WORLD BLIND UNION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETS IN AUSTRALIA by Kenneth Jernigan As President of the North America/Caribbean Region, I am one of the officers of the World Blind Union and a member of its executive committee. The officers usually meet twice a year, and the executive committee meets at least once in the interim between the quadrennial conventions. Such a meeting of officers and executive committee occurred in Melbourne, Australia, in late January of this year, and Mrs. Jernigan and I attended. We left Dulles Airport on the evening of January 20, and I approached the flight with my usual misgivings. As most of those who have even a casual acquaintance with me know, I have a real fear of flying. It wasn't always like that. In the 1950's I flew more than a million miles and enjoyed every minute of it. I did, that is, until the day I had the misfortune of being on a plane that caught fire on takeoff. We made it back to the airport without mishap, but just a few days later, I was coming out of Reno when one of the two engines on the plane didn't develop power, and we almost crashed. That did it. I felt like a gun-shy dog, and I haven't changed since. But there are times when I simply have to fly--so I do it. But back to the Melbourne trip. Because of the price of tickets, we went the long way 'round. We flew from Dulles seven hours nonstop to Frankfurt, Germany--and then after a two-hour wait, twelve more hours nonstop to Singapore. There was another two-hour wait, and then eight more hours nonstop to Melbourne. When you consider that Melbourne is sixteen hours ahead of Baltimore and that the trip took more than thirty hours, you can see why we had to unscramble our days and nights once we got there. Actually we weren't as tired as we had expected to be. I think I can best summarize the Melbourne experience by dividing it into four categories: the meeting of the World Blind Union officers and executive committee, my visits to agencies doing work with the blind, my contacts with local blind people, and what you might call extracurricular activities. Let's take first things first and deal with the WBU. The meetings were held at the facilities of the RVIB (Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind), one of the two principal agencies doing work with the blind in the State of Victoria. WBU president David Blyth is an employee of RVIB, heading up its division of employment services, and he and the rest of the RVIB staff exerted themselves mightily to see that all of us were comfortable and well-treated. The meetings were about as inspiring as such things usually are, but there were ebbs and flows. As far as I am concerned, two events stand out. At the beginning I should say that I am probably in the minority in putting these two items at the top of the list. The first dealt with some of the countries which were formerly part of the Soviet Union, and the second had to do with the relations between the WBU and the International Disability Foundation. Several of the former Soviet Republics (those located in Central Asia) had applied for membership in the WBU, and the question of what region they should join was being considered. The World Blind Union is divided into seven regions: Africa, Asia, East Asia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, and North America/Caribbean. Since the former Soviet Republics under discussion are clearly in Asia, I wondered what we were talking about. I was quickly enlightened. I was told that since they had formerly been part of the Soviet Union, and since the Soviet Union had been part of Europe, the Republics in question might feel more comfortable being part of the European Blind Union. When I got the drift of the argument and recovered from the shock, I suggested that perhaps the United States should also be part of the European Blind Union. After all, we were formerly colonies of England. And maybe we could also add Canada, Australia, and a sizable portion of Asia--not to mention most of Africa and the Middle East. Of course, we mustn't forget Latin America, which belonged to Spain--except for Brazil, which belonged to Portugal. My humor was not appreciated, nor was the logic lurking beneath it. After some discussion the question was postponed for later decision, but the matter points up a problem which bedevils the World Blind Union and which will not go away. There is a serious imbalance in WBU representation. Of the somewhat more than 300 votes, Europe has 120. North America/Caribbean has 12, and Asia (with its billions of people) has fewer than 100. The other regions are similarly under-represented. When I called attention to these statistics, I was told that I should not be concerned since Europe does not vote as a block. Perhaps--but I was neither comforted nor convinced. The fact that the European leaders apparently see no problem or injustice in this situation does not bode well for the future. In Cairo the WBU president (a European) demonstrated that Europe has enough votes to prevent any change in the constitution regarding ratio of delegates. Even so, the WBU is a voluntary organization, and it is questionable whether the rest of the world will forever tolerate the current skewed voting pattern. There are twelve officers of the World Blind Union. Four of these (one-third) are European. No, Europe does not always vote as a block. It would be surprising if it did--but it manages. The issue concerning the International Disability Foundation was more immediate and equally basic. From what I can gather, the International Disability Foundation (IDF) is the brainchild of a former U.N. employee named Hans Hoegh. The IDF is raising money throughout the world (including the United States) in the name of people with disabilities as a group. Arne Husveg, president of the European Blind Union and a fellow countryman of Mr. Hoegh, proposed that the WBU accept financial help from the International Disability Foundation and free office space in the center it plans to establish at The Hague in the Netherlands. I contended that if the WBU accepts such help from the International Disability Foundation, it will be violating its announced policy of supporting specialized services and organizations of and for the blind. Mr. Husveg, with his usual penchant for avoiding personal attacks and dealing with issues, said that my logic was shallow and my outlook one of calamity and pessimism. He went on to say that it would be all right to accept money and office space from the IDF if the WBU were assured that it would have a substantial voice in IDF's policies and decision making. I argued that it didn't matter how much voice the WBU had if it accepted IDF office space and money. Hoegh's International Disability Foundation could and would correctly say that it was raising money for the World Blind Union, and the World Blind Union would find it increasingly difficult to raise money on its own and separately. Mr. Husveg argued that the United Nations wants all disability groups to work together and that, therefore, the WBU must either engage in such joint action or not have U.N. recognition. I told him that legislative and executive bodies consistently pressure all disability groups to merge and speak with a common voice. This means spending less money for the needs of the blind and other groups, and it makes it easier for the disabled to be lumped into an amorphous, colorless mass and ignored. These pressures to merge are not a new problem, but we gain nothing by meekly submitting to them. The United Nations and the rest of the world will recognize and deal with organizations and specialized programs for the blind if we reasonably and vigorously insist on it, but they certainly will not if we quietly lie down and die. Ultimately the lure of the money carried the day. I asked for a roll call vote, and when the tally was taken, the North America/Caribbean votes were unanimously against the proposal. We were the only ones who voted against it, however. A few other delegates abstained, but nobody else stood to be counted. The decision was that Mr. Husveg (representing the WBU) will negotiate with Mr. Hoegh and that if he is satisfied that the WBU will have sufficient voice in IDF decisions, the WBU will locate its principal office in the disability center at The Hague with the other disability groups and that the WBU will accept IDF financial support. In my opinion this was the most critical vote taken at the meeting, and also in my opinion it has within it the seeds of the possible destruction of the World Blind Union. There are many more things that I could say about the meetings, but I will leave them for another time. For now let it suffice that the organization seems to have stabilized its finances and got itself on an even keel. Its budget is skimpy when compared with the urgent needs that exist throughout the world but impressive when compared with the problems that have been faced and solved. There can be no question that Dr. Euclid Herie has done a competent job of fiscal management and stewardship. An effort is being made to establish a separate foundation to fund the WBU, but the project is still in the formative stages. In view of commitments I made concerning money, I should mention at least one other matter. It involves the Louis Braille birthplace and museum at Coupvray, France. Every blind person in the world owes a debt to Louis Braille. He gave us the means of literacy, and ultimately of freedom and equal participation in society. The home where he was born has been operated for many years as a museum. It is now in such bad repair that it is in danger of total destruction. It has been closed to the public for safety reasons, and its future is in doubt. When the World Blind Union was established in 1984, it assumed responsibility for the upkeep and operation of the Louis Braille Museum, but there has never been enough money. We of the National Federation of the Blind have made contributions from time to time, and so have a few others from here and there throughout the world. Mostly, however, people have simply debated and tried to assess blame. At the Melbourne meeting we were told that the Louis Braille Committee of the World Blind Union and the French organizations of the blind had recently held discussions with the mayor of Coupvray and that an architect had been employed to make plans and get cost estimates. We were further told that approximately $110,000 is needed to make permanent repairs to the Louis Braille home. This would not be simply a patch job but a thorough renovation. We were told that the mayor of Coupvray has said that he will find $55,000 if somebody else will provide the other $55,000. At the conclusion of the report, the usual debating and finger-pointing began. It seemed clear that no conclusive action would be taken and that the Louis Braille home would likely be allowed to continue to deteriorate. Feeling that we not only had an obligation to the memory of Louis Braille but also to the blind of future generations, I could not remain silent. Trusting that the blind of the United States would back me, I said that if the facts were as reported, I would go home and try to raise the $55,000 to match the pledge of the mayor of Coupvray. In fact, I said I would try to find somewhat more than $55,000 if the estimates proved low. Although there was general approval, even this proposal brought a certain amount of wrangling. Nevertheless, it was agreed (with one negative vote being cast) that I should make the effort. I am now in the process of finalizing the matter, and I hope that the blind and our friends throughout the United States will rise to the challenge. I invite local and state affiliates of the Federation, individual blind persons, and friends of blind persons to make contributions to this cause if they wish. Donations should be sent to the National Federation of the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. Checks should be made payable to the National Federation of the Blind, and an accompanying letter should indicate the purpose of the contribution. Donations may also be made by credit card by calling (410) 659-9314. Obviously such contributions should be in addition to what individuals and affiliates already intend to give. Before talking about the agencies doing work with the blind in Australia, I should probably give a few background facts to put matters in perspective. Australia has about 17,000,000 people. Most of them live in cities along the southern and eastern coasts. Some live in cities along the northern coast, and a few live along the western coast. Only a scattering live inland. The country is divided into six states, the most populous being New South Wales, with Sydney as its capital. Victoria (with Melbourne as its capital) is the second most populous state, having something over 4,000,000. Australia's monetary unit is the dollar. One American dollar is worth about a dollar and thirty-two cents in Australian money. They have less paper and more coins than we do. There are both one-dollar and two-dollar coins, and no paper until you get to a five-dollar bill. Two major agencies for the blind headquarter in Melbourne. They are the Association for the Blind and the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind (RVIB). Mrs. Jernigan and I met with John Cook, the executive director of the Association for the Blind, and we visited the Association's library. A number of blind people told us that the Association regards itself as somewhat of a rival of RVIB and that it tends to cater to blind persons who are perhaps a little less in the mainstream than those who deal with RVIB. Be this as it may, Mr. Cook told us that his budget is about 15,000,000 U.S. dollars per year. The Association has a Braille library and a library of two-track regular speed cassette recordings. It does not provide tape players to the borrowers. The Association has one service both worthwhile and unique which I had occasion to use. It operates a radio station (call letters 3RPH) on the regular AM band. This station operates twenty-four hours a day seven days a week and has good programming: newspapers, books, special features, and some of the broadcasts from the BBC. The reading is done by volunteers, and they are well-trained and do a good job. Mr. Cook said that there was originally an FM station devoted to programming for the blind and that a number of AM broadcasters thought it would have more commercial value than the stations they owned. Therefore, a deal was worked out. AM station operators were permitted to bid for the FM channel used by the blind, and the successful bidder was given the FM license. In turn, the blind were given an AM frequency and certain operating funds. Yes, I know it sounds strange, but that's what Mr. Cook told me--and I am certainly glad the station was there. Mr. Cook told me that the Association also operates a dial- up newspaper for the blind. He said that it started in September of 1993, that annual subscriptions cost about $100, and that there are about 100 blind subscribers. I used a regular touch tone phone and called the newsline. The volunteer readers seemed to be doing a good job. By pressing different numbers I could select what part of the newspaper I wanted to read and could scan forward and backward. The volunteers put the newspaper on tape, which is then handled by a computer to interact with the telephone calls--much in the same way, I believe, that New Mexico and the NFB of California are doing. Mr. Cook further told me that the association operates nursing homes, day centers, low-vision centers, and telephone peer-group conversations and counseling. I did not see any of these programs in action, so I have only a general notion of their functioning and effectiveness. Since the WBU officers and executive committee meetings were held at the RVIB facilities, I met quite a number of the staff, including Peter Evans, the executive director. Mr. Evans was cordial and responsive. RVIB also has a library, but unlike the one operated by the Association for the Blind, it distributes four-track slow-speed cassettes and provides cassette players. RVIB has a Braille library, but it is quite limited. New South Wales and RVIB plan to join together to create a national library for Australia, which would apparently distribute both Braille and recorded material throughout the continent. RVIB has a newspaper service for the blind, too. It is distributed on cassette and consists of regional or suburban newspapers. I gather that for the most part these are weeklies, thus making time not such a critical factor. As head of employment services for RVIB, David Blyth holds the highest position of any blind person employed by the agency. He is in charge of