Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1siemens070709.html
UNITED NATIONS, July 7 -- As German conglomerate Siemens AG, fresh from guilty pleas under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, faces a two year suspension as a vendor by the World Bank, the United Nations has imposed only a six month ban.
On July 7, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Michele Montas, who has previously defended the UN's failure to ban the Indian Enron Satyam, to explain the different penalties imposed by the UN and the World Bank. "Each body has its own decision making process," Ms. Montas answered. Video here, from Minute 18:25.
Inner City Press then asked if it would be fair to conclude that the UN or at least its Department of Management which oversees procurement takes anti-corruption even less seriously than the World Bank, based on its ban being one-quarter of the World Bank's, based on the same facts. "It's not a question of which organization is more stringent than the other," Ms. Montas argued. But isn't it?
Previously, even though the World Bank had barred Satyam from contracting, the UN continued to do business with it. After this was raised by the Press, the UN said it was winding down contracting with Satyam. No updates have been given.
In June there was no press conference by the chief of the Department of Management, Angela Kane, who has complained that UN responses are not published. For this story, Inner City Press waited hours after asking the question at the UN's noon briefing. The Siemens question is one which should be answered.
At a smaller level, Inner City Press has been informed that while the UN's North Lawn is now covered by the temporary building which will house the General Assembly and Secretary General's Office during the five years of the Capital Master Plan, payments continue to be made on a multi-year contract for gardening of the North Korea. This was reported to Inner City Press by a whistleblower, and then confirmed by a UN procurement official. But what is being done?
The Department of Management, which oversees both procurement and the Capital Master Plan, is continuing despite criticism even in the U.S. Congress with a plan to change reporters' current working conditions, with closed door offices to meet and speak with sources including whistleblowers, to an "open office" plan in which there will be no doors, no walls to the ceiling, no privacy. A whistleblower free zone appears to be what the UN Department of Management has in mind. Watch this site.
From the UN's July 7, 2009 transcript:
Inner City Press: about Siemens, this German conglomerate has been barred by the World Bank from doing business with it for two years for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act. So now the UN is only barring them for only six months, and I am wondering if the Department of Management or Procurement or the Senior Review Panel -– what’s the difference in terms of the acts? Why would the UN… [interrupted]?
Spokesperson Montas: Each body has its own decision making process, you know. Here, it is for six months and for longer over there. You know, it’s a matter of the individual administrations to decide.
Inner City Press: is it fair to say that from this one could say the World Bank is more serious about anti-corruption than the UN? [interrupted]?
Spokesperson Montas: That has nothing to do with this. This is just an administrative matter. They have been banned for six months. So it’s not a question of which organization is more stringent than the other. I don’t think this is the issue. I think the issue is that each one of these organizations has taken measures about Siemens. Thank you all so very much.
