I read this article with deep interest; it presents a pretty negative image of the United Nations as a bureaucratic giant unable to deliver due to a handful of incompetent staff and lack of proper management mechanisms. I am concerned about the negative impacts of such image can have to the wide public and those committed UN staff who are tirelessly working in non-family/hardship duty stations and reaching out to the most vulnerable.

I would like instead to share a brighter view, based on my working experience in various parts of the organization (including the Secretariat and other UN agencies)both at the Headquarters and in the field.

The UN is an immense political machinery, controlled by Members States, tasked with the most noble and difficult missions that an organization was ever mandated in the history. The UN is also comprised of myriads of different agencies, funds and programme with very different mandates, administrative capacities and organizational culture. It is too simplistic to lump together what is different.

Huge organizations, such as the UN, require rules and procedures to ensure transparency to its constituents. Bureaucracy creates these additional, more often cumbersome, layers. Bureaucracy is indeed a pain and, of course, processes can be simplified and streamlined. However, such changes do not come overnight as they require change of mind among the organization's staff, especially the “old guard”.This does not mean that the work of the organization should stop or colleagues should quit. In fact there are ways to "play along with the "administrative vortexes”; for example, a deep knowledge of the rules and regulations, advance planning and proactive actions can accelerate processes. A staff member will not get frustrated or get his/her submission rejected if he/she knew exactly what are the steps required, what documents to submit etc. Yes, we should focus more on the substantive/programmatic work which we are responsible to deliver, but as we are all very knowledgeable and quick to process our salary reimbursement claims, we could also do the same for the required administrative processes that are being mentioned in the article.

Once I was asked during an interview how I would overcome bottlenecks caused by bureaucracy. I responded, knowing the procedures, acting on time, using the right templates, following up with the right people, being motivated and having a good dose of patience can help in accelerating the process, at least the part of it I am in control, and will eventually lead to faster results. I did get that job.

Recruitment processes take forever. Most of the time this is true and it takes even more time and efforts to deploy competent staff during an emergency. Again, some UN organizations do better than others. For example, some organizations such as UNICEF has "fast track" recruitment procedures for emergency recruitments allowing staff deployment within weeks. UNFPA maintains rosters of pre-vetted candidates that successfully passed 2 days intensive screening. DPKO also keeps roster of pre-screened candidates which enables the organization to deploy staff in 3 months rather than taking 9-12 months as per regular recruitment. It is possible, I have witnesses once my successor being deployed within 3 months from my transfer notification. Indeed there are ways for improvement, especially by learning from where things works better.

There is nothing more atrocious than peacekeepers committing abusive acts to the same people they are supposed to protect. This is a major challenge for the UN, as it casts discredits to the entire organization as a whole, including those that are risking their lives daily to create a better world. Therefore, there should be zero tolerance for such abuses and the perpetrators should be properly condemned. At the same time, it is disappointing that most of the media coverage focuses on UN misconduct, committed by a few, rather than on what we do right.

However I wish to point out that most of these abuses are carried out by military personnel serving in peacekeeping missions. The UN does not have a standing military force and depends on the willing of countries to deploy their national troops temporary (normally 6-12 months) to serve under the UN flag (and their own flag), and fight someone else's wars.
Consequently, these soldiers are national citizens, who bring their own training and culture to the UN, and when they commit these abuses they should be considered as such too.
I have witnessed cases when abuses committed by just one or two soldiers resulted in the entire company (hundred soldiers) repatriating.

The majority of peacekeepers perform a tremendous job by ensuring peace in war-torns parts of this planet, far from their families, risking their life daily to defend peace but still too often unnoticed. This is what I would like to emphasize.

In conclusion, the UN needs constant improvement. It is up to its staff. Those who have served for long can help taking stock of the best practices of the organization's legacy with an eye to future challenges. It is also up to the organization’s newcomers, preferably more from the -outside- such as private sector, government secondment, to bring innovative ideas, enthusiasm and help the UN to keep up with the pace of a fast evolving world.

I believe this brighter view of the UN would be more beneficial to bring the necessary change to the United Nations.