The 15-member United Nations Security Council, whose primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security, is scheduled to meet next week to discuss something outside its traditional purview: charges of corruption and malfeasance facing the world body’s Secretariat.

US Ambassador John Bolton is using his discretionary powers to summon a meeting to review a 45-page report by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) that is loaded with accusations of fraud and mismanagement in UN procurement.

Bolton probably thinks the Council has the right to discuss the issue because most of the corruption is related to UN peacekeeping operations. But 132 developing nations beg to differ. A spokesman for the Group of 77 (G77) says the Security Council is encroaching on the functions of the 191-member General Assembly, the highest policy-making body at the UN. The Group has already accused the UN Secretariat of trying to usurp the powers of member states as represented by the General Assembly.

“It is a peculiar coincidence,” says Ambassador Nirupam Sen of India, “that the attempted arrogation of the functions of the General Assembly by the Secretariat comes at a time when we are witnessing a similar arrogation by the Council.” He said that later this month the Security Council will hold a meeting on the management of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), specifically related to procurement and the OIOS audit. “But procurement and audit, as with other aspects of management, are the prerogative of the General Assembly,” not the Security Council, Sen said.

The proposal for a comprehensive management audit of DPKO, he said, was introduced jointly by a few developing country delegations, including India, and was subsequently adopted by the Assembly. In effect, he said, the Council has no business hijacking something that was within the purview of the General Assembly.

The OIOS report that is to be discussed by the Council next week reviews 27 contracts totaling about one billion dollars during 2000-2005. The audit cites several instances where the UN’s peacekeeping budget was “over-estimated or inflated, which in some cases led to the build-up of a reserve of supplies above the actual needs”. For example, the fuel contracts for the UN Mission in Sudan (for 2005-2006) and the UN Mission in Haiti (2004-2006) were in excess of the requirements by at least $34 million and $31 million, respectively. Additionally, the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo received seven aircraft hangers valued at $2.4 million that are still not being used in 2006. The UN Mission in East Timor had no requirement for a Mi-26 helicopter, which was leased at a cost of $10.4 million.

The OIOS report says in many cases, UN peacekeeping operations depended on a limited number of vendors that made the missions vulnerable to overcharges. The study blames “lack of proper care and attention by officials” who should really be responsible to design and implement internal controls. As a result, there were both resource mismanagement and fraudulent activities. In the period 2002-2004, UN procurement, including for peacekeeping, amounted to around $3 billion. Of this total, 2.5 billion, or 82 per cent, represented purchases by peacekeeping missions overseas. — IPS