Reforms at UNESCO

According to Wikipedia:

The organization's reforms included the following measures: the number of divisions in UNESCO was cut in half, allowing a corresponding halving of the number of Directors -- from 200 to under 100, out of a total staff of approximately 2,000 worldwide. At the same time, the number of field units was cut from a high of 79 in 1999 to 52 today. Parallel management structures, including 35 Cabinet-level special advisor positions, were abolished. 209 negotiated staff departures and buy-outs took place from 1999–2003, causing the inherited $10 million staff cost deficit to disappear. The staff pyramid, which was the most top-heavy in the UN system, was cut back as the number of high-level posts was halved and the “inflation” of posts was reversed through the down-grading many positions. Open competitive recruitment, results-based appraisal of staff, training of all managers and field rotation were instituted, as well as SISTER and SAP systems for transparency in results-based programming and budgeting. In addition, the Internal Oversight Service (IOS) was established in 2001 to improve organizational performance by including the lessons learned from program evaluations into the overall reform process.

Go to Director General Koïchiro Matsuura's 2005 discussion of the reform and restructuring efforts.

Reforms at UNESCO

According to Wikipedia:

The organization's reforms included the following measures: the number of divisions in UNESCO was cut in half, allowing a corresponding halving of the number of Directors -- from 200 to under 100, out of a total staff of approximately 2,000 worldwide. At the same time, the number of field units was cut from a high of 79 in 1999 to 52 today. Parallel management structures, including 35 Cabinet-level special advisor positions, were abolished. 209 negotiated staff departures and buy-outs took place from 1999–2003, causing the inherited $10 million staff cost deficit to disappear. The staff pyramid, which was the most top-heavy in the UN system, was cut back as the number of high-level posts was halved and the “inflation” of posts was reversed through the down-grading many positions. Open competitive recruitment, results-based appraisal of staff, training of all managers and field rotation were instituted, as well as SISTER and SAP systems for transparency in results-based programming and budgeting. In addition, the Internal Oversight Service (IOS) was established in 2001 to improve organizational performance by including the lessons learned from program evaluations into the overall reform process.

Go to Director General Koïchiro Matsuura's 2005 discussion of the reform and restructuring efforts.

Encyclopedia Entries for UNESCO

Online encyclopedias represent a great resource on the World Wide Web. Here are a couple of online encyclopedia entries on UNESCO that are chock full of information and useful links:

* Wikipendia
* Questia

Encyclopedia Entries for UNESCO

Online encyclopedias represent a great resource on the World Wide Web. Here are a couple of online encyclopedia entries on UNESCO that are chock full of information and useful links:

* Wikipendia
* Questia

The John Bolton Confirmation

The Washington Post today has an editorial opposing the confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. It states (in part):

Mr. Bolton began his tenure with an argument over the preparations for a gathering of heads of state. He demanded that the summit document omit, among other things, references to the anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals, on the ground that these had been interpreted by U.N. officials to include a commitment to more foreign aid. Mr. Bolton's action alienated other U.N. ambassadors with no obvious gain; such commitments, even if accepted, are non-binding.

Mr. Bolton's handling of the new U.N. Human Rights Council was equally clumsy. He failed to show up at nearly all of the 30 or so negotiating sessions leading up to the council's creation, then waded in at the eleventh hour with a bizarre proposal that the State Department quickly repudiated. Mr. Bolton's spokesman says that the ambassador engaged in good faith throughout the process. But U.S. allies felt that Mr. Bolton did not do so.

Mr. Bolton has embarrassed himself most recently by his mishandling of U.N. management reform, a cause supported by U.N. officials and the richer member states. Mr. Bolton came up with the idea of threatening to cut U.N. funding unless the management reforms were adopted, and his spokesman insists that this brinkmanship was helpful. But South Africa's U.N. envoy called it "poison"; Germany's ambassador called it "wrong"; his British counterpart said it was a mistake to hold the budget hostage. After six months the budget threat was dropped.

WP also published a story in today's news section ("The Bolton Nomination, Act II" by Colum Lynch) detailing some of the controvery around Bolton's role in the United Nations. Notably, it quotes the distinguished international civil servant, U.N. Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown who said in a public speech on June 6:

There is currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the U.S. supports must have a secret agenda aimed at either subordinating multilateral processes to Washington's ends or weakening the institutions, and therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real discussion of whether they make sense or not.

The John Bolton Confirmation

The Washington Post today has an editorial opposing the confirmation of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. It states (in part):

Mr. Bolton began his tenure with an argument over the preparations for a gathering of heads of state. He demanded that the summit document omit, among other things, references to the anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals, on the ground that these had been interpreted by U.N. officials to include a commitment to more foreign aid. Mr. Bolton's action alienated other U.N. ambassadors with no obvious gain; such commitments, even if accepted, are non-binding.

Mr. Bolton's handling of the new U.N. Human Rights Council was equally clumsy. He failed to show up at nearly all of the 30 or so negotiating sessions leading up to the council's creation, then waded in at the eleventh hour with a bizarre proposal that the State Department quickly repudiated. Mr. Bolton's spokesman says that the ambassador engaged in good faith throughout the process. But U.S. allies felt that Mr. Bolton did not do so.

Mr. Bolton has embarrassed himself most recently by his mishandling of U.N. management reform, a cause supported by U.N. officials and the richer member states. Mr. Bolton came up with the idea of threatening to cut U.N. funding unless the management reforms were adopted, and his spokesman insists that this brinkmanship was helpful. But South Africa's U.N. envoy called it "poison"; Germany's ambassador called it "wrong"; his British counterpart said it was a mistake to hold the budget hostage. After six months the budget threat was dropped.

WP also published a story in today's news section ("The Bolton Nomination, Act II" by Colum Lynch) detailing some of the controvery around Bolton's role in the United Nations. Notably, it quotes the distinguished international civil servant, U.N. Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown who said in a public speech on June 6:

There is currently a perception among many otherwise quite moderate countries that anything the U.S. supports must have a secret agenda aimed at either subordinating multilateral processes to Washington's ends or weakening the institutions, and therefore, put crudely, should be opposed without any real discussion of whether they make sense or not.