Ex-UN official opposes re-election of UN's Ban

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - The former head of the internal oversight office of the United Nations, who quit last year accusing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of poor leadership, said on Thursday his re-election would be an embarrassment.

Ban's first five-year term expires at the end of the year. He has not so far formally announced that he will stand for a second term, but is widely expected to do so.

Inga-Britt Ahlenius of Sweden, who led the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) until last July, repeated criticism from her end-of-assignment report that the world body was "falling apart" and "drifting into irrelevance" under Ban. The confidential report was leaked to media at the time.

"If my report, which is read and known by all in the secretariat ... becomes widely known, I think it would be pretty embarrassing if he was re-elected. Because that would show that the superpowers could not care less whether the U.N. is a relevant organisation or not," Ahlenius said.

Presenting a book co-written with a journalist on what she called the "decay" of the United Nations, she said mismanagement of the U.N. secretariat affected the organisation's ability to carry out its tasks.

Diplomats give the South Korean U.N. chief a good chance of re-election since he has avoided big conflicts with key powers the United States and China, as well as other permanent members of the Security Council. The council makes a recommendation which is then voted on by the 192-nation General Assembly.

But Ahlenius said that while Washington appeared comfortable with Ban, some member states were critical of him. She hoped her report, and book if translated into English, would make other countries "see that the U.N. can't survive with a person that can't lead the organisation."

She also said the secretary-general should serve one term only, although she suggested that could be extended to six or seven years from the current five.

"The secretary-general should absolutely, in my opinion, have one time-limited mandate," she said. "That would prevent the person concerned being too flexible towards the superpowers and spending too much time on his re-election," she said.

During her time as head of the OIOS, which carries out internal disciplinary inquiries, Ahlenius feuded with Ban over her powers of appointment.

She said he had undermined her unit by preventing her from appointing a former U.S. attorney as head of the OIOS investigations unit. Ban said he was simply following U.N. procedures.

The U.N.'s battling bigwigs

click here to view this on ForeignPolicy

Posted By Colum Lynch Friday, December 10, 2010 - 5:36 PM

Inga-Britt Ahlenius, the former U.N. chief of internal oversight, penned a scathing end-of-mission report last July that accused U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of undermining her efforts to rein in corruption and leading the U.N. into an era of decline. The Swedish auditor's report -- which was first reported by Turtle Bay -- produced a mini-crisis for the U.N. chief and set the stage for a bitter feud between Ahlenius and her former colleagues in Ban's executive suite.

This week, Thalif Deen, the U.N. reporter for Inter Press Service, obtained a written response to Ahlenius from Vijay Nambiar, Ban’s chief of staff, that charges Ahlenius with resorting to "misrepresentation of the record and distortion of fact" and adds that her report "raised questions of basic integrity and professionalism."

In a rebuttal, Ahlenius countered that it was "outrageous and insolent" of Nambiar to question her integrity. In a section of the letter titled "Kill the Messenger," she recounted a conversation with an unidentified former U.N. official who "wanted to warn me against acts of retaliation from people in the 'circle around the SG'" and that "they would spare no effort to hit and hurt me in retaliation."

The letters tread some of the same ground that marked the public debate between Ahlenius and top U.N. officials last summer. But they provide a raw firsthand account of one of the most bitter feuds in the U.N. top ranks. It's worth the read. Ahlenius, meanwhile, is preparing to write a book that will revisit her strained relations with her former U.N. boss. I don't expect it to be polite.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

UNPAN a failed initiative since 2005 - OIOS recommended to DESA to shut it down

OIOS Report on Failure of UNPAN (DPADM Website) seem to be available on WIKILEAKS

The report suggest that UNPAN/DPADM have no control over the information uploaded by Partners and suggesting that UNPAN leadership (Ms. Qian) "had no means to verify the information being uploaded".

On Page 17, recommendation 15-21,

OIOS recommends that DESA make no further investment in the expansion of UNPAN until DPADM has taken steps to;

• Clearly delineate its critical knowledge products (AN2004/540/01/015);
• Take user interest into account in developing its knowledge products (AN2004/54001/016).
• Select Partners who are aligned in terms of their relevance to DPADM's critical knowledge products (AN2004/540/01/017);
• Reduce the number of databases and align the data storage structure to match user interest (AN2004/540/01/018);
• Review its and the UN's exposure to reputational risk due to having inadequate control over the information uploaded by its Partners in languages other than English (AN2004/540/01/019);
• Pay urgent attention to the development of UNPAN's interactive features-their design, usage and analysis to make the network effective(AN2004/540/01/020);
• Review the volume of interactivity on its databases which reflect user interest in the contents of itsdatabases (AN2004/540/01/021).

In the spirit of transparency, maybe DPADM management who is pushing so hard to retool the division towards Knowledge Management, would like the staff of DPADM to actually read the OIOS report at the time on the matter and openly discuss its relevance to current ongoing activities and how the Division is trying to implement OIOS recommendations (if any).

ANALYSIS: Ban Ki-Moon's New Weapon in Battles Over U.N. Oversight

By George Russell

Published July 26, 2010

| FoxNews.com

In a bid to alter the balance of power in his favor with the bodies of the United Nations that oversee his office, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has unleashed a powerful new weapon: feminism.

In a bid to alter the balance of power in his favor with the bodies of the United Nations that oversee his office, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has unleashed a powerful new weapon: feminism.

Twice in the past 18 months, Ban has rejected candidates for top jobs in the sensitive oversight organizations made by the organizations themselves, on the grounds that the slates from which the winners were chosen did not include a woman.

In both cases, the watchdog organizations have responded to Ban's veto by suggesting that his actions were illegal.

Ban has, in fact, made a determined effort to make the status of women world-wide into one of his legacy issues. Just last month, he merged four different U.N. agencies devoted to women's issues into a new "U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women."

But the organizations that have protested his gender-balancing personnel decisions — one of them headed by a woman — have two things in common: each has been highly critical over the past few years of bureaucratic inefficiency, maladministration or corruption within the stolid U.N. system that Ban heads; and in both cases, to safeguard the independence of the watchdog agencies, no U.N. secretary general has ever previously taken a hand in their personnel decisions.

The most scathing criticism of Ban's unprecedented personnel actions came last week from Inga-Britt Ahlenius, the outgoing head of the U.N.'s watchdog Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which both audits the Secretariat and investigates fraud and other malfeasance. Indeed, Ahlenius went far beyond sensitive personnel issues in castigating Ban for doing a miserable job of running the entire organization.

In a remarkably barbed "end-of-assignment" report at the conclusion of her five-year term — she charged Ban with "undermining" her organization, and leading a Secretariat that was "drifting into irrelevance." Ban, she said, had replaced strong, independent-minded subordinates with a coterie of loyalists on short-term contracts.

In the process, she accused Ban of deliberately blocking for nearly 20 months her choice as head of OIOS's sensitive Investigations Division, which looks into corruption and fraud in the Secretariat.

She also accused Ban of deliberately neglecting to choose her own successor, as he had originally promised, by April 2010, thus, as she put it, exhibiting a "lack of responsibility, not only for OIOS, but for the [U.N.] as a whole."

Ahlenius' choice as her investigations chief was Robert Appleton, a respected formed U.S. federal prosecutor, who for two years headed an ad hoc investigative unit of OIOS known as the Procurement Task Force. (The task force was established in 2005 after a Fox News investigation uncovered a major bribery scandal in the U.N.'s multibillion-dollar procurement department.)

Appleton had earned kudos for undertaking more than 200 investigations and uncovering 20 significant fraud and corruption schemes, involving contracts worth some $630 million. But along the way, he also earned plenty of enemies, including in the U.N. General Assembly, and the task force died of lack of funds in December 2009.

By that time, Ahlenius had already been trying for more than a year to hire Appleton as head of her permanent Investigations Division — and running into steely opposition from Ban's inner circle.

As Ahlenius told it in her exit report, Appleton's nomination was immediately rejected by a group of top Ban officials, known as the Senior Review Group, on the grounds that no woman was included among a panel of four candidates screened for the position. The review group ruled that a maximum of three candidates should be presented, and one of them had to be a woman.

Click here for the Ahlenius report.

Ahlenius noted two things about that decision: 1) members of the Senior Review Group were top U.N. officials whose departments were likely to be scrutinized by OIOS; and 2) there was no U.N. rule at the time mandating what the group required of her.

In fact, under a Secretary General's directive issued in 1995, and never modified, no one but the head of OIOS was supposed to pick the organization's senior staff — in the same way that U.N. funds and programs outside the Secretariat, such as the World Food Program and United Nations Development Program, do not need the Secretary General's OK.

Click here for the directive.

"Never before," Ahlenius told Ban, " had a Secretary General intervened in a matter of appointing staff in OIOS."

Almost exactly the same charge was levied in March, 2009, by another small but important investigative element of the U.N. known as the Joint Inspection Unit, whose job is to assess and improve the efficiency and coordination of the U.N. worldwide. The JIU's eleven inspectors are elected directly by the General Assembly, and thus fall outside Ban's purview. But their supporting bureaucracy falls — on paper, anyway — under Ban's Secretariat.

In recent years, the JIU has issued a number of wide-ranging reports that have called into question the U.N.'s competence, even as it has been extending its reach and coordination within an expanding tangle of funds, programs and agencies. Among other things, JIU has harshly criticized the U.N.'s $10 billion global procurement system as a mess; said that its management of worldwide environmental treaties and programs was approaching a chaotic state, and said that key units of the World Meteorological Organization, touted as key tools in fighting climate change, were of "questionable value."

All of those reports, at a minimum, suggest caution in endorsing expanded roles that the U.N. seeks in environmental regulation, "sustainable development," and "food security."

Thus, it was perhaps not surprising when the U.N. Secretariat struck back, in its own fashion.

Last March, in a remarkable protest, the highly circumspect JIU complained in its annual report of the "illegal action" on the part of Ban's office. The same Senior Review Group that was involved in rejecting Ahlenius nominee for chief of investigations was demanding a bigger say in selecting candidates to become the JIU's powerful executive secretary.

Click here for earlier story on this issue.

And once again, the main objection that the review group used to stymie the process was the lack of a woman among the final selection of candidates.

In its annual report, the JIU argued that for the previous 40 years, staff appointments had been left in the organization's own hands to respect the JIU's autonomy, with largely ceremonial assent from the Secretariat. The unit said that it had never been notified about the need for women on the candidates' list — and like OIOS, also noted that the mandate to include female candidates was created by Ban after the JIU had submitted its three screened candidates for the job.

The inspectors declared that "the Unit questions not only the fairness of trying to apply a new procedure for selecting its executive secretary, but also the legality of changing a procedure on a fundamental question without at least informing the General Assembly and the staff."

In the end, however, Ban won. In August 2009 the new executive secretary of JIU was named: Susanne Frueh, a German native whose most recent experience was in administering Secretary General Ban's $250 million Peacebuilding Commission.

When it comes to OIOS, Ban is also likely to win. In an open letter to U.N. staffers issued last Friday, after Ahlenius issued her blast, Ban's chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, declared that his boss "is finalizing the appointment of a candidate" as Ahlenius' successor, subject to General Assembly approval.

Click here for Nambiar's letter.

At the same time, Nambiar declared that while Ban "fully recognizes the independence of OIOS," that "operational independence does not mean being above the rules that apply to all of us." Following those rules "is the only way to build a modern U.N. including with true gender balance."

Even if, as apparently happened in these sensitive institutions, no one knew about the rule at the time it was used.

The question is how many other rules Ban may have up his sleeve, and when he may decide to reveal them.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News.

EXCLUSIVE: South Korean Mission to the UN allegedly behind the release of full Ahlenius report

REFORM UN-DESA has learned that allegedly diplomats from South Korean Mission at the UN are behind the release to un-specified media this morning of the full report of Inga-Britt Ahlenius, former USG of OIOS.

-------

REFORM DESA IS OFFERING NOW THE FULL REPORT

HERE IS THE FIRST 6 PAGES

--------

Inga-Britt Ahlenius

Under-Secretary-General for Oversight Services

After seven years with the United Nations, of which I served five as the Under-Secretary- General for Internal Oversight Services (USG/OIOS), I now leave the United Nations, proud of the opportunity given to me to serve this precious Organization in important positions. Being Swedish adds to that feeling of pride. Dag Hammarskjöld saw working in the United Nations – whether as its Secretary-General or as a common staff member - as serving the world community, which is a privilege.

