Sounds of U.N. silence: Stuffing whistleblowers
A United Nations whistleblower who exposed the world body's culture of corruption has asked Secretary of State John Kerry to withhold 15 percent of the U.S. government's allocation to Turtle Bay. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration responded by stuffing cotton in its ears.
Under U.S. law, the withholding is required if the secretary of State concludes that the United Nations failed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, The New York Times reports. But while ex-U.N. staffer James Wasserstrom prevailed in his landmark case against the U.N. for retribution because of his internal criticism, a U.N. oversight panel judge awarded him a pittance ($65,000) of his claimed $3.2 million in total damages.
What this tells U.N. staff is that “even when a whistleblower wins, he loses,” says Mr. Wasserstrom, an American who spent 30 years with the world body.
As a direct result of his litigation, he's now financially worse off than if he had kept his mouth shut, according to an officer with the Government Accountability Project.
Nevertheless, the response from the State Department to Wasserstrom's request was as predictable as it was pathetic: There'll be no formal review. No taking it under advisement. A State official told The Times that Wasserstrom's claim doesn't reflect the department's position and it doesn't believe “any withholdings are required ... at this time.”
Not only deaf but exceedingly dumb is the U.S. policy that helps silence U.N. whistleblowers. And this, when the United States plays the fool by paying the largest share of the U.N.'s budget.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.