Dumped on the United Nations, that is!
I’m not really inclined to write a diary entry this morning, but some recent articles on a blog on UN affairs that I frequent deserve some attention outside it’s usual readership.
Two recent scandals involving high-level UN managers nominated and pushed by the Bush administration.
Jane Holl Lute (L 1999) – UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, 2003-present; wife of Lt. General Douglas E. Lute, President Bush’s “War Czar” ( (listed under “Other alumni in Politics)
Ann M. Veneman assumed the leadership of UNICEF on May 1, 2005, becoming the fifth Executive Director to lead UNICEF in its 60-year history. Prior to joining UNICEF, Veneman served as the 27th Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture from 2001 to 2005.
Follow below to see how these senior officials’ ‘leadership’ is tarnishing the UN and it’s reputation.
Via Inner City Press (Matthew is pretty much a one-man-show, he could use some help for site lay-out and editing).
Ms. Jane Holl Lute, head of peace-keeping operations at DPKO has responsibility for a vast budget to support all these operations.
…with specific responsibilities for personnel, finance, and logistical support necessary to mount and sustain UN field-based peace operations world-wide.
And how does she exercise that specific responsibility?
By issuing no-bid contracts to US military contractors!
UN’s Lute Admits No-Bid Lockheed Deal Caused “Confusion,” No Conflict of Interest of Iraq Overlap
UNITED NATIONS, February 7 — One hundreds days after Lockheed Martin was granted a $250 million no-bid contract by the UN, the main proponent of the contract, the American officer-in-charge of the Department of Field Support, Jane Holl Lute, acknowledged that the lack of competition had caused confusion. While the UN General Assembly by a vote of 142 to 1, with only the United States dissenting, voted to express concern about the no-bid contract, Ms. Lute on Thursday claimed that the process had been transparent. Inner City Press asked, How so? “You have it in your hand,” Ms. Lute replied, referring to documents that became public only after being leaked to Inner City Press by whistleblowers.
[…]
Ms. Lute replied at some length, to her credit, that the April no-bid contract was for the so-called Heavy Support Package, but has ended up being regularized by a Ban Ki-moon edict waving all procurement rules for the UNAMID mission. The General Assembly heard this story, behind closed doors, in December and still voted to express concern and call for an investigation into the waiving of procurement and hiring rules. “If the member states have questions in this regard,” Ms. Lute said, she’ll be happy to answer them. But where?
[…]
(Please read the entire article and see the supporting documents.)
No conflict of interest! Not even funny.
OK – what has the other lady been up to? Let’s see; bringing a corporate sponsor on to UN grounds in contravention of UN rules!
BBC wrote this on Thursday
Madonna has hosted a celebrity-packed event on the lawns of the United Nations in New York, raising money for orphaned children in Malawi.
[…]
But the event attracted controversy as sponsor Gucci pegged it to the opening of its new flagship New York store.
[…]
Despite announcing the fundraising event in November as a celebration of the opening of a new Gucci store on Fifth Avenue, Gucci chief executive Mark Lee said the two events were a “coincidence”.
The Inner City Press story goes much deeper:
Gucci Event Bent and Broke UN Rules, UNICEF’s Veneman’s Venom Toward the Press
UNITED NATIONS, February 7 — As the dust settles on Gucci’s night of glitzy on the UN’s North Lawn, it emerged Thursday that the event violated not only UN precedent of not allowing itself to be used as advertisement, as Gucci did, but also violated the UN’s own rules — although one rule was changed just prior to the event to try to accommodate Gucci. An amendment to the rule on the Use of the UN emblem” quietly issued on January 23, effective February 1, includes a new paragraph providing that “when the Un participates in organizing” an event “the emblem may be used” with others. ST/AI/189/Add.21/Amend.1, signed by Alicia Barcena of the Department of Management. Ms. Barcena did not mention this new rule when Inner City Press questioned her about the event on February 4, although she did say that Gucci’s statement that the event celebrated the opening of their flagship store on Fifth Avenue was inappropriate.
[…]
Given these rules, why did UNICEF’s Ann Veneman push for the event, and why did Alicia Barcena, in charge of UN grounds, give the land for this use? Thursday, a day after her spokesman said she would not stop to answer Inner City Press’ questions on her way in or out of the event, Veneman was still lying low, even as a formal request for her presence was made at the UN’s noon briefing. Video here, from Minute 11:37.
It emerged that this is a pattern with Ms. Veneman. Inner City Press’ Washington sources recount that when Veneman became the head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the practice was that journalists could ask questions of officials, stakeout-style, at the USDA. One day returning from questioning on Capitol Hill, Ms. Veneman saw the reporters doing their jobs, and something snapped. The next day, the reporters were told they could no longer ask questions. The Senate Committee overseeing USDA expressed opposition to Veneman’s press ban. Now in the UN system, Veneman dodges the press, particularly any critical coverage.
While it had been said that space was so tight at Wednesday’s event, Veneman brought her executive officer and long-time George W. Bush supporter Blake Nabors with her, along with US Fund for UNICEF uber-fundraiser Jeffrey Towers.
[…]
Go to the home page to find additional articles on the background for these stories.
Another great site for inside UN nasty politics is UNDP Watch. There is usually quite a bit of posting there, but nothing the last week.
PNAC signatory, and Bush crony par excellence Paul Wolfowitz took his antics too far at the World Bank and was forced to resign, primarily due to the efforts of inside whistleblowers. Will UN staff follow suit?