The victors of World War II granted privileges and immunities to the intergovernmental organization known as the United Nations. UN staff benefit from this privilege. UN staff who abuse their power or commit wrongdoings during their work lose their jobs and are sent home instead of going to prison.

The United Nations (the organization) failed to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible. The poor state of peace and security around the world indicates that the leaders of the United Nations failed to realize the high hopes of its founders, who are the families and dynasties that control this intergovernmental organization.

As of 4 March 2022, Dr. Mukesh Kapila, former U.N. resident and humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, began publishing a series of articles accusing the UNOPS Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director, and many UNOPS Senior Leadership Team members of misconduct, mismanagement, probable fraud, and corruption. His stories were later picked up by DEVEX and the New York Times, who published an article on the issue on 08 May 2022.

To read Mukesh Kapila’s articles, visit https://mukeshkapilablog.org/

On 08 May 2022, Mukesh Kapila published a new article in which he shared that the UNOPS executive director resigned. Kapila said that the UNOPS executive director admitted in the resignation message that “she was responsible for all that went wrong and acknowledged that UNOPS cannot move on while she is still there.” It is very noble of the UNOPS executive director to accept responsibility and to step down.

Since the United Nations was founded in 1945, many scholars have published articles to support that misconduct, mismanagement, fraud, corruption, and so on are deeply ingrained in this intergovernmental organization. The articles by Mukesh Kapila support the idea that all attempts to fight abuse of power and wrongdoing at the United Nations were futile. Most importantly, his articles indicate that the staff members who opposed this aspect of human nature paid a significant price for their naive heroism. Indeed, exposing cases of misconduct, mismanagement, fraud, corruption, and so on at the United Nations is advantageous to make the people who believe this organization is ineffective, biased, and corrupt reconsider.

Nonetheless, many questions beg answers. For one, can exposing UN scandals really end the systemic failure of this organization, even if it does not indemnify the staff who paid a big price for opposing the abuse of power and wrongdoing of the same people Mukesh Kapila exposed in his articles? Where would the UNOPS staff whom the UNOPS Executive Director, the UNOPS Deputy Executive Director, and the rest of the UNOPS Senior Leadership Team abused and made lose their careers and livelihoods go to recuperate what those ambitious individuals stripped from them in the name of preserving human rights if the UN self-policing system prevents them from being entitled to equal protection of the law? In other words, should their cases be heard in an independent and impartial tribunal rather than in UN courts, which are overseen by judges who are colleagues of the individuals Mukesh Kapila accused of abuse of power and misconduct?

“Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined.” This statement says that when there is a major division in any body such as a kingdom or an organization where leaders from opposing sides of significant strength and influence begin to rival, those leaders can start to get back at each other to get revenge or to settle scores. The UNOPS Senior Leadership Team and other UN chiefs or UN agencies, UNOPS clients, and UNOPS donors could be settling scores!

I am pleased to read that a former UN staff member was capable of highlighting what may be occurring behind closed doors at UNOPS and even succeeded at making a difference in the world.

On the other hand, in his March 8 article, Mukesh Kapila wrote, “My writings were only possible because desperate UNOPS staff—present and past—trusted me to give them a voice on the terrible and systematic wrongs they had suffered for many years, including intimidation, harassment, and worse.” Most importantly, Kapila concluded his March 8 article with writing, “The departure of Grete Faremo does not close the chapter on this saga,” and that “it is only the first step along the long road towards extracting full accountability from all concerned with the egregious wrongs and abuses committed at UNOPS.”

I have presented at the end of this article a case in which the same UNOPS executive director (who has now resigned), the UNOPS executive deputy director (who is under investigation), and the UNOPS senior leadership team (of whom a good number are resigning) played a central role in its events to highlight the importance of helping the victims whom the UNOPS senior leadership team have victimized equally. I am hoping that Dr. Mukesh Kapila would read this case and take steps to push the UN to compensate the victim mentioned and others who lost their careers and livelihoods when they refused to prioritize their self-interests as the UNOPS senior leadership team was doing and paid a big price for it.

Said differently, in a world in which corruption is regarded as a necessary price of doing business, exposing scandals to get rid of powerful people (who injure with impunity because UN staff are granted privileges and immunities) but without fighting to have the United Nations return to the victims of the UNOPS senior leadership team victimized their rights converts the act of exposing scandals to be intended to settle scores and not to return the United Nations “into becoming a trusted partner in the global development struggle.”

Throughout history, the people with considerable power have denied the weak their rights. The way the UNOPS senior leadership team treated the UNOPS staff whose story I share at the end of this article for a fistful of profit is not new. The way the UNOPS lawyers and UN judges of the UN courts protected the UN (UNOPS) senior leadership team in the same case by bunkering under a technical rule that is immaterial to the magnitude of the threat those senior UN administrators were compelling in the world or the heroes who expose scandals to really change things or settle scores is also familiar. What is new is that the case of this US national and the new scandals that Mukesh Kapila shared confirm, once again, that the search for shared values through tasking a formal intergovernmental organization to play the custodian of morality and human rights while its administrators are seeking to realize the full development of their personality at the same time is elusive!

Finally, Socrates said that “the myopic behavior of kings is what led their dependents to revolt against them and to resize them.” I can only hope that the families/dynasties who control the United Nations are far-sighted (forethoughtful) individuals, especially after they decided to let the United Nations become an economic operator and accepted that UN administrators who have no courage to stand up for the world order they are building protect them!

Case

Between the periods 2013 ‑ 2015, the UNOPS senior leadership team, whom Dr. Mukesh Kapila mentioned by name in his different articles, with, of course, some of them who had already left (those who joined UNOPS after mid-June 2015 are to be excluded), plotted against a US national who was working for UNOPS in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan.

In this specific incident, the US national expressed reservations to the UNOPS Senior Leadership Team in 2013 against approving a project in the DRC, which this organization had used its political influence to negotiate directly with the prime minister. On this project, UNOPS convinced the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (a struggling country) to use its services to implement a $25 million road project (first phase). UNOPS proposed to the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to deposit the $25 million in the UN bank account. Next, UNOPS (i.e., the United Nations) was going to withdraw its administrative fee and then use its procurement rules to justify waiving open competition to enable it to recruit the road authority of the Ministry of Transportation in the country back to implement the same project (i.e., redeposit the money back in the bank account of the DRC government minus the UN fee). Evidently, this arrangement relieves the DRC government from justifying in its own financial books how this money was spent, because it was converted into a non-audit national item. The government line ministry that received the payment becomes accountable to UNOPS (i.e., the United Nations). Since the UN is dedicated to providing technical assistance to improve global conditions, and each UN agency operates its own legal and auditing processes (with the assumption that the United Nations is not a corrupt organization), it becomes straightforward to manipulate the paperwork to ensure everything appears legally compliant. The project involved opening 2000 km of roads with bridges and culverts in 2 years in the eastern Congo (a war zone area).

When the US national signaled the presence of irregularities on this project in the DRC to the UNOPS Senior Leadership Team (between 2013 and mid-2015), whom Mukesh Kapila said in 2022 were involved in a series of multi-million-dollar rings of fraud, corruption, intimidation, and cover-up “at this multi-billion-dollar UN agency,” those supervisors told him that the organization was going to review and take action. Then the same UNOPS senior leadership team gave this US national two choices: wait until his contract expires to go home or accept to temporarily relocate to Sudan. He was also told by the UNOPS Senior Leadership Team that if he succeeds in growing the Sudan Office in Sudan, the organization would help him to achieve his career goal of becoming a UN Resident Coordinator, which is what he was pursuing and had been working for many years towards. UNOPS signed the project with the government of the DRC as negotiated after his departure to Sudan. However, a few months later, the project was cancelled, and the United Nations (i.e., UNOPS) returned the money back to the government. I should also mention that the UNOPS Senior Leadership Team (between 2013 and mid-2015) did not renew the contract of the immediate supervisor of this US national because he sided with him.

In Sudan, the US national committed the same mistake he did in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This mistake was prioritizing the work program of the founding fathers of the UN over his self-interests. He objected to the decision of the Department for International Development (DFID) [now called the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office] of the British government to finance a project in Darfur worth 10 million euro, in which DFID (the British government) wanted to bluntly violate the UN financial rules and regulations.

To avoid the financial loss that the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) was going to incur in terms of administrative fees after DFID (the British government) made it clear that it (DFID) was not going to finance this project unless the conditions it was asking for were met, the UNOPS Senior Leadership Team (between 2013 and mid-2015), whom Mukesh Kapila claims are involved today in a series of multi-million-dollar rings of fraud, corruption, intimidation, and cover-up at this multi-billion-dollar UN agency, placed this US national on administrative leave in 2015 to investigate a claim that they said was launched against him by one of his staff.

While on administrative leave and before UNOPS told this US national what the charges leveled against him were or by whom, the same UNOPS senior leadership team informed him that the organization was restructuring in the DRC and Sudan and that UNOPS was not going to be using his services when his contract expired. However, in the same contract termination letter, the United Nations (UNOPS) invited this US national to apply to fill the position he was temporarily filling in Sudan, which was downgraded. Next, the United Nations (UNOPS) administrators (i.e., the UNOPS senior leadership team) sent the US national a letter informing him that the organization cancelled the investigation. The United Nations did not tell the US national what the charges leveled against him were, who filed a claim against him, interview him, or follow any of the UN rules and regulations in cases of misconduct while he was on administrative leave.

The style of the UNOPS Senior Leadership Team (between 2013 and mid-2015), who Mukesh Kapila said were involved in a series of multi-million-dollar rings of fraud, corruption, intimidation, and cover-up at this multi-billion-dollar UN agency, adopted to deny this US national any right to any claim, reflects the capacity of some people with power to do whatever they want to increase their profit. By cancelling the investigation, they prevent the US national from having any right to any claim, because he was not charged. His dismissal becomes due to the restructuring of the organization and not due to the accusation that the UNOPS senior leadership team put together to remove him from continuing to block them from using their authority to run their own business. Unfortunately, the UNOPS senior leadership team left one loophole loose; they forgot to follow the procedures set forth in the UN regulations and regulations on the rights that this US national had access to when they placed him under investigation.

When the US national lost all hopes to make the UNOPS executive director, the deputy, and the rest of her senior leadership team reconsider, he filed an application in the United Nations courts seeking damages for libel and not for his termination. The US national could not seek any indemnity for the decision of UNOPS to end his contract because UNOPS was bunkering under the excuse of restructuring. At the start of the legal proceeding, the UN judge asked the United Nations (UNOPS) to resolve this case with the US national outside the UN court. The United Nations (UNOPS) made an offer to the US national, which also included regulating outstanding issues related to his pensions and health insurance, including offering him a new two-year retainer contract.

The US national refused the offer of the United Nations (UNOPS) because it did not include assisting him to pursue his career goal of becoming a UN Resident Coordinator, which he was pursuing with his immediate supervisor and the UNOPS senior leadership team, who had agreed to support him to pursue his career goal if he succeeded in Sudan (which he did). The court hearings proceeded. Surprisingly, the United Nations court system, after hearing all the details of the case (corruption, mismanagement, intimidation, cover-up, fraud, money laundering, including the UNOPS investigation unit saying that they placed this US national under investigation on instruction of the UNOPS Executive Director, her deputy, and the UNOPS senior leadership team arbitrarily, and so on), dismissed the filed application in 2017. The reason for the dismissal was justified by the court on the basis of a rule that requires any staff member who rejects any decision taken by the United Nations to submit his objection within 60 days.

First, UNOPS did not tell this UN staff member that there was such a UN rule when they placed him on administrative leave. Nonetheless, this is not important, because the problem that this case, in my opinion, exposes is much bigger than this rule that those false supervisors or the UN judges bunkered under to deny this UN staff indemnity.

The United Nations court system, after hearing all the details of this case, dismissed the application of this US national because this UN staff member “did not put into question within 60 days the decision of UNOPS placing him on administrative leave” and waited until the UNOPS senior leadership team informed him that they had cancelled the investigation to question his rights. By waiting until he was told that the investigation was cancelled to question why he was placed on administrative leave, he lost his right to any claim! Said differently, the mistake this US national made was his decision to practice tolerance as the preamble of the UN Charter counsels, and he did not use his legal right to put into question why the organization named United Nations was placing him on administrative leave. That is to say, had this US national exercised his legal rights and “practiced intolerance,” his chances to secure his rights would have been higher! In other words, the United Nations wants people to stop being tolerant to have any right and wants them to be intolerant. In sum, the end from the coming together of people at the end of WW2 was to “practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors,” but the United Nations wants people to be intolerant to have any right! Is the dynamism that the world has known as of 1945 due to the UN teaching the weak (the poor) to be impatient!?

The victors of WW2 granted the United Nations immunities. No UN staff and no person whom the United Nations has victimized can have his [her] case heard in a civilian court. All cases of UN staff are heard internally in UN courts. This US national can go nowhere to claim his right to any remedy (not even the US government) for as long as the victors of WW2 do not dissolve the UN Charter, amend the UN Charter, or a hero like Mukesh Kapila petition the UN to reopen his case so the UN can grant him the health insurance and pension that the UNOPS Senior Leadership Team and UN judges denied him because he refused to drop his case.