Does it matter?

The total amount of money the UN actually spends around the world is unknown. It is not even possible to get a straight answer to how much is the total amount the US Government contributes.  We do know, for example, that the United Nations basic peacekeeping budget alone for the 12 months to 30 June2020 was some  US$6.5 billion, and much of that is spent in countries that are recognised to be the most corrupt on the world.

It is also a basic and widely recognised fact that allorganisations lose money to fraud waste and abuse, and the greater the bureaucracy; the proportionately greater the risk of that fraud waste and abuse.

If a company is, for example, buying photocopier paper from a supplier secretly owned by the someone in the Procurement function, or if the company is paying  $1,000 a roll for toilet paper, or rents offices premises from a property company owned by the Mayor's family in return for who-knows-what favours, the cost of those “irregularities” is borne by the owners of the business. It is not a “victimless crime” it is either gross incompetence or it is fraud.

In 2016, the UN Joint Inspection Unit published a study (Ref JIU/REP/2016/4) on the subject of 'Fraud Prevention, detection and response in United Nations system organisations' which pointed out that the UN was appallingly bad at even recognising fraud.

The UN cannot seriously expect anyone to believe the Organization does not lose money through fraud; the only question is … how much!  

Let us dismiss the possibility that every year, 10% of just the peacekeeping budget were embezzled or otherwise diverted into places where it should not be. Let us take instead an unrealistically conservative estimate that in the UN's case, the figure is even less than 5%; that is still over US$300 Million every year.

And who might be embezzling this money?

The primary risk of fraud in any organisation is where there is collusion by a corrupt insider; but in the UN, because the Organization enjoys Privileges and Immunities under the 1946 Convention; those corrupt staff members can only be investigated – if at all – by the UN itself. 

That would not be so bad if the UN could boast world class investigators, but the evidence shows that this is very far from the case!

And where might this money be going?

The logic is simple. Armed conflicts are expensive. Wars, even small ones, cost money. If they are not being financed by an outside party – usually a State – the ability to sustain an armed conflict is directly proportional to that conflict's ability to be self-financing, so the groups involved in the conflict grow rich from it.

What then happens when a UN Peacekeeping mission is introduced to such an equation?  The groups involved in the conflict, accustomed to the income stream that is ancillary to the conflict, are presented with an alternative  - and much safer source of potential enrichment. That is in addition to however they were funding theor conflict because that does not magically evaporate.

It has long been my concern that rather than contributing towards global peace, the UN's financial laxity and lack of awareness of the fraud risk, means that 'peacekeeping' actually serves as an incentive for the UN to meaning in post-conflict zones for decades…. Pumping money into the local economy where is clearly does not benefit the local people as much as it benefits a select few.

Anyone who claims to seriously believe that “those few” are entirely unconnected to the armed groups who the UN Mission is there to pacify must be either extraordinarily naive as to human nature, or has a vested interest in not admitting the reality of the situation.

So what mechanisms exist to assure the Member States that there is some form of accountability in the UN?

Those mechanisms rely on two things; the first is that the staff who know or suspect that there is some wrongdoing must be willing to report it, and they will not do so if they know they will be retaliated against for doing so; which - in the UN – is precisely why the smart thing to do is see no evil, hear no eviland speak no evil…..

It is certainly “unfortunate” if the evil about which they do not speak is the rape and sexual abuse of children, but they have a choice, either report it or keep their job…..

The second is that when some wrongdoing or illegality is reported, the investigators much be willing and able to actually investigate the allegations diligently and competently, and the facts (here and in many other cases) show that this simply not the case.

It cannot be a coincidence that successive Secretaries-General have been consistently tolerant of the most egregious ineptitude and unethical behaviour by senior officials of the Office of Internal Oversight Services Investigation Division; the logical explanation is that they are prepared to protect the inept and the corrupt because the Organization benefits….

Similarly, it cannot be a coincidence that successive Directors of the UN Ethics Office have been wilfully blind to the most obvious retaliation and so obstinate in refusing whistleblower protection to staff who apply for it; if staff members are not afraid of retaliation, they might actually report the sexual abuse, the fraud, the corruption and everything else that the UN leadership does not want to know about.   

The result is a simple model that explains how the UN can assure the Member States that the corruption in the UN is simply an urban myth….