Ask Me Cartoon

UNICEF tech chief quits after Fox News inquiry

EXCLUSIVE: The newly appointed chief information officer of UNICEF has abruptly resigned from the job he officially took up at the beginning of January. His departure came days after Fox News raised questions about the selection process that had gotten him the post.
The UNICEF CIO, Paul van Essche resigned “for personal reasons,” a spokesman for the United Nations Children’s Fund told Fox News. “We wish him well in his future career.”
The quick exit is Van Essche’s second departure from a top U.N. info-tech post.
In August, 2011, he ended a three-year term as project director of a still unfinished computerized U.N. financial management system known as Umoja (Swahili for Unity), amid a growing chorus of criticism about the project’s extensive—and expensive-- difficulties and delays in execution.
Months after his departure from the Umoja position, the system that was touted as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to transform the U.N. was judged to be least $100 million over budget at $315 million, and two years behind its planned 2013 completion date, with the delay described as a “failure in management of the project” under the aegis of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
At the time, the U.N.’s chief financial oversight advisory committee declared that it was “deeply disturbed and dismayed by the apparent lack of awareness and foreknowledge in the Organization as to the actual status of the project, which, in its view, points to the inadequacy of the project governance, oversight and reporting arrangements.”
Most of Umoja’s many problems, the advisory committee declared, “could have been foreseen and avoided through proper project planning and prompt management action.”
Umoja is still incomplete. Its long-overdue starting date has been turned into a phased series of unveilings now scheduled to take place from 2016 to 2018. Its current cost is estimated to be $378, million—up from its most recent budget of $348 million, and last fall it was considered likely to run up a further tab that auditors declared was “still unknown.”
The UNICEF job that van Essche briefly held was advertised last June., and the fact that he had taken the job was announced on the website of his personal consultancy, Paul van Essche and Associates, in December. 
According to a UNICEF spokesperson, he was chosen for the position “through UNICEF’s standard, competitive procedures for recruitment of senior officials.” 
The selection process “included a competitive application, assessment by a panel and recommendation to the executive head” of UNICEF, Anthony Lake. The spokesperson did not reveal how many other candidates were considered in the final selection for the job.
Among the responsibilities van Essche was hired to fulfill was to “provide strategic leadership and overall direction to all Information and Communication Technology (ICT) activities in support of UNICEF’s programs, and “drive the continual transformation of the ICT function” at the organization.
According to the UNICEF spokesperson, “a senior UNICEF colleague has temporarily assumed the interim Director role until the position is filled.”
Fox News attempts to reach van Essche through his corporate website and colleagues in his consultancy were unavailing.
George Russell is editor-at-large of Fox News and can be found on Twitter: @GeorgeRussell or on Facebook.com/George Russell