I have great appreciation for the dedicated and professional staff of OIOS. I leave with the rewards of having worked with talented people from all over the world. To the very last day I have looked around me in a conference room and noted with wonder the diversity at the United Nations: for example, that in the room we were fifteen people from twelve different countries. What a privilege! In OIOS alone, we are some 70 different nationalities.

I am proud to report to you the achievements by OIOS during the last five years, bringing the OIOS to be “a world class oversight body respected and trusted by stakeholders” in accordance with OIOS agreed Vision Statement. The visible sign of our commitment to quality in our work is the manuals for the three disciplines - audit, evaluation, investigation - published on our website in the interest of transparency. The publication also serves the purpose of making known to everybody our commitments to process and quality in our work. Please find attached a separate more detailed report on our achievements and a list of the different documents that we have submitted to you to advise you in accordance with OIOS mandate. (Attach 1 and 2) Whether the world is a better place now than five years ago and whether the United Nations has contributed in a positive way is finally for others to assess. I would restrict myself to discussing and reflecting on the question:

The United Nations is a unique organization. As such it attracts young, talented people from all over the world, because it is a great organiz in. Our mission is uniquely critical to world peace and security, and our Charter is the greatest cause to commit to. The United Nations’ mandate leads us to operate under exceptional circumstances - civil war, natural catastrophes, failed crops and starvation, civil unrest.

Our operational environment also implies lack of basic infrastructure, including communication, housing and other basic facilities. Ris is in the DNA of our operations, and the Secretariat must at all times be prepared to deliver and render account of its performance.

The United Nations is as indispensable as it is imperfect – it is complex, risk exposed with a challenging governance structure. Notwithstanding, to keep its legitimacy and to efficiently contribute to the programmatic aims of the Organization it must strive for and be seen striving for its own reform and increased effectiveness. If it fails, it may not only lose its legitimacy and the respect from member States but finally the programmatic aims of the Organization may be jeopardized: the United Nat t be seen as a credible and strong partner, to make a difference through its existence and contributions.

The Secretariat is an organization with a demanding mandate. It is also an international bureaucracy with its special and inherent shortcomings: rigidities and rules tend to substitute for management and leadership. To bring about change is a challenge. National administrations are under pressure from different balancing powers to reform and progress – independent judiciary and oversight bodies, citizens electing their parliaments, opposition parties, media - as forces to modernize, reform and move forward. Such balancing powers are lacking in an international bureaucracy and must be compensated by professional and strong leadership to ensure progress and reform. Weak leadership exposes the Secretariat to the risk of finally reforming through crises or external chocks. On top of its demanding mandate, the United Nations has an extremely complex governance structure. It is a value driven organization with 192 members on the Governing Board, the General Assembly. It is not a simple profit driven company where the bottom-line is the answer to its performance but a complex service provider in world wide operations and where performance is not easily measured.

It has been called “the world’s most impossible job". It is not - but it is certainly one of the most difficult ones, a Herculean management task. retary-General must be prepared to engage in issues where he believes he can make a difference, exercising that moral authority that the Charter gives him. The position also takes unusual commitment, persistence, perseverance, patience - because finally all 192 Member States will have to be on board in the way forward. I could add a fourth P-word – Passion. To lead the Organization, you have to love it; you have to have passion for it. Exceptional leadership is required - strong, charismatic, enlightened leadership.

No Member State, no–one expects the Secretary-General or the United Nations to solve all the problems in the world. What is expected from the Secretary-General and the United Nations is that the Organization has such a standing that it is seen as and really constitutes a relevant and even a necessary partner in solving complex issues in the world, issues that otherwise would not be addressed. The organization is established to serve the world community and must be properly organized and led in order to be that relevant partner for the Member States.

The Secretary-General is foremost the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), in charge of the Secretariat. This is in fact the only role explicitly mentioned in the Charter (Article 97 of the United Nations Charter). In this capacity - the internal management role - he serves and is accountable to the General Assembly. (You are interestingly enough also quoted from your period as the Chief of Staff to the then President of the GA, saying that “The Secretariat belongs to us – the Member States - and we have hired the Secretary-General to run it!)

