The Foreign Service Journal, September 2006

ities” in the Oil for Food program happened because the Security Council permitted Saddam to smug- gle oil out of Iraq. This non sequitur was followed by the “blame America” ploy, consisting of condemnation of U.S. firms for buying tainted oil, cou- pled with dark mutterings about Enron and U.S. corporate corruption. However, this approach has been hard to maintain as more and more U.S. businessmen go to jail, while cor- rupt European politicians and U.N. staffers remain free. Now that the existence of a U.N. pattern of corruption has been estab- lished beyond reasonable doubt, and serious efforts at reform— particular- ly the Gingrich-Mitchell Commission Report discussed below — have begun, the elite counterfire has con- centrated on those advocating and pursuing much-needed reform. The most important and extensive set of reform proposals is found in the 2005 report of the bipartisan commission authorized and funded by Congress and chaired by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, D-Maine. This report makes very specific proposals on a variety of subjects (Human Rights Commission, peace- keeping, etc.). Gingrich-Mitchell goes right to the heart of the U.N. corrup- tion reality by highlighting the fact that in the current U.N. structure there is no accountability. None. Anything goes, as the history of the Oil for Food program and the U.N. procurement office proves. To deal with this, the Gingrich- Mitchell Commission proposes setting up an Independent Oversight Board with broad powers to investigate and punish corruption. The U.S. govern- ment supports these proposals strong- ly. But the Chinese, Russians and Group of 77 countries (from the Third World) oppose these reforms with equal vigor, precisely because they are so specific and would be so effective. Under the circumstances it is dis- appointing to see retired colleagues attacking the reform proposals as “hortatory, diffuse and laden with gen- eralizations.” That’s simply not true. There is nothing diffuse, general and hortatory about the investigations, indictments and convictions, or the proposal for an independent oversight board. Even more sadly, the reform- ers have been attacked with claims that “some of them are people who just don’t like multilateralism.” Perhaps that is true for a few. But the vast majority of reformers are people who just don’t like corruption, and the distortion of diplomatic processes cor- ruption brings. Does anyone believe that Saddam Hussein’s ill-gotten gains were not pouring into the French and Russian political systems via U.N. programs and affecting those countries’ posi- tions on Iraq? The characterizations of reformers’ motives are as out of place as would be characterizations of their critics as apologists for corrup- tion. Is Reform Possible? At best, reform will be very diffi- cult. The reason is that for 50 years the major powers have concentrated on the political aspects of the United Nations, while staffers appointed by developing countries (including KGB- types salted away throughout the orga- nization) have quietly taken over the secretariat, the General Assembly and the Budget Committee. The latter meets as a “committee of the whole” wherein all members of the General Assembly approve budgets by consen- sus. This, in turn, gives every mini- state the chance to extort a job here, a project there — and to thwart any and all reform proposals, which must be approved by the Budget Committee. It should be pointed out that the U.N. Oversight Office, which is responsible for monitoring and investigating all parts of the U.N., including the General Assembly, depends on this committee for funding. The reality is that by controlling the U.N. budget, the G-77 has effectively taken over finances and staffing and brought Third World-like corruption and chaos to these functions. Yet even though the dice are loaded against any change in the status quo, progress is possible. In fact, the current context is favorable. For starters, the entire sor- did mess is now in public (and con- gressional) view, and likely to remain there as events continue to unfold. Secretary-General Annan has waived diplomatic immunity for all U.N. per- sonnel facing serious charges. Accord- ing to GAO reports, in January Annan placed eight top procurement officials on special leave, pending investiga- tions by the U.N. and the U.S. (Fed- eral Court of the Southern District of New York). One of these officials, Sanjaya Bahel of India, a former head of the U.N.’s Commercial Activities Services and Post Office, is alleged to have improperly steered U.N. peace- keeping contracts to several Indian companies. Reportedly hundreds of corruption investigations — mainly in peacekeeping operations and particu- larly in Africa — are under way. Second, Washington is maintaining pressure for administrative reform. 18 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 S P E A K I N G O U T The Oil for Food program has spawned some of the most egregious examples of U.N. corruption.