House passes abortion bill after earlier stumble

As thousands of abortion foes surged through the city on their annual protest march to the Supreme Court, Republicans muscled legislation through the House on Thursday tightening federal restrictions on abortions. The vote came after internal divisions forced them into an embarrassing fumble of a similar bill.
Even as a White House veto threat all but ensured the bill would never become law, the House voted by a near party-line 242-179 to permanently bar federal funds for any abortion coverage. The measure would also block tax credits for many people and businesses buying abortion coverage under President Barack Obama's health care law.
GOP leaders pushed the measure to the House floor hours after abruptly abandoning another bill banning most late-term abortions because a rebellion led by female Republican lawmakers left them short of votes.
While that stumble underscored the challenges GOP leaders face in controlling their newly enlarged House majority, they were eager to act the same day that March for Life protesters streamed through town to protest the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
"I urge my colleagues to stand with the hundreds of thousands of people out on the Mall right now by voting for this bill," said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. "Stand up and commit to creating an America that values every life."
Democrats accused the GOP of an assault on women's freedom and painted Republicans as trying to placate the marchers not far from the Capitol.
"They certainly wanted to appeal, I would say pander, to that group," said Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill.
"Women's rights should not be theater, should not be drama," said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.
The approved bill would permanently ban the use of federal money for nearly all abortions -- a prohibition that's already in effect but which Congress must renew each year.
It would also go further. The bill would bar individuals and many employers from collecting tax credits for insurance plans covering abortion that they pay for privately and purchase through exchanges established under Obama's Affordable Care Act. It would also block the District of Columbia from using its money to cover abortions for lower-income women.
The House had approved the same measure last year but it went nowhere in the Senate, then run by Democrats. Its fate in this year's GOP-led Senate is uncertain.
In its veto message, the White House said, "The administration strongly opposes legislation that unnecessarily restricts women's reproductive freedom and consumers' private insurance options."
The action came the day of the annual March for Life protesting the Supreme Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion. It also came with GOP leaders eager to showcase the ability of the new Republican-led Congress to govern efficiently and avoid gridlock.
The bill that was postponed would have banned abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy but allow exemptions for some victims of rape or incest and in cases when a woman's life was in danger. GOP leaders ran into problems because some GOP women and other lawmakers objected that the rape and incest exemptions covered only women who had reported the crimes to authorities.
Those rebellious Republicans argued that that requirement put unfair pressure on women who had already suffered. A 2013 Justice Department report calculated that only 35 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to police.
Political pressures cut both ways. GOP leaders had resisted the awkwardness of postponing a high-profile abortion vote scheduled for the day of the anti-abortion march. But they didn't want to push anti-abortion legislation through the House that was opposed by GOP women, especially as the party tries appealing to more female voters ahead of the 2016 elections.
Yet when the leaders considered eliminating the requirement that rapes and incest be previously reported, they encountered objections from anti-abortion groups, Republican aides said. They chose not to anger that powerful GOP constituency.
A report Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, citing the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, estimated that about 10,000 abortions annually are performed 20 weeks or later into pregnancies. The budget office estimated that if the bill became law, three-fourths of those abortions would instead occur before the 20th week.

Colorado baker faces complaint for refusing anti-gay message on cake

DENVER –  A dispute over a cake in Colorado raises a new question about gay rights and religious freedom: If bakers can be fined for refusing to serve married gay couples, can they also be punished for declining to make a cake with anti-gay statements?
A baker in suburban Denver who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding is fighting a legal order requiring him to serve gay couples even though he argued that would violate his religious beliefs.
But now a separate case puts a twist in the debate over discrimination in public businesses, and it underscores the tensions that can arise when religious freedom intersects with a growing acceptance of gay couples.
Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver's Azucar Bakery, is facing a complaint from a customer alleging she discriminated against his religious beliefs.
According to Silva, the man who visited last year wanted a Bible-shaped cake, which she agreed to make. Just as they were getting ready to complete the order, Silva said the man showed her a piece of paper with hateful words about gays that he wanted written on the cake. He also wanted the cake to have two men holding hands and an X on top of them, Silva said.
She said she would make the cake, but declined to write his suggested messages on the cake, telling him she would give him icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words himself. Silva said the customer didn't want that.
"It's just horrible. It doesn't matter if, you know, if you're Catholic, or Jewish, or Christian, if I'm gay or not gay or whatever," said Silva, 40, adding that she has made cakes regularly for all religious occasions. "We should all be loving each other. I mean there's no reason to discriminate."
Discrimination complaints to Colorado's Civil Rights Division, which is reviewing the matter, are confidential. For that reason, Silva declined to share the correspondence she has received from state officials on the case. KUSA-TV reported the complainant is Bill Jack of Castle Rock, a bedroom community south of Denver.
In a statement to the television station, Jack said he believes he "was discriminated against by the bakery based on my creed."
"As a result, I filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Out of respect for the process, I will wait for the director to release his findings before making further comments."
Jack did not respond to emails from The Associated Press seeking comment. No one answered the door at the address listed for Jack in Castle Rock.
The case comes as Republicans in Colorado's Legislature talk about changing the state law requiring that businesses serve gays in the wake of a series of incidents where religious business owners rejected orders to celebrate gay weddings. Republican Sen. Kevin Lundberg said the new case shows a "clash of values" and argued Colorado's public accommodation law is not working.
"The state shouldn't come in and say to the individual businessman, 'You must violate your religious — and I'll say religious-slash-moral convictions. This baker (Silva), thought that was a violation of their moral convictions. The other baker, which we all know very well because of all the stories, clearly that was a violation of their religious convictions," Lundberg said.
But gay rights advocates say there is a significant difference in the cases. Silva refused to put specific words on a cake while Jack Phillips, the baker who turned away the gay couple, refused to make any wedding cake for them in principle.
"There's no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado.
Phillips' attorneys had argued in court that requiring him to prepare a gay marriage cake would be akin to forcing a black baker to prepare a cake with a white supremacist message. But administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer disagreed, writing that business owners can refuse a specific message, but not service.
"In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers' free speech right to refuse," administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said.
Phillips' attorney, Nicolle Martin, said she has sympathy for Silva, arguing she is in the same category as her client. "I absolutely support her right to decline," Martin said. "I support her right as an American to pick and choose the messages she will express."
Silva said she remains shaken up by the incident. "I really think I should be the one putting the complaint against him, because he has a very discriminating message," she said.

Death of Saudi King Abdullah brings uncertain new era for US in Middle East

The death of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah early Friday has launched an uncertain new era for U.S. officials to negotiate amid the spreading influence of Iran and the ongoing battle to roll back gains made by the Islamic State terror group in Iraq and Syria.
A former U.S. diplomat close to the Saudi royal family told Fox News Thursday that the death of the 90-year-old King, along with this week's collapse of the U.S.-supported government in Yemen, was a "worst-case scenario" because it removed another obstacle to Iran expanding its reach in the region. The former diplomat said that Tehran's influence could now be seen in four Middle Eastern capitals -- Sana'a in Yemen, as well as Baghdad, Damascus, and to a lesser extent, Beirut. 
Abdullah, a Sunni Arab, made one of the main priorities of his rule countering mainly Shiite Iran whenever it tried to make advances in the region. He also backed Sunni factions against Tehran's allies in several countries, but in Lebanon, for example, the policy failed to stop Iranian-backed Hezbollah from gaining the upper hand. And Tehran and Riyadh's colliding ambitions stoked proxy conflicts around the region that enflamed Sunni-Shiite hatreds — most notably and terribly in Syria's civil war, where the two countries backed opposing sides. Those conflicts in turn hiked Sunni militancy that returned to threaten Saudi Arabia.
With the death of Abdullah, decision-making in Riyadh is likely to be more cautious on issues like Iran and Syria, former U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross told the Wall Street Journal. 
Citing Saudi officials, the paper reports that King Abdullah became less fond of the U.S. in the final years of his reign. The king repeatedly pushed Obama to lend stronger backing to the rebels against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, against whom he bore a personal animus, and was reportedly furious when airstrikes threatened against Damascus by Obama in the summer of 2013 did not come to pass. 
The officials also said that the late king took a dim view of ongoing talks between the U.S. and Iran over the latter nation's nascent nuclear program, seeing it as a sign that Washington was more than willing to work behind its ally's back. 
King Abdullah's death may also open up a bigger power vacuum in Riyadh than first believed. His successor, 79-year-old half-brother Prince Salman, had recently taken on some of the ailing Abdullah's responsibilities. However, the Journal reports that U.S. officials do not consider him to be a strong or healthy ruler in his own right, which raises the possibility that others in the royal family could come to the forefront. 
The Journal reports that one of the first and biggest questions to face the Saudi king is what to do about the ongoing unrest in Yemen, where gains by Shiite Houthi rebels forced the resignation of the country's president and entire government Thursday. 
There is also the question of what to do about the ongoing U.S.-led bombing campaign against the Islamic State, better known as ISIS. The late King Abdullah was so fearful of the group's growing power that he committed Saudi airpower to strike the Sunni insurgency. 
Among the other decisions facing Salman is whether he will continue the country's ongoing strategy of increased levels of oil production. The country produced 9.6 million barrels a day in January, according to Platts, the energy information division of McGraw Hill. That's enough to satisfy 11 percent of global demand, despite a global price drop of nearly 60 percent since June. 
The price of U.S. crude was up 88 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $47.19 a barrel in after-hours trading Thursday.