U.N. Watch: Dissonant ‘Umoja’ |

U.N. Watch: Dissonant ‘Umoja’

In many ways, the United Nations’ whiz-bang Umoja (Swahili for “unity”) computerized management system is a reflection of Turtle Bay itself.

What Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon touted as an organizational transformation is behind schedule and more than $100 million over its original budget, Fox News reports. Even the U.N.’s own independent auditors are less than enthused in its latest report on Umoja.

Despite Mr. Ban’s glowing assessment — “Umoja is designed to help harmonize the way the U.N. works, providing a single data repository with reliable, real-time information” — auditors say the struggling system is mired in management problems. Moreover, it “could affect the integrity of peacekeeping accounting and financial records,” the auditors noted, blurring how money is spent.

Of course, there are bound to be problems with any system of this scale. But Umoja’s problems reportedly have been compounded by inadequate preparation. And rather than plugging in, many U.N. staffers apparently have been using “workarounds, in particular in critical financial processes,” the auditors said.

Eventually Umoja is supposed to produce “efficiencies.” But the reality is no one knows yet what the full tab will be, let alone whether the system will perform as promised.

Umoja falls far short of its hype. Sadly for U.S. taxpayers, that’s business as usual at the United Nations.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.