But the Secretary-General has also an important right of initiative vis-à-vis the Security Council (Article 99 of the Charter) - the external and more political role: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any

matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security” These two roles - the external and internal - are not necessarily conflicting. Rather they may be seen as complementary. There is a balance to strike between them in the sense that a well managed secretariat may be seen as a prerequisite for Member States’ confidence and willingness to see the United Nations as a strong and reliable partner, an institution that may make a difference while addressing problems in the world.

As to the external and more political role vis-à-vis the Security Council, the General Assembly may have different views on how active and proactive they expect the Secretary-General to be. There is an inbuilt conflict in the sense that the big powers, read the Permanent Members of the Security Council, the P5, w the United Nations and the Secretary-General as a force to potentially reduce their influence on world affairs, while other and small countries would rather view the United Nations and its Secretary- General as a potential increase of their possible influence. It is certainly a challenge for the Secretary-General to find his way through these potentially conflicting interests and to make a positive difference in the world - championing the core objectives of the United Nations: to maintain peace and security, to fight for human rights and for social and economic progress.

The Secretary-General has a balance to strike: to find the right position between being seen as "too strong" and being "weak" to be just right to maintain and uphold the relevance of the Organization. A Secretary-General that is seen as "too strong" will certainly receive signals by Member States that will bring him back to "balance". A situation with a weak Secretary-General is more difficult, more subtle. It will take time to see that the balance is lost. There will probably be no early signals from Member States who might not see any "problem", but rather see the situation as comfortable, the Secretary-General being seen as "harmless", pragmatically accommodating and therefore seen as convenient to Member States.

It will take time to see the harm caused by the weak Secretary-General because the process of decay and weakening of the Organization and the Secretariat is a stealthy process: senior positions politicized, a culture that will filter down in the organization, compromising the merit based recruitment, undermining excellence and lowering the moral; the health and capacity of the Secretariat will be ignored: stress on structured reforms will cease, resistance will be weak to initiat oment. Such a process may go relatively fast - a couple of years only - and is difficult to restore. The final result is the weakening of the standing of the organization to the effect that it loses its capacity and its relevance to constitute that necessary partner for Member States.

Therefore: maybe even more concerning for Member States - and certainly for the world community - than a strong Secretary-General is a weak Secretary-General. Boutros Boutros-Ghali established the intellectual leadership of the Secretariat. Kofi Annan reconfirmed the role of the Secretary-General as both the “norm-entrepreneur” of the world and his role as the pre-eminent diplomat and chief negotiator. Dag Hammarskjöld was the one who defined the role of the Secretary-General and he pronounced himself often on the two roles. He maintained that “the Charter gives the

Secretary-General an explicit political role.” His active and successful intervention in international crises was the demonstration of this conviction. But his activist interpretation in this respect also brought him into conflict with the super-powers. I have often quoted him:

He regarded himself above all as an international civil servant and the leader of the Secretariat - the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). Having served as the Under- Secretary in the Swedish Ministry of Finance, it was not surprising that he like no-one else after him ventured into the process of reforming and restructuring the Secretariat. He reportedly “supervised an in-depth study, chaired many of the working groups set up on various administrative, personnel and financial issues, and wrote numerous papers spelling out his analysis of the problems and potential solutions.“. As the CAO he was not only reforming, reorganizing, restructuring, he was also relentlessly stressing the role and importance of the Secretariat and its staff, the importance of a truly international Secretariat with integrity and faithfulness to the Charter. Metaphorically speaking he was on the scene daily conveying this message – in his annual reports, in speeches on Staff Days, in external seminars and interventions. His moral authority gave the moral authority to his office, the United Nations.

In his last speech to staff in September 1961, a few days before his death, he re-affirmed his conviction that:

“If the Secretariat is regarded as truly international, and its individual members as owing no allegiance to any national government, then the Secretariat may develop as an instrument for the preservation of peace and security of increasing significance and responsibilities.”

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, originally a professor of law at Cairo University, is described to have exercised an “intellectual leadership”. As the CAO his remaining cy is the establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight Serv ). The Office was established with the specific purpose to assist the Secretary-General in his oversight responsibilities of the secretariat. It was established as “operationally independent” and in an Administrative Instruction related to the founding resolution, Boutros-Ghali ensured that the operational independence of the office was logically followed up by delegating to the USG/OIOS the authority to appoint staff within OIOS with an authority “similar to those delegated by the Secretary-General to the heads of programmes, funds and subsidiary organs enjoying special status in these matters”.

Thereby, he had ensured himself - or at least his successors - a strong capacity and partner to assist him in the challenging task of being the CAO, to lead the Secretariat. “..in fulfilling his internal oversight responsibilities in respect of the resources and staff of the organization….” (General Assembly resolution 48/218B)

Departing U.N. official calls Ban's leadership 'deplorable' in 50-page memo

By Colum Lynch

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

UNITED NATIONS -- The outgoing chief of a U.N. office charged with combating corruption at the United Nations has issued a stinging rebuke of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, accusing him of undermining her efforts and leading the global institution into an era of decline, according to a confidential end-of-assignment report.

The memo by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a Swedish auditor who stepped down Friday as undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, represents an extraordinary personal attack on Ban from a senior U.N. official. The memo also marks a challenge to Ban's studiously cultivated image as a champion of accountability.

Shortly after taking office in 2007, Ban committed himself to restoring the United Nations' reputation, which had been sullied by revelations of corruption in the agency's oil-for-food program in Iraq.

But Ahlenius says that, rather than being an advocate for accountability, Ban, along with his top advisers, has systematically sought to undercut the independence of her office, initially by trying to set up a competing investigations unit under his control and then by thwarting her efforts to hire her own staff.

"Your actions are not only deplorable, but seriously reprehensible. . . . Your action is without precedent and in my opinion seriously embarrassing for yourself," Ahlenius wrote in the 50-page memo to Ban, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. "I regret to say that the secretariat now is in a process of decay."

Ban's top advisers said that Ahlenius's memo constituted a deeply unbalanced account of their differences and that her criticism of Ban's stewardship of the United Nations was patently unfair.

"A look at his record shows that Secretary General Ban has provided genuine visionary leadership on important issues from climate change to development to women's empowerment. He has promoted the cause of gender balance in general as well as within the organization. He has led from the front on important political issues from Gaza to Haiti to Sudan," Ban's chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, wrote in a response.

"It is regrettable to note," Nambiar added, "that many pertinent facts were overlooked or misrepresented" in Ahlenius's memo.

The departure of Ahlenius, 72, coincides with a period of crisis in the United Nations' internal investigations division. During the past two years, the world body has shed some of its top investigators. It has also failed to fill dozens of vacancies, including that of the chief of the investigations division in the Office of Internal Oversight Services. That post has been vacant since 2006, leaving a void in the United Nations' ability to police itself, diplomats say.

"We are disappointed with the recent performance of [the U.N.'s] investigations division," said Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations. "The coming change in . . . leadership is an opportunity to bring about a significant improvement in its performance to increase oversight and transparency throughout the organization."

The U.N. General Assembly established the Office of Internal Oversight Services in 1994 to conduct management audits of the United Nations' principal departments and to conduct investigations into corruption and misconduct. The founding resolution granted the office "operational independence" but placed it under the authority of the secretary general and made it dependent on the U.N. departments it policed for much of its funding and administrative support.

The dispute between Ahlenius and Ban has underscored some of the resulting tensions and exposed a protracted and acrimonious struggle for power over the course of U.N. investigations.

While Ahlenius cited Ban's move to set up a new investigations unit as a sign that he was seeking to undermine her independence, Nambiar said that it was intended to strengthen the United Nations' ability to fight corruption.

Ahlenius also clashed with Ban over her efforts to hire a former federal prosecutor, Robert Appleton, who headed the U.N. Procurement Task Force, a temporary white-collar crime unit that carried out aggressive investigations into corruption in U.N. peacekeeping missions from 2006 to last year. The unit's investigations led to an unprecedented number of misconduct findings by U.N. officials and prompted federal probes into corruption.

Ban's advisers said they blocked Appleton's appointment on the grounds that female candidates had not been properly considered and said that the final selection should have been made by Ban, not Ahlenius.

"The secretary general fully recognizes the operational independence of OIOS," Nambiar said. But that, he said, "does not excuse her from applying the standard rules of recruitment."