UNDP Comes Clean

The Wall Street Journal
October 4, 2007
Original Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119144595201748038.html
Cambodia isn't known as a beacon of transparency, but this week it is -- when compared with the United Nations Development Program, that is. The UNDP has come under pressure to release its audit of human-resources practices at the Khmer Rouge tribunal after this page publicized preliminary findings two weeks ago. The UNDP refuses to come clean.
Not so the Cambodians. On Tuesday, the Cambodian side of the tribunal posted the final audit report on its Web site for all to see. The audit, initiated by the UNDP last fall, covers HR practices for the Cambodian side of the court, for which the UNDP oversees more than $6 million in public funds. The Cambodian side issued a press release saying it hoped the action would put an end to uninformed speculation that damages the process of justice.
Contrast this with the approach of the UNDP, which has maintained a stony silence. Over the past two weeks, UNDP Cambodia has refused repeated requests for an on-the-record interview to discuss the audit. Yesterday, spokesman Men Kimseng promised to get back to us by email. As we went to press last night, our in box was empty.
Perhaps that's because the findings of the audit don't entirely clear up the questions about the UNDP's governance. Most important, allegations of kickbacks, raised first by the New York-based Open Society Justice Initiative and echoed by the auditors themselves, have yet to be investigated.
The now-public audit, however, does shed light on how the UNDP and the Cambodian side intend to move ahead, because the final report includes their comments. Inflated salaries for local Cambodian hires? The UNDP says salaries should be reviewed. The Cambodian side disagrees. Unqualified personnel? The UNDP concurs that serious lapses in the recruitment process have taken place. The Cambodians again disagree. Conflicts of interest on the project board? Here, both the UNDP and Cambodians are of one mind: It's perfectly acceptable that the board is chaired by the same organization it is supposed to oversee.
The problems described in the audit may never be solved because of the awkward structure of the tribunal itself. While the UNDP administers most of the funding for the Cambodian side of the court, it doesn't have the power to hire and fire staffers. The auditors' strongest recommendations -- that the UNDP consider withdrawing from the project if the problems aren't fixed, and fire everyone and start over again if it decides to stay -- are rejected by both sides. Translation: The auditors' most important findings may never be seriously addressed.
It's unclear how the audit will affect the tribunal's ability to mete out justice. Lax HR practices have resulted in poorly equipped translators and administrative staff. Kickbacks, if they happened, would show that the Cambodian government itself is interfering inappropriately in the tribunal. Given that the former Khmer Rouge militants on trial are elderly, that finding, if true, would squelch any chance of justice. But so, too, would a court with secrets.