As IMF Stays French for 5 Years, Contrast With UN's Even Greater Lack of Oversight of Ban Ki-moon

Click here to read this @ InnercityPress.Com

UNITED NATIONS, July 5 -- The disclosure by the International Monetary Fund of Christine Lagarde's terms of appointment for the next five years, on July 5 at 9 am, stand in contrast to those of Ban Ki-moon as Secretary-General of the UN.

First, that Lagarde is getting a full five years represents another loss for the developing world countries which pushed for a non-European to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

When it became clear that Lagarde would beat out Mexico's Carstens, some predicted that there would be an understanding that the next Managing Director would be from the developing world, and in less that five years. The latter, the letter of appointment indicates, is not the case.

But the IMF letter of appointment contains restrictions on conflicts of interest, receiving honors and even travel pay which the UN either doesn't have for Ban, or does not disclosure.

The IMF letter of appointment provides:

“you will not accept any honor, decoration or award during your tenure with the Fund without the approval of the Executive Board, which shall only be given in circumstances where the acceptance of an honor, decoration or award would not give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest.”

At the IMF, waiver would be need by the Executive Board. At the UN, while the selection of the S-G is ostensibly by the General Assembly, they provide little to no oversight thereafter. Waivers are gotten through the Ethics Officer, who is selected by Ban: a conflict.

It's worth noting that the one slightly more independent overseer of the S-G, the Under Secretary General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, had an occupant, Inga-Britt Ahlenius, who was sharply critical of Ban when she left. Her successor, selected by Ban, has said little on the topic.

The IMF letter provides that

“The Fund will reimburse you per diem at the rate applicable to Executive Directors plus reasonable vouchered expenses not covered by the per diem, including all hotel expenses, incurred by you for travel in the interest of the Fund. Such expenses shall include travel and hotel expenses of your spouse/partner in attending Annual Meetings of the Board of Governors held outside the Washington, D.C. area, and in accompanying you on official travel in circumstances where this is in the interest of the Fund.”

By contrast, how much the UN pays for the travel of Ban, his family and entourage is entirely opaque. When Inner City Press even asked about what happens with the airline travel miles of Ban, who speaks about the environment, no answer was provided.

Lagarde & Ban: 5 years of politics, but 1 can be removed, the other can't

The IMF emailed to accredited media an embargoed copy of Lagarde's appointment letter. The UN won't provide details about Ban's terms of service even when directly asked as its noon briefing.

The IMF Executive Board hold an annual “performance feedback process” with the Managing Director. Ban proceeds for five years with little to no oversight.

Perhaps most significantly, the IMF letter provides

“It is our understanding that, although you have been appointed for a term of five years, either you or the Executive Board shall be free to terminate your connection with the Fund at any time.”

At the UN, there appears to be no mechanism at all for removal.

Footnote: The IMF also provides to its Managing Director that “you are expected to observe the highest standards of ethical conduct, consistent with the values of integrity.” Whether this permits what even the New York Post now presents as the purchase of -- but non payment for -- sexual services has not made clear, as DSK resigned, paving the way for five years for his compatriot Lagarde...

* * *

UN Won't Disclose Ban's, Le Roy's or Pascoe's Frequent Flyer Miles, Ignores JIU

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 1 -- Two days after denying that UN officials keep for themselves the frequent flyer miles associated with official travel paid by the UN, UN acting Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq both denied having said it and refused to provide even an estimate of the frequent flying miles racked up and kept in 2010 by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his Under Secretaries Alain Le Roy and Lynn Pascoe. Video here, from Minute 8:12.

On November 29, Haq had told Inner City Press that frequent flyer miles are the "possession of the United Nations... held by the United Nations." On November 30 he said that the UN Ethics Office says it is fine that they are not.

The refusal to disclose Ban's frequent flyer miles is in contrast to Haq's office's previous boasting about how many miles Ban has flown in his term as Secetary General. How many of these miles were on commercial carriers and how many of the frequent flyer miles has Ban so far kept?

We will continue to pursue this basic financial information, from and about a Secretary General who has bragged by transparency.

Ban and airplane, frequent flyer miles disclosure not yet shown

Inner City Press asked Haq for the Secretary General's Office's response to a UN Joint Inspection Unit recommendation that the Secretariat (and other UN agencies) ask officials to apply “their” frequently flyer miles to future official travel, as done at the UN Office of Project Services.

Rather than explain why the Secretariat has never acted on this recommendation by the UN system's Joint Inspection Unit -- a recommendation apparently not mentioned by the UN Ethics Office which at the eleventh hour was called in to rubber stamp the personal taking of frequent flyer miles associated with UN paid travel (and also the taking of UN staff member time to work on Under Secretary General Francis Deng's book) -- Haq twice insisted that Inner City Press should contact UNOPS' spokesperson Nicolas George.

But the question is not about UNOPS, it's about the Secretariat's (and Secretary General's) allocation of frequent flyer miles associated with UN paid travel. Watch this site.

From the UN's November 29 noon briefing transcript:

Inner City Press: The document says US diplomats should seek to get the computer passwords, frequent flyer miles, credit card numbers, etcetera, not only of the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, but SRSGs [Special Representatives] and Force Commanders. Would each of those things, according to you, violate the agreement with the host country?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, on that, again, bearing in mind that we don’t have any judgement at this stage on the authenticity of the document, bearing in mind that, I do want to read to you a little passage from the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and this is a direct quote: “The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative action.”

Inner City Press I had some other ones on Sudan, but one thing that the memo made me wonder is there is this reference to frequent flyer miles that seemed strange. What does happen with the frequent flyer miles of Ban Ki-moon or other SRSGs when they fly around? Are they donated to the UN, do they keep them personally, what happens?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: The frequent flyer miles of UN officials are essentially possessions of the United Nations. I don’t have anything, I don’t have any details about what we do with them, but this is all part of the Organization…

Inner City Press: But can you state, for example, for SRSGs that travel, it goes to the UN or do they keep it personally?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: No, I believe on work that you do for the Organization, this is part and parcel of the Organization. I need to get further detail about what happens to them, but this is held by the Organization.

At UN, Finger Pointing on Ban Human Rights in China Flap, Nobel & Sha Unaddressed

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 5 -- With UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon under fire for not raising human rights or the new Nobel Peace Prize winner when he met with Chinese President Hu, for external consumption Ban on Friday morning read out a defensive statement in a press conference on climate change financing.

Ban insisted that “the record is clear” that he mentioned human rights in Nanjing -- as a “shared value” -- and in Beijing in a speech to students. Ban did not mention, in China or in his Friday statement, Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, nor his Under Secretary General Sha Zukang having given a “World Harmony Foundation” award to Chinese former military chief on October 27. (Inner City Press got Sha's side of the story on November 4, click here.)

Inside the Ban administration, sources tell Inner City Press, the finger pointing has begun. Ban's senior adviser Kim Won-soo, the sources say, lays the blame for the coverage on his putative superior Vijay Nambiar and Department of Political Affairs chief Lynn Pascoe.

They in turn pass the blame further downstream to Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky, pointing at days of Nesirky saying Ban did not raise human rights to President Hu, then emailing out a late night statement that rights had been raised to other Chinese officials, whom Nesirky has left unnamed.

A range of UN officials and staff interviewed in recent days have expressed concern that the brand of the UN has been hurt by the flap, culminating they said in the New York Times editorial questioning whether Ban should get a second term as Secretary General.

UN's Ban, Sha and Nambiar, Chinese rights & general not shown

While it appears that the staged Q&A at Friday's press conference is intended as Ban's response to the media, some say there's a need for Ban to address UN staff members and explain what has happened, and why. And if his climate change press conference was “not the proper occasion,” as he put it, to address human rights, he should set up a separate press availability to answer questions, and not from notes. Watch this site.

Footnote: even on the topic of Friday's press conference, the report of the High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing given to Ban by Jens Stoltenberg of Norway and Meles Zenawi from Ethiopia, there was no answer to the following question asked by Inner City Press at Thursday's noon briefing:

Inner City Press: On climate change, there are various people saying that, in light of the elections that took place on Tuesday, and Obama, President Obama’s comments yesterday afternoon at a press conference that this makes the passage of climate change legislation less likely in the United States, that this will impact not only the Cancun process, but even this report that the Secretary-General is getting tomorrow. Some that have seen the report say that it assumes a median price of carbon of $25 a tonne by 2020, and if there is no US legislation that will not be accurate. So, I am just wondering what, it’s not so much a comment directly on the elections of what, what does this, what is the Secretariat, and it… the global goods team of the UN, does the results bode well for this report tomorrow and for the process that he is involved in? And, if not, what’s the plan to stay on track with the report that he is getting tomorrow?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, two things. First of all, the key word there is process. It is a process that involves all the countries in the world in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That is an enormous undertaking, as you know. And it involves all countries. The second point is that the report is being launched tomorrow. And I think it would be better to wait until then. You will have an opportunity to see the report tomorrow.

Inner City Press: Well, I guess we’ll find out tomorrow.

Spokesperson: You’ll find out. And there are other ways to address it, even if it isn’t at the press conference, because of the shortage of time or whatever, but there are always [ways] to address these things.