Tuesday, March 2, 2010 - 7:42 PM
Sir John Holmes, a former British official who serves as the U.N.'s top
emergency relief coordinator, will step down from his job later this year,
creating a vacancy for the most important humanitarian relief job in the world.
But most experts in the field need not apply.
If history is any guide, Holmes's replacement will be selected from a small
pool of influential countries who are rewarded with the most important U.N.
jobs. It's more likely Holmes's successor will be a diplomat or politician than
someone who has experience managing relief operations.
The U.N. practice of hiring political appointees has ensured American, French,
and British dominance of key U.N. jobs in management, peacekeeping and
political affairs. But it has chipped away at the U.N. ideal of the impartial
international civil servant, loyal to the founding principles of the U.N., and
not beholden to the state that helped get them the job.
The U.N. Charter's Article 100 set out the loyalty standard for U.N. employees,
saying U.N. staff "shall not seek or receive instructions from any government
or from any other authority external to the organization." It also requires
states "respect the exclusively international character" of U.N. staff and "not
to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities."
The late Swedish Secretary-General Dag
Hammarskjold championed the culture of the impartial U.N. civil servant,
clashing with both the United States and the Soviet Union over the importance
of ensuring a level of U.N. independence in hiring, according to his
biographer, Sir Brian Urquhart. And former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
who rose from the U.N. civil service himself, frequently promoted his
colleagues within the U.N.'s own ranks to senior political posts.
But the pendulum has swung back in favor of political appointees under Ban Ki-moon,
who accepted the favored candidates of each of the U.N.'s powerful permanent
five members in his first year in office, according to senior U.N. officials.
Ban has used appointments to strike a careful geographical balance among the
interests of influential member states.
Earlier this month, Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to
the United Nations, circulated a letter nominating a single candidate, Tony Lake, to lead the U.N. Children's
Fund, an organization that receives most of its funds from the United States,
when President Bush's candidate, Ann
Veneman, steps down in April. It remains unlikely that Ban, who is
ostensibly responsible for hiring the UNICEF chief, will challenge Rice.
Holmes himself was serving as a top foreign-policy advisor to Tony Blair before he started his job at
the United Nations. The British had pushed him to serve in the traditional
British slot, the under secretary-general for political affairs, a job for
which he seemed well suited. But Ban gave that post to an American, and Holmes
was given a consolation prize, the under secretary general for the coordination
of humanitarian relief, a field in which he had no experience.
The creation of the international
civil service dates back to the League of Nations, though its roots lie in the
establishment in the 19th century of an apolitical British foreign service,
which sought to promote efficiency and competence over political affiliation. Arthur Balfour, the British delegate to
the league, outlined those principles by saying that "members of the
secretariat once appointed are no longer the servants of the country of which
they are citizen, but become for the time being the servants only of the League
of Nations. Their duties are not national but international."
But the notion of placing loyalty to the U.N. blue flag over one's own country
has been frequently mocked within U.N. headquarters. Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev told the American journalist
Walter Lippman that "while there are
neutral countries, there are no neutral men." Summing up the Soviet view,
Lippman wrote "that there can be no such thing as an impartial civil servant in
this deeply divided world, and that the kind of political celibacy which the
British theory of the civil servant calls for, is in international affairs a
fiction."
Alvaro de Soto, a former Peruvian
diplomat who came to the United Nations as a political appointee under the
Peruvian Secretary-General Javier Perez
de Cuellar, said that many of his U.N. colleagues considered him a
"political naif" when he espoused the importance of affirming one's loyalty to
the U.N. But he said that he and many top officials have been transformed into
"U.N. patriots" during their time at the United Nations.
"What happens to people is that they turn blue; there is that expression," he
told Turtle Bay. "I have to say that's
what happened to me. And it happens to a lot of people I know around the
house."
Not all top U.N. officials are converts. Christopher
B. Burnham, a former GOP fundraiser who was put forward by the Bush administration
for the top U.N. management job, remained an unabashed American nationalist.
"I came here at the request of the White House," he told me five years ago. "It's my duty to make
the U.N. more effective. My primary loyalty is to the United States of America."
Marrack Goulding, who succeeded Urqhuart during the 1980s as the
top British official at the United Nations, aspired to emulate Urqhuart's
reputation for independence after Britain put him forward for a top U.N. job.
"I wanted to be an impartial international official and had already decided
that I would decline invitations to stay at British embassies when on my
travels," he wrote in his memoir Peacemonger.
What he didn't realize, he recalled, "was that distancing myself from Whitehall
could reduce my usefulness to the secretary general himself ... It reduced my
value to my boss."
"Boutros Ghali, in particular, expected his British USG [under secretary-general]
to give him private insights into Her Majesty's government's thinking and their
likely reaction to initiatives which he might take," he wrote. "My insistence
on my independence as an international civil servant this made me something of
a misfit on the 38th floor," where the U.N. secretary-general's office is
located.
I don't think it's entirely fair to say that international civil service is in decline, presumably from its peak under Hammarskjold. Secretaries-General must struggle with the dual role assigned to the UN as both a symbol of peace, human rights and sustainable development as well as the more realist fact that the organization is intergovernmental in nature and dependent upon its members for funds and participation. Some SGs, such as Mr. Hammarskjold, have placed emphasis on the former, while others such as Mr. Ban have placed greater emphasis on the latter.
And when the P5 have a veto over the SG, one can expect the quality of appointees to vary with the winds of global goodwill.
Loyatly to the UN: Is that like when they covered up the Oil-for-Food scandal?
I don't really get what they are supposed to be pledging their allegiance to?
Transnationalism? The fictional 'international community'? This seems like nonsense on stilts.
It would also seem to make sense to have appointees from the states that are actually providing the bulk of the funding, as this would have postive externalities, both in terms of efficiency and ensuring future funding streams.
Blue,
Presumably their loyalty would lie with the UN itself, and the values for which it is supposed to stand: peace, human rights, sustainable development. And they would put these values above advancing the interests of their home nation-state.
As for appointees from states that provide funds, that system is known as "favoritism." It also runs contrary to Article 101(3) of the UN Charter, which provides that "the paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity."
A better means of providing for this would be to create a system of independent funding for the UN, but that's not likely to happen. Instead we're left to contend with an imperfect and improvident system for enforcement of international norms which is dependent upon the largesse and political wills of its constituent members.
I am not against Ki-Moon, but being a foreign minister of a small country like South Korea he does not have much exposure in International dealing, big countries like USA, China and Russia will use him like a puppet.softmod wii
I know retired UN employees who are still attached to the institution and its values. There's nothing odd about it, and it hardly implies corruption or self-interest any more than the attachments of a long-term staffer at, say, IBM, General Motors, or the US Navy.
And in what country are cabinet-level positions assigned to bureaucrats rather than "political appointees"?
Longtime Washington Post correspondent Colum Lynch reports on all things United Nations for Turtle Bay.
Read More
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE