VZCZCXRO4229
RR RUEHDU RUEHJO
DE RUEHSA #0392/01 0571300
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 261300Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1358
INFO RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 7609
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN 1672
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 9962
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0645

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 PRETORIA 000392 
 
SIPDIS 
 
IO/MPR - MATT GLOCKNER, IO/MPR - BRIAN HACKETT, USUN/MR - 
BRUCE RASHKOW, USUN/MR - CHERITH NORMAN ASAP 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/26/2020 
TAGS: PREL PGOV SF
SUBJECT: PRETORIA INTERVIEW WITH UN/OIOS CANDIDATE S.A.FAKIE 
 
REF: A. STATE 16709 
     ¶B. PRETORIA 385 
     ¶C. STATE 16301 
     ¶D. 09 PRETORIA 2385 
     ¶E. 09 STATE 117720 
 
Classified By: Dep. POL Counselor M.Seidenstricker for reasons 1.4 (b) 
and (d) 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (C) Mr. Shauket Allie Fakie, potential UK nominee for the 
position of head of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight 
Services (OIOS), said he was interested in the OIOS role and 
could work to arrange his availability to fill it.  His 
responses to Department interview questions (ref A) follow. 
Because of Mr. Fakie's heavy meeting schedule, and the short 
turnaround of the action request, the interview was conducted 
by telephone.  (Note: because ref A requested post to 
interview a U.K. nominee, poloff cleared the interview with 
the U.K. political section in Pretoria, which was unaware of 
the OIOS selection process.)  Please see ref D for post's 
background research on Fakie.  This is the first of ref A's 
two requested interviews.  End Summary. 
 
--------------- 
Interview Q & A 
--------------- 
 
¶2.  (C) Q: Are you interested in this job? 
 
A: Yes, I am interested.  I am very familiar with the unit, 
from my past work with the U.N.  When it came vacant five 
years ago, I believe I was shortlisted by the USA, but I was 
still Auditor General (AG) in South Africa, which I was 
unprepared to break.  The timing is better this time. 
 
 
¶3.  (C) Q: Are you available to serve a five-year, 
nonrenewable term beginning in July 2010? 
 
A: On availability, I think that is something we can 
negotiate.  I am currently working as an executive at MTN 
(mobile phone company), where I made a commitment of one to 
two years, starting a year ago -- so I have fulfilled that 
and could probably depart, as long as we found a timing that 
was not disruptive here. 
 
 
¶4.  (C) Q: What is your management philosophy? 
 
A: I have about five core principles to my philosophy. 
 
- First is integrity.  That is first and foremost. 
 
- Second is a culture of pride in service delivery, in the 
value that we add in our services. In an AG role there is 
lots of focus on compliance, on ticking the boxes.  My goal 
is to not just conduct an audit, but to go beyond the binary 
questions of yes and no, to add value. 
 
- Third is inclusiveness, an open-door policy.  I have always 
tried to be not autocratic, but democratic.  (Of course, at 
the end of the day I will take a stand when required.)  The 
U.N. also has a culture of inclusiveness and compromise. 
There are times when you simply must get things done, though, 
and then you must be the authority, if there is no time to 
consult. 
 
- Fourth, I lead by example.  I don't tell, but rather I 
demonstrate.  "Walk the talk," if you will. 
 
- The fifth is teamwork, and being a team player. 
 
- (Q: how have you found corporate work versus government 
service?) There are more parallels between government and the 
U.N. -- similar ethics and culture.  Corporate is very 
different, with a very different set of KPIs (key performance 
indicators), oriented around bottom-line results.  In the 
government sector there is greater balance, with more 
attention to services and value add. 
 
 
¶5.  (C) Q: Have you ever been confronted with a challenge to 
your independence, and how did you manage to maintain your 
 
PRETORIA 00000392  002 OF 003 
 
 
independence in the face of pressure? 
 
A: Whether as AG or external auditor, independence is core, 
it is sacrosanct to the profession and the audit function. 
As an external auditor, the lines between auditor and client 
are very distinct.  Within the government, it is a fine line, 
because you are internal to the organization you are 
auditing.  People look to you for guidance.  The pressure 
always arises, even in a corporate environment where 
performance bonuses depend on your assessments.  In the U.N. 
as well, there are country interests, and responses can be 
political on reviews.  I have taken a firm position, which is 
that reports must be factually correct -- meeting standards 
and quality control procedures.  People may criticize your 
judgments, but then you have the facts before you to protect 
you.  I am always willing to revisit those facts.  I have 
been challenged on my conclusions, but this has been my 
defense.  In South Africa, the AG is well protected, with its 
independence enshrined in the Constitution.  An AG must be 
professional, adhering to established standards -- but also 
practical, not blinded by his independence, and open to 
debate. 
 
On your request for an example: the highlight, and lowlight, 
of my term as AG was that I led an investigation of the arms 
deal.  (See ref D.)  The original report of 300 pages tabled 
in Parliament was written by me personally, and of course 
there was lots of political and personal and financial 
interest around it.  I was criticized from both ends -- from 
those who found it too tough, others not tough enough.  The 
process was very thorough, though, and I stand by the report. 
 On the audit side, as well, I have been criticized by many 
departments of government.  Officials have tried to persuade 
me that they can't fulfill tasks because of constraints 
they're under (such as lack of computers).  My response is 
that they must give their excuses to Parliament; my role is 
simply to document the outcomes I observe. 
 
In a U.N. context, one is always aware that one is doing this 
work based on the trust and confidence of member states. They 
expect that your work will be fact-based, ethical, and 
professional.  When the President summoned me for the AG 
appointment, I told him directly that I would be objective, 
and that if he expected anything else I would just go, 
without taking the job.  A single term, nonrenewable, is the 
best way, since AGs often soften at the end of their first 
terms if it is otherwise.  If I have respect within the U.N., 
it is because I am approachable, but firm on standards and 
decisions.  One takes off one's national hat of South Africa 
to serve 180 countries.  I told my staff that we would give 
no preferential access to any country, and even South Africa 
must take any issues to the UNGA like everyone else. 
 
(Q: How do member states try to pressure the OIOS?)  For its 
own credibility a country won't object openly.  It will do so 
more subtlely, by exerting influence on the Secretariat.  I 
have had differences between Audit and Secretariat on the 
crafting of reports.  Indeed, any U.N. work is often a 
reflection of the effectiveness of the Secretariat.  We don't 
audit policy, only its implementation -- but often the 
Secretariat is used to further an agenda.  I was part of an 
effort that produced an evaluation of the OIOS, that was 
quite critical.  Other countries have different views of its 
Qquite critical.  Other countries have different views of its 
role, and they may bring a political agenda vis-a-vis U.N. 
reform. 
 
 
¶6.  (C) Q: What do you consider to be your most significant 
professional accomplishment? 
 
A: I've been a chartered accountant in South Africa and 
Australia, working in the private sector before government -- 
so I have seen both ends.  I was a partner in an Australian 
auditing firm, and then here in South Africa was due to 
become a partner when I accepted the Deputy AG role, leading 
to AG.  I went into government shortly after 1994, because I 
wanted to play a role in the newly democratic South Africa, a 
role in the new government's accountability.  Later I was 
External Auditor to the U.N. and to the WHO and UNIDO. 
 
(Q: Which of these achievements gives you the most personal 
satisfaction?)  The first would be the AG position.  Having 
grown up under apartheid, this was the last thing I thought I 
could do when I was growing up as a non-European.  This was a 
chance to make a contribution to a new democracy, and to make 
a difference in my country.  Second would be the External 
Auditor to the U.N., competing in the international arena on 
 
PRETORIA 00000392  003 OF 003 
 
 
behalf of a country that was previously isolated.  I was 
surprised to learn that despite that long isolation, South 
Africa's audit profession was still highly respected.  (Q: 
like the cricket and rugby teams?)  Yes, precisely.  When we 
won the proposal for South Africa to be External Auditor, I 
used exactly that analogy in my public speeches. 
 
 
¶7.  (C) Q: What challenges will the next head of OIOS face, 
and what is your vision for the office? 
 
A: Formerly there was an issue of the OIOS credibility, and 
its reporting lines.  (The U.S. delegation sought my advice 
on this, which I shared with them.)  When the current 
incumbent came on, she needed to bring back that credibility. 
 The OIOS is a governance institution, but its credibility 
cannot be based on that fact alone, rather it must be 
grounded in the quality of its people, in their reliable 
work. That's one point. 
 
Second, the U.N. is itself deliberating over reform to be 
more relevant.  Equally the OIOS needs to align itself to the 
U.N. reform process.  (Note: here poloff misunderstood 
Fakie's reform reference, and asked a question about U.N. 
balance of power, whether he saw real prospects for change in 
that regard.  End Note.)  That aspect is a political debate 
and a policy matter, which I must stay away from as a 
professional.  The UNGA needs to make such a decision.  I was 
speaking of reform and alignment around member states' 
contributions, and the desire of their taxpayers that money 
be spent effectively.  That effectiveness is much more within 
the realm of the OIOS.  There never was a mechanism to 
determine program effectiveness until the initial reforms (in 
the early 2000s).  There is a big drive on program evaluation 
and monitoring.  Before, there was only information on 
spending, i.e. the inputs but not the outputs. 
 
There is also reform around peacekeeping -- how quickly and 
effectively peacekeepers can be deployed.  South Africa 
conducted peacekeeping audits.  What checks and balances are 
in place?  There is lots of waste and fraud.  There are 
particular problems around decommissioning, when equipment 
goes missing and so forth. 
 
That reminds me: you asked earlier about an instance of 
controversy.  The audit over the Oil for Food program is a 
good example.  That review was extremely sensitive 
politically.  This was in Iraq, so you can imagine the U.S. 
had a particular interest and wanted a particular outcome. 
 
(Q: your vision? What kind of OIOS would you like to leave?) 
I'd like to be seen as someone who built a credible OIOS.  It 
comes back to the individual in the end, who can build a 
team, who leaves a legacy of staff who are well trained, 
motivated, and principled, staff who remain behind even after 
you've gone.  As we said before, I'd want to continue to add 
value, rather than doing the bare minimum, because a better 
OIOS has an impact on improving the U.N. overall. 
GIPS