one stone, and get rid of both.

Years ago, actually it’s decades ago, the John Birch Society (which I think is still around) started their program of,

Get US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.

Here it is, many years later, and I still remember that tidbit of history.

    OldNuc in reply to fscarn. | July 13, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    The John Birch Society was run out of the GOP tent by National Review and W.F. Buckley and marginalized into obscurity.

      pfg in reply to OldNuc. | July 13, 2016 at 9:18 pm

      It’s true that NR had it in for the JBS, and it tried to isolate the JBS to the hinterland. But in this effort NR has failed miserably. The JBS is very much alive, and the RINO-minded NO is found today muttering about its continuing irrelevance.

      http://www.jbs.org/

      Buckley’s dead. The JBS isn’t.

America needs to leave the leftist, globalist organization known as the UN in order to help save itself and be a beacon of hope to the world again!

I honestly don’t see how Leftists can disparage organized religion when they say “belief” in the founding spirit of “haloed” organizations like the UN should be all that’s required to keep us invested in them.

harleycowboy | July 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm

“Can we kick them out of New York now?”
How are you going to tell them apart from the NY politicians?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend