Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

POLITICS: U.N. Gets High-Tech Security Upgrade – Again

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 28 2006 (IPS) - The United Nations, which has so far escaped a terrorist attack on its 39-storeyed Secretariat building housing over 3,500 staffers, is planning to strengthen its overall security – armed with a budget of about 415 million dollars for 2006-2007.

As part of a unified security management system, the Secretariat building will shortly be ringed with turnstiles that will electronically monitor the movement of people in and out of the building, including time of entry and departure, with the swipe of an ID card.

But the global access control system (GACS), which is expected to initially cost over 11.2 million dollars and also cover U.N. duty stations overseas, has triggered complaints from both staff and delegates – even before it could get off the ground.

The potential expenditure in running and maintaining the system, along with several related projects, has been estimated at about 85 million dollars over the next four years, of which some 70 million dollars would come from the regular budget.

A member of the Staff Union told IPS that a similar high-tech access system was abandoned in 1996 despite the fact that the United Nations spent more than a million dollars on the ill-fated project. But no one was held accountable for the failure. “We hope history will not repeat itself,” he added.

The failed system, called the U.N. access control system (UNACS), was to have included identification cards, hands-free card readers, imaging systems, computerised data-collection technology and turnstiles at all of the entrances to the Secretariat building.

Last week, the 5,000-strong U.N. Staff Union sought answers to more than 40 questions compiled after a survey of staffers system-wide.

“When staff members swipe their cards, what information will be collected; what will it be used for; to whom will that information be reported; and who will benefit from the information?” the Union has asked the Secretariat.

“Will the data be used for recording attendance?” “And how much will be saved in salaries for security officers with the introduction of turnstiles?”

The Staff Union is also asking the maintenance cost of the new system, including the service contract for repairs.

“If the U.N. compound becomes a construction site for (proposed) major renovations, will these structures be demolished after having spent huge sums of money on them?”

At a meeting of the U.N.’s administrative and budgetary committee last December, Yasser Elnaggar of Egypt wondered whether the Secretariat plans to make protocol-related exceptions in the use of turnstiles.

For example, will visiting heads of state be also asked to swipe a card at the turnstile to gain entry to address the U.N. General Assembly- an act that will be considered sacrilegious in the U.N. diplomatic community? And will permanent representatives accredited to the United Nations also be forced to use the turnstiles?

Elnaggar also asked whether the installation of turnstiles will also result in potential cost-savings in fewer security guards.

An Asian diplomat told IPS the issue has also come up before the 132-member Group of 77, the largest single coalition of developing nations, which has expressed reservations – primarily because the General Assembly never gave a mandate for the proposed new security and access control system.

The 415-million-dollar budget for security during 2006-2007 contrasts with the 256-million-dollar budget for 2004-2005. However, the increase of over 60 percent is also due to the creation last year of the Department of Safety and Security (DSS).

The new department, responsible for staff security worldwide, combines three separate offices under one roof: the office of the security coordinator, the security and safety services and the security component of the department of peacekeeping operations. The budget also includes a supplementary estimate of 97 million dollars sought last year by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, primarily for DSS and the new access system.

Compared to the amount spent by the United Nations on its programmes, the 97 million million dollars was relatively modest, Annan told the committee. “Security should not be considered separate from programmes, but as an essential condition for them,” he added.

The breakdown includes about 10.4 million dollars to implement a number of infrastructure projects and improve security standards; 11.2 million dollars for the global access control system; and 4 million dollars for training.

Asked about the new security measures, U.N spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters last week: “These are purely security issues, to better ensure the security of all staff, of visitors, of journalists who work here in this building. And that is the only reason they are there.”

He also said that the proposed new turnstiles “are not some sort of nefarious way of people keeping track of who goes in, whether they are staff or journalists or diplomats”.

“It’s a security issue, and I think you see them in most buildings in this town, especially if you look around at the security advances that have been made since the Sep. 11 (terrorist attacks) in New York. I think it’s only natural that we would want to protect anyone who enters this building and who works in this building,” he added.

Told about the earlier fiasco, U.N. spokesman Dujarric said: “I would hope that whatever problems that existed 10 years ago have now been solved.”

As a result of that botched project in 1996, the United Nations suffered a 1.3-million-dollar loss on what was called “a flawed state-of-the-art security system” which was abandoned even before it could be tried out.

The responsibility for the project was so diffused that the Secretariat was unable to hold any staff member or any U.N. department accountable for the bungled project. The one-year warranty ran out even before the system was tried out under actual operating conditions.

“The investigation concluded that responsibility for the Organisation’s financial loss could not be attributed to the acts of any particular employee – individually or collectively,” said Under-Secretary-General Karl Pasche, then head of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).

The OIOS, the investigative arm of the world body, said the project was not only botched-up from the start but was also plagued by blatant irregularities.

“The audit revealed management deficiencies, serious weaknesses in internal controls and flaws in procurement,” the OIOS said in a report released in December 1995.

“At the time the project was planned for implementation, the Chief of Protocol stated that delegates would object to going through turnstiles,” the report said.

The Staff Union raised health issues pointing out that the access cards – to be worn by staffers – were a cancer risk because of special electronic strips embedded on them.

After the project was abandoned, the OIOS reviewed the system to see whether it could find that any current staff members had violated U.N. regulations in connection with the project.

The OIOS was specifically asked to determine whether the project had been properly planned; if the contract had been awarded in accordance with regulations; and whether the project was properly managed.

“Six persons who no longer work for the United Nations but were involved in the project either refused or were unavailable for interviews,” the report said.

The most serious failure in the process was the absence of clear management over the life of the contract. The situation was made worse by five under-secretaries-general appointed during the contract period, “each with a different concept for and involvement with the project, resulting in management being shuffled between staff and departments”.