Lakhdar Brahimi is Chair of the Independent Panel on Safety and Security of UN Personnel and Premises. That is “a new panel that will look into attacks on United Nations offices,” prompted by the bombing of a United Nations facility last December, which killed 17 staff members. Warren Hoge, in his Times account notes that

In a letter to Mr. Ban, the staff union complained that it had played no role in setting up the panel, despite concerns that it had repeatedly voiced about protecting personnel, dating from the bombing of United Nations headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003. That blast killed 22 staff members, including the chief of the mission, Sergio Vieira de Mello.

The union said it was concerned that the Brahimi panel would not examine the circumstances behind the Algiers bombing “but rather be a global examination of security threats.”

It said, “We believe that without accountability, there is impunity,” and urged Mr. Ban “not to be complicit in a cover-up of what happened.”

The United Nations’ transcript of Brahimi’s press conference

contains three references to Sherlock Holmes, in each case Brahimi stressing that he doesn’t intend to place blame, that he’s not a policeman. The Algerians, according to Hoge, protested when the Secretary General formed the panel.

Perhaps it would also have been useful for him to emphasize another difference: that Sherlock Holmes was fictional and that he, and the panel, are not fictional.

See also “UN Staff Council calls on secretary-general to withdraw all UN staff from Iraq ,” IHT, August 7, 2007.

It appears – from our brief research – that, but for the United Nations itself mentioning it publicly, the staff union’s (formally known as the United Nations Staff Council

) position and letter might not have been made public. There’s no mention of it on their website.

If it’s possible to mollify Algeria – perhaps “appease” is the better word for a country which objects to scrutiny when diplomats are killed on its own soil – and to make United Nations employees feel that their safety is a real concern – that would be ideal. But if there’s a choice between the two? Without its staff, the United Nations is just a nice idea with some really nice buildings. It’s only a fraction of the staff operating in hazardous areas, but those assignments and their outcomes are critical, and doubtless have an effect on the UN’s credibility.