two workshops, one for persons whose primary problem is blindness, and one for persons with additional problems. He told me that some eighty people work in the shops. I was told that wages for the shop workers range from $160 per week for the slowest to $250 per week for the best. These wages should be viewed in the context of the pay received by other Australian workers. There is a governmentally created industrial commission, which establishes minimum wages for all Australian workers who are paid wages or salaries. The minimum (called an "award wage") varies with the classification of the employee. The lowest award wage is $280 per week. Thus, as in the United States, shop workers do not get the minimum wage. However, Australia does have a universal "pension" for the blind, which is not subject to a means test. The pension has been in existence since early in the century but was only freed from the means test in 1975. No other disability group has this benefit. I was told that the pension for the blind is $160 per week for a single person and $120 per week for a married person. If two blind people marry, each receives $120 per week. Presumably if they live together unmarried, each will continue to receive $160 per week, which leads to the conclusion that living in sin is rewarded and marriage discouraged. This is no different, however, from some of the Social Security programs in the U.S. Let me be sure I am making my meaning clear about the nature of the pension. Whether rich or poor, young or old, employed or unemployed, retired or otherwise, each and every blind person in Australia is entitled to a pension regardless of any other income or circumstance. If shop workers complain (as many doubtless do) that they are not being paid the minimum wage, the government can (and doubtless does) reply that when the wages of a shop worker are added to his or her pension, more than the minimum award wage is being received. As part of RVIB's employment services, David Blyth does more than supervise the workshops. He has programs for both industrial and professional training and placement. The training programs are coordinated with the activities of the workshops. Incidentally, a brochure published by RVIB says that the shops do packaging, mop manufacturing, and production of wood products. RVIB runs a school for the blind. Formerly it was for residential students, whose primary problem was blindness. Now, students are mainly housed in foster homes and mostly have multiple handicaps. The RVIB gets its money from the sale of workshop products, from private fund-raising, and from the government--with the largest part coming from the government. Apparently these government funds are not direct appropriations but grants and contracts. The total budget is about 13,000,000 Australian dollars per year. As I review my summary of the activities of the RVIB, I see that I have failed to mention that the organization sells and distributes aids and appliances for the blind. As to contacts with individual blind persons, I should begin by saying that the National Federation of Blind Citizens of Australia is the largest and most active consumer group in the country. When I worked in California in the 1950's, Hugh Jeffreys visited Dr. tenBroek in Berkeley to talk about establishing an organization of the blind. I worked with Hugh on organizational details such as what kind of constitution and by-laws should be written and the qualifications of members. I was pleased to see Hugh again when I was in Melbourne. I met him and a number of other Federation members and leaders one night at a barbecue held at RVIB for the WBU visitors. Mrs. Jernigan and I had dinner one evening at the home of Martin and Helen Stewart. Martin works in the shop and is head of the union. The shop workers' union is part of the trade union system in the country. I urged Martin to become more active in the National Federation of Blind Citizens of Australia, pointing out to him that the shop workers union can never be as strong as the total body of the Federation and that the trade union movement will never make the problems of the blind a prime focus. The exchange was spirited and friendly, but I am not sure how far I got. Incidentally, Helen (who is sighted) drives a street car, which is called a tram. The Stewarts have an adorable, active baby and seem to be a happy, productive working couple. They were excellent hosts, and we became friends. Also under the heading of contacts with blind persons, I should mention that Mrs. Jernigan and I had dinner and spent an evening at the home of David Blyth, where we not only enjoyed the company of David but also that of his wife Jessie and their son, David, Jr. The Blyths went out of their way to make our stay in Australia comfortable and pleasant. We had become acquainted with David, Jr., earlier when he came to the United States to attend a Federation convention with his father. At the Blyths' home we sat in the back yard in summer weather, admired the lemon tree, and picked plums. Let me move now to miscellaneous activities, which might be called extracurricular. As I have already said, it was summer, a sharp contrast with the sub-zero temperatures we had left in Baltimore. One afternoon it got to 105 degrees. We took a day before the formal meetings began and drove out into the country, with Jessie Blyth and David, Jr., serving as our guides and companions. First we went to a wildlife preserve, and I was able to touch the animals. As we went in, we were given bread to feed the kangaroos, and they were eager to have it. The kangaroo with whom I became most intimately acquainted was a little more than waist high. It was a very courteous kangaroo. While it was eating bread from my hand, one of its teeth touched me. But the kangaroo didn't bite. It simply shifted a little and kept coming after the bread. When it thought the pieces of bread were too large, it took them in its front feet (which look like little hands), broke them into smaller bits, and then ate them. Just before we met the kangaroo, we saw a man hauling a wombat in a wheelbarrow. Mrs. Jernigan asked if the animal was sick, but the man said that he was simply transporting it to a new location, which led me to observe that the wombat has it made. Humans work to feed it, and they haul it around when it needs to go somewhere. All it has to do is relax and take it easy. I petted the wombat, and it felt somewhat like the pigs we used to have on the farm. I didn't think the wombat would bite me, but I kept my hand just at the back of its head so that I could turn with it when it moved. Now and again it raised up, looked around, stretched luxuriously, and settled down again. It seemed to have a pretty good life. I was also able to examine and pet a koala bear. It was being held by one of the game preserve employees, and it seemed to enjoy being petted. Just as a precaution, I kept my hand at the back of its head, too. We were told some interesting things about the animals. The koala is very picky about its eating. The game preserve employees go out and cut the tenderest branches from the eucalyptus trees and bring them to the koala. They say that it rejects about ninety-five percent of what they bring and eats only part of the rest. It sleeps nine or ten hours a day, eats for about four hours, and rests most of the remainder of the time. It, too, has a pretty good life. As one of the employees said, "I have to work hard to feed that bear." We learned that the koala and the wombat originally came from the same stock. The koala took to the trees, and the wombat moved into burroughs under ground. There were also ostriches and emus. I certainly didn't pet (or try to pet) either of them. The emu has a long sharp beak and kept sneaking up behind me and trying to get the kangaroo's bread. I also had the chance to hear magpies, and I now know what it means when somebody is accused of chattering like a magpie. When we left the game preserve, we went to the Seppelt Winery at Great Western, almost a hundred miles northwest of Melbourne. They took us twenty-five feet underground to a network of tunnels cut into granite. These tunnels, which are said to be the most extensive network of underground wine cellars in the southern hemisphere, were dug (probably with convict labor) during the middle of the last century. They contain millions of bottles of wine. It was quite an experience. The main tunnels are fairly wide, with branching corridors of ten or twelve feet in width running for miles in all directions. We walked down the center, and on both sides were endless stacks of bottles in layers on top of each other four to six feet high. The guide said we should not touch anything, but I interpreted his injunction liberally. Mrs. Jernigan and I drifted toward the back of the group and let everybody get around a corner. Then I made an examination, which I felt sure the management would have wanted me to do if the question had arisen. The temperature in the tunnels is constant year-round, about fifty-five degrees. At the end of one of the side tunnels there is a good sized room, which would hold thirty people or so. It is the place where the winery formerly stored its most valuable brandy, but it has now been converted into an ultra swank private restaurant, where occasional VIP dinners are served. It is called the Brandy-Nook. Mrs. Jernigan, who thinks about such things, wondered whether the women in their fancy dresses would get cold. When we came upstairs to the winery showroom, we were offered tastings and examined various sale items. Among other things, we found some exquisite hand-blown wine glasses. I had never seen anything like them. They were called port pipes because of the little stem on the side through which the wine is to be sipped. Needless to say, we bought some of them and now proudly display them. While we were in Melbourne, we found time to visit grocery and department stores to compare prices and merchandise. On one such occasion in a large department store, the salesperson was especially polite and helpful. She walked all the way across the store with us to more than one location to try to help us find a given item. Mrs. Jernigan said that we would not find a salesperson in the U.S. who would be so accommodating, but I suggested to her that human nature being what it is, you probably would. The salesperson would not likely help a native but might very well bend over backward to accommodate a foreigner. Our Australian hosts confirmed this by saying that they rarely get such service. We went to a music store and found what we were told were typical Australian songs. Many of you doubtless heard one of them on a recent presidential release, "Fry Me Kangaroo Brown." There may be other selections that are more typical (and we bought some of them), but I doubt that any of them are more fun than "Fry Me Kangaroo Brown." Apropos of nothing I learned a new expression while I was in Australia. I have often heard people advised to put their "best foot forward," but I have never heard the expression, "He has been on his back foot lately." Prince Charles was visiting Melbourne while we were there, and he was taking quite a beating from some of the newspapers. One of them said, "He's been on his back foot lately." It wasn't meant to be complimentary. Australia was an unforgettable experience. We left on February 2 and came back through Hawaii, where we attended the state convention. Enroute from Melbourne to Hawaii we crossed the international date line, which meant that we arrived in Hawaii before we left Melbourne. So with jet lag and scrambled days, we flew home and stepped back into the snow and cold. [PHOTO--Arne Husveg seated at table wearing earphone for interpreting device. CAPTION--Arne Husveg, President of the European Region of the World Blind Union.] TALK POOR BY DAY; LIVE RICH BY NIGHT by Kenneth Jernigan One of the headlines of the London Times for Sunday, August 15, 1993, reads as follows: "Talk Poor by Day; Live Rich by Night: The Corrupt Heart of the UN Bureaucracy." Developments at the meeting of the World Blind Union Executive Committee in Melbourne in late January of this year make the London Times headline and accompanying article of interest to Monitor readers. The web of events is complicated and thought-provoking. A number of years ago (I think it may have been in London in 1989) Arne Husveg, president of the European region of the World Blind Union, talked to the WBU officers about a new way to raise money for the organization. He brought with him to the meeting one Hans Hoegh, his fellow countryman from Norway. Mr. Hoegh was billed as a UN functionary of some importance. He was to be instrumental in establishing an organization called the International Disability Foundation (IDF), which would raise money and do other good things for people with disabilities, including the blind. Mr. Hoegh assured us that his IDF would have strong support from the UN and would be backed by UN Secretary General Javier P‚rez de Cu‚llar. He also implied that the World Blind Union had better get with it and get on board. Otherwise, it would have a hard time raising money and would get short shrift from the UN. Some of us said that we were concerned about having the WBU submerge itself in the general melting pot of the generic disability movement, but we were silenced by promises of money and threats of not being recognized by the UN. We left that London meeting with visions of sugarplums dancing in our heads and with glowing assurances that the ties between the World Blind Union and the proposed IDF would constantly strengthen and result in fame and fortune. In Melbourne this January the drumfire continued. With the North America/Caribbean delegates standing alone and voting no, Mr. Husveg carried the day and held high the banner of Hans Hoegh and his International Disability Foundation. As reported in the previous article, the WBU Executive Committee decided (with certain reservations) to move its headquarters into Mr. Hoegh's International Disability Center in The Hague and to accept money from the International Disability Foundation. Apparently Mr. Hoegh, who is now secretary general of the IDF, is still headquartering in Geneva, Switzerland, until a place is prepared for him at The Hague in the Netherlands. So why do I bring all of this up since much of it was mentioned in the preceding article? Well, there have been subsequent developments. To begin with, I have now read the article which appeared in the London Times for August 15 of last year, the headline of which I quoted earlier. Here is part of that article: Neelam Merani is living high off the hog. The 52- year-old United Nations official spends his days relaxing on the sun-drenched terrace of his luxury apartment in Geneva, overlooking the city's lake. At night he and his Swiss wife, Esther, do the round of elegant parties on the UN's international cocktail circuit. The hundred thousand pound (at least 150,000 U.S. dollar) salary that supports the Meranis' comfortable lifestyle includes a special allowance to cover the high cost of living in the Swiss city. Merani no longer works, but his salary continues to be paid out of UN funds. Two years ago Merani (an Indian-born UN career official, who joined the organization in London in 1964) was moved from his position as head of a UN campaign to raise global awareness of natural disasters. Grandly titled the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), the project was part of the UN's refugee programme. But a year after its launch in 1990, the IDNDR was dubbed the "disaster decade" by critics, who accused its secretariat of waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency. In one year alone the campaign spent half its 1 million pound income on salaries and staff travel. Merani was blamed, he says unfairly, for the failure. Some in the UN unkindly nicknamed him the "master of disaster." He was moved sideways to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which studies weather patterns. Later he was told to go home on "special leave" and wait further orders. Although he still lists his occupation in the Geneva directory as "UN functionnaire," he has not been asked to lift a finger for the UN since. Merani's bosses at UN headquarters in Geneva decline to discuss his case. They have drawn a veil over his existence. They say he has "left" the UN and is no longer on its payroll. But Merani insists he is still being paid. Merani is one of at least 39 UN staff--15 professionals and 24 general service employees--who are retained on full salary without having a real job. Officially known as supernumeraries, they cost the taxpayers and donors who fund the UN an estimated 2 million pounds a year. Critics say Merani's position and that of other supernumeraries, nicknamed "desk warmers," demonstrate how millions of pounds that should be earmarked for relief supplies and peacekeeping efforts are spent instead supporting a vast and uncontrolled bureaucracy. Dick Thornburgh, a former American attorney- general, appointed last year to root out waste in the UN, said: "There are a number of senior people who have high positions and no assignment and yet there is no capability to terminate these people's jobs." Internal audit reports reveal an alarming pattern of abuse, mismanagement, and greed, which has become endemic in the organization. In the last two-year period alone, 540 million pounds have been squandered, one former senior UN official said. Money which the public might assume was destined for the needy in drought-stricken or war-torn areas has instead been spent on projects that have nothing to do with aid or peacekeeping. At a time when the organization is appealing to member countries and the public for tens of millions of pounds in voluntary donations, senior UN officials continue to enjoy generous benefits, perks, and job- for-life expectations that would never be tolerated outside. The hub of the UN's international operations, and the root of most of its problems, is a monolithic 38- story office complex overlooking the East River in Manhattan, New York. Here, 14,000 permanent staff are attached to the UN Secretariat and its dependencies. Their job is to service the principal UN organs--the general assembly, the security council secretariat, and the economic and social council--which shape UN policies and administer its programmes. When it was founded in 1945 to promote a new world order after the second world war, the UN employed just 1,500 people. Yet, 48 years later it has become a bureaucracy run wild, employing more than 51,600 people internationally with a further 9,600 consultants employed by its agencies. Total spending by the UN for the two years ending in 1991 has mushroomed to nearly 10 billion pounds. Facilities at the UN's headquarters reflect the lavish lifestyles of many of its senior officials. They include a gourmet restaurant, an expensively furnished bar, and a lounge exclusively reserved for UN delegates. There is even a meditation room. Alan Keyes, a UN assistant secretary until 1987, was overruled in his objections to the installation of expensive heating equipment in the underground garage. "I thought it was a waste of money to worry about keeping cars warm when the people we are meant to be looking after could not even afford cars." Some of the worst losses, according to the UN's own audit reports, are in programmes designed to help the most disadvantaged people.... One of the worst examples of abuse followed the decision by P‚rez de Cu‚llar in April 1988 to appoint Hans Hoegh, a one-time Norwegian florist, as his special representative to raise funds for the promotion of the UN Decade of Disabled Persons. Hoegh's office spent 1 million pounds in two and a half years on "running expenses." The UN's own board of auditors stated: "No substantial funds have been raised for projects under the auspices of the United Nations. The objective ... was not met."... This is what the London Times reported last August, and I want to make perfectly clear what I am saying and what I am not saying. Although I have felt uneasy about Hans Hoegh and his operation from the beginning, I cannot prove that there is anything wrong with what he is doing or the way he is conducting himself. During the Melbourne discussions I asked Mr. Husveg whether Mr. Hoegh was being paid (or would be paid) for his work as secretary general of the International Disability Foundation-- and Mr. Husveg said no. The reason I asked the question was because I had been informed that Mr. Hoegh was trying to get a high salary (probably $100,000 a year) to do similar work for another disability organization and that he had been rebuffed by that organization. I do not know whether this is true, but I was given the information by a person whose integrity and truthfulness I respect. I have no evidence that would contradict Mr. Husveg's statement that Mr. Hoegh is receiving no salary. I am simply uneasy about the entire relationship between the World Blind Union and the IDF, especially the danger that the interests of the blind will be lost in the giant melting pot of the overall disability stew. Moreover, I am skeptical about Mr. Hoegh's ability to raise funds and about his standing in the international community. I am also troubled by the fact that Mr. P‚rez de Cu‚llar as Secretary General of the United Nations appointed Mr. Hoegh to a UN PR and fundraising position that was not successful--and then, after leaving his UN post as Secretary General, accepted the presidency of Mr. Hoegh's International Disability Foundation, Mr. Hoegh having also by that time been separated from UN service. Both Mr. P‚rez de Cu‚llar and Mr. Hoegh were high-paid officials of the UN. Both are now out. Who in reality set up the IDF deal, and for what purpose? Who brought the other on board--and why? For that matter, how many other former UN employees are looking for refuge in the International Disability Foundation? You will meet one of them (Mr. John Strome) later in this article. Is either Mr. P‚rez de Cu‚llar or Mr. Hoegh, or both of them, being paid? Probably not. Mr. Husveg says Mr. Hoegh is not. Nevertheless, I am still troubled. Apparently there are others who are also troubled. Early in January of this year Mr. Hoegh sent what seems to be a form letter, with appropriate variations, to a number of governments. The one which was sent to Canada reads as follows: Geneva, Switzerland Dear Minister: On behalf of our President, Mr. Javier P‚rez de Cu‚llar, we ask your consideration of the Government of Canada's assistance in a most important and constructive international initiative. Having reached a vital stage in our development progress, we request a Grant from the Government of Canada in the amount of 90,000 Dutch Guilders ($60,700 Cdn Approx) to be applied toward the salary and relocation costs of a Canadian citizen, Mr. J. A. John Strome. As you may know, Mr. Strome, after finishing his appointment with the United Nations Office in Vienna, has worked with us as a Consultant and has extensive knowledge of this initiative from its earliest conception. Mr. Strome would be available to take up this very important position of Centre Coordinator as of 1 February 1994. Enclosed is a letter of support from the City of The Hague regarding the nomination of Mr. Strome for the position of Centre Coordinator. Also enclosed, as background information, are materials pertinent to the development, activities, and progress of the International Disability Foundation. Your very earliest response indication would be greatly appreciated. Yours sincerely, Hans Hoegh Secretary General The International Disability Foundation The response of the Canadian government (sent by fax) is instructive. Here it is: Ontario, Canada January 28, 1994 Dear Hans: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1994, regarding the establishment of an International Disability Centre in the City of The Hague. As you know, Canada has a long history of support and involvement in issues of concern to people with disabilities. We have participated in a number of international initiatives and continue to encourage attention to disability questions through many international forums. Canada wants to meet contemporary economic and social challenges in a responsive yet proactive manner. One exemplary initiative is our national comprehensive review of social policies and programs. This is a major undertaking which includes income support systems, training, and employment programs. Services which impact people with disabilities are an important part of this review, and they are a special consideration for our attention. With this in mind, I must advise that it is premature and probably pre-emptive to identify the International Disability Centre as a priority project for us. Of course, we are concerned about partnerships and international cooperation on disability questions, but we are in no position to make any commitments beyond initiatives already underway. Now more than ever, our government must identify cost-effective ways and means of developing its international disability agenda. We realize the importance of sharing experience and expertise over the coming year, and wish you well in the work of the International Disability Centre, as well as the International Disability Foundation. The employment status of John Strome, as raised in your note, is of concern to us. Certainly, John's contribution and dedication to persons with disabilities, in Canada and abroad, is well recognized and we do appreciate your collaboration in this regard. Your consideration in ensuring John's continued contribution to the work of the IDF will be appreciated. Yours sincerely, Nancy Lawand Executive Director Status of Disabled Persons Section Government of Canada This is what the Canadian government said, and apparently John Strome immediately felt the bite. He complained that his repatriation expenses (presumably the UN money earmarked to bring him home after his tour of UN duty) was no longer available since it had been used by Hoegh's IDF to bring him to Switzerland for IDF employment, for which Canada was expected to foot the bill. He spoke of what he called "late-arising internal circumstances," which probably meant Canada's unwillingness to pay the tab and Hoegh's resulting embarassment and pique. Under date of January 28, 1994, (the very date of Ms. Lawand's faxed letter to Hans Hoegh) Mr. Strome sent the following telefax: URGENT TO: Skip Brooks Status of Disabled Persons Secretariat Hull Quebec, Canada Urgent I speak with you later today (after 13:30 hours your time). I can be reached at home (+41 22 788- 6600). Due to late-arising internal circumstances, employer not reimbursing my monies for January nor considering my repatriation expenses which they used from UN to bring me here. Now stuck in Geneva--broke, hungry, and needing advice. Kindest regards, John Strome Hot on the heels of the Strome communication came a fax (curt and brief) from Hans Hoegh. Here it is: Geneva, Switzerland February 1, 1994 To: Mrs. Nancy Lawand From: Hans Hoegh (International Disability Centre, The Hague) Dear Nancy: Many thanks for your fax of 28 January 1994. As you know, John Strome's contract with the International Disability Foundation expired 31 December 1993. We prolonged it for one month waiting for your answer. As it was made clear right from the beginning, the International Disability Foundation has no financial resources to ensure John's employment in The Hague. Yours sincerely, Hans Hoegh Secretary General What is one to make of all these charges, communications, maneuverings, and pleadings? I don't know--but I do know this: I for one hope that the World Blind Union will rethink its contemplated involvement with Hans Hoegh and his International Disability Foundation. His behavior and record speak for themselves. There are troubles enough in the world without going out and trying to find more.