Will Ban Ki-Moon Cover Up UN Abuse Like Kofi Annan?

Claudia Rosett, who did in-depth investigations of Kofi Annan's coverup of the Oil-for-Food and other UN scandals is now asking: Will the U.N. Development Program Probe Be Ban Ki-Moon's First Cover-Up?

For just one day last week, it looked like Ban, in the first real test of his self-proclaimed mission to "restore trust" at the U.N., had risen above the bureaucratic evasions of his scandal-plagued predecessor, Kofi Annan. That day was Jan. 19, shortly after FOX News and The Wall Street Journal broke the story of U.S. State Department accusations that the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), violating its own rules, had allowed hard currency to flow to the now-sanctioned rogue regime of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. The State Department told of UNDP offices in North Korea dominated by officials of the regime, "sham" audits of programs to hide the cash flow, and an extended cover-up of the situation by the UNDP itself.

Ban came out that same day for a public housecleaning, with guns blazing. In a break with the stonewalls of the U.N. when faced with Oil-for-Food and other scandals, he promised to call for what his spokeswoman described as "an urgent, system-wide and external inquiry into all activities done around the globe by the U.N. funds and programmes."

So far, so good. But then Ban retreated from his original position and instead proposed that the U.N. General Assembly's own budget oversight body, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions oversee the investigation. One problem is that, besides the fact that though perhaps 'external', the group is cannot be considered to be independent of the UN.

The other problem?

The board is made up of the government audit arms of a rotating trio of U.N. member states, currently consisting of the Philippines, South Africa and France. This was precisely the same trio of government auditors, serving on precisely the same U.N. oversight board, that provided so-called external audits during the final graft-crammed years of Oil-for-Food.

Besides the fact that Ban's actions in this issue are less than satisfying, this is not the first time that Ban has backed off from an initial stand he has taken. He also backtracked from his initial response to Saddam Hussein's execution:

In a break with the orthodoxy of his predecessor, who had led the U.N. on an anti-capital punishment crusade, Ban first noted that Saddam had committed heinous crimes, and that hanging such a monster was a matter for individual U.N. member states to decide. By the end of the week, however, he had joined the eternal U.N. chorus that condemns all capital punishment, even of mass murderers like Saddam.

But Rosett raises a more troubling problem, one that may already undercut Ban Ki-Moon himself:

In backing away from a genuinely independent audit of U.N operations in North Korea, Ban may well be throwing a blanket over significant aspects of his own history. Prior to his U.N. appointment, Ban was South Korea's foreign minister. His country has been shipping huge amounts of aid, including hard currency, to the North Korean regime for years, some of it during his own term in Seoul as foreign minister. Some of those funds may well have passed through the UNDP. If there is anything unsavory to uncover in that regard, Ban would be wise to get it over with now, via truly independent investigators. Otherwise, the UNDP scandal, which currently looks like a holdover from his predecessor, might turn out to be Ban's own Achilles' heel.

We may soon have the feeling that it's as if Kofi Annan never left.

Technorati Tag: Ban Ki-Moon.