Julie Bishop is the only UN Special Envoy on Myanmar to conceal her financial interests from public

The United Nations and Julie Bishop have denied requests for the release of the Special Envoy’s financial interest statement amid a growing conflict of interest controversy

UN Special Envoy on Myanmar Julie Bishop recently made a “peace and dialogue” trip to Myanmar  as the country reels from a deadly 7.7-magnitude earthquake that struck on March 28.

But her mandate risks being overshadowed by an escalating crisis over her integrity.

Last month, 290 civil society organisations sent an open letter to the UN calling for an investigation over Bishop’s role in a rare earths mining company linked to the Chinese government.

The UN is standing by Bishop’s conduct, with a spokesperson saying that the Secretary-General has “full confidence” in his Special Envoy.

Myanmar Now has investigated how the UN has handled the conflict of interest allegations, reviewing its financial disclosure process and seeking comment from anti-corruption experts.

Our findings point to systemic failures by the UN that have allowed Bishop to avoid the public disclosure of her assets and outside activities, which is unprecedented for a Special Envoy on Myanmar.

Bishop told Myanmar Now: “I have complied with all obligations regarding declarations of interests as required by the UN. I have not undertaken, nor will I, any activities that conflict with my responsibilities as Special Envoy.”

Is there a conflict of interest?

The UN Ethics Office states a conflict of interest occurs when a staff member’s private interests interfere or are seen to interfere with the “interests of the UN,” which makes it difficult for staff to fulfil their duties impartially. To the UN, perception matters.

UN Staff Regulations also state that remuneration from outside sources can be approved by the Secretary-General “only in exceptional cases” and only when acceptance would not cause embarrassment to the UN and would not be incompatible with a staff member’s civil servant status.

Conflict of interest concerns were first raised when activist group Justice For Myanmar discovered Bishop’s position as Strategic Advisor to the board of the Australian mining company Energy Transition Minerals (ETM) for the controversial Kvanefjeld mining project in Greenland.

The Chinese partially state-owned company Shenghe Resources is a key partner of ETM, owns 8% of the company, has anti-dilution rights capped at 19.9% and a seat on the company’s board. Shenghe has also negotiated rights to acquire up to 60% of the Kvanefjeld project, according to reporting by the Saturday Paper. It means the Chinese government has apparent influence over the company and potentially, Julie Bishop’s remuneration at ETM.

China is also a major supplier of arms to the Myanmar military and has provided crucial political support to the junta. China’s actions conflict with the UN’s interests to “prevent the flow of arms into Myanmar” and “uphold democratic institutions and processes,” as seen in recent Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

Bishop’s dual roles as Special Envoy on Myanmar and advisor to a Chinese-linked mining company therefore create a serious perceived conflict of interest.

When confronted, Bishop denied there was a conflict of interest and said the revelations were “unsubstantiated allegations or are misleading by omission.”

“My private consulting firm, Julie Bishop and Partners (JBP), has been engaged by a publicly-listed Australian mining company to provide geo-strategic advice pertaining to Greenland. Neither I nor JBP has any fiduciary, executive or management role in the company, nor do we provide legal, financial or corporate advice. There is no link between me or JBP and the Chinese Government or the Myanmar military—as you well know,” she stated by email.

When asked whether she disputed the facts that the Chinese government had influence over Shenghe Resources through its ownership, and that Shenghe Resources had influence over ETM through its investment and seat on the board, she did not respond.

Dr. Tilman Hoppe, an international expert on financial disclosure, observes: “Without knowing the details of ongoing cases, in general, for a high-level UN representative on Myanmar, a private financial interest influenced by China would usually result in a conflict of interest by United Nations integrity standards. Anything else would come as a surprise and require an explanation.”

But Farhan Aziz Haz, spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General, would not provide an explanation for the UN’s determination that Bishop’s ETM appointment was not against the UN’s interests under Staff Regulations. Instead, he reiterated that Bishop is bound by UN rules and regulations.

“This requires upholding the highest standards of integrity, including regarding any potential conflicts of interest. In this regard, the Special Envoy keeps the Organisation apprised of her outside activities,” Haz said.

Pat Poitevin, an anti-corruption, ethics and compliance expert and the co-founder of the Canadian Centre of Excellence for Anti-Corruption, told Myanmar Now that while he cannot draw conclusions about Julie Bishop without an official mandate or thoroughly reviewing the case file, civil society concerns appear credible and are serious enough to warrant an independent investigation under the UN’s own standards, which require the avoidance of actual, potential, and perceived conflicts of interest.

“The key issue here is not only whether an actual conflict exists, but whether there is a potential or perceived conflict that may undermine trust, impartiality, or confidence in the UN’s engagement in Myanmar. The UN’s own regulations emphasise that staff must avoid even the appearance of a conflict that could damage its reputation. In roles of high authority and influence, officials are accountable not only for breaches of law or policy, but also for perceived breaches that can erode stakeholder trust. This aligns with the core principles of the UN’s Standards of Conduct, the Charter, and Staff Regulations.”

Poitevin said that an investigation would help maintain the credibility and impartiality of the UN’s mission in Myanmar. “Not all wrongdoing is codified in law—integrity also demands accountability and transparency in the face of perceived wrongdoings, especially when public confidence and institutional trust are at stake.”

Lack of financial disclosure ‘casts a shadow’ over Special Envoy

The UN’s response to questions over Bishop’s alleged conflicts of interest have been exacerbated by the organisation’s practice of not requiring senior staff to publicly disclose their assets and outside income, falling short of best practices and even the UN’s own guidance.

Under the Financial Disclosure Program of the UN Ethics Office, senior staff must complete an annual disclosure of outside interests, assets, liabilities and affiliations for themselves, their spouses and dependent children to prevent conflicts of interest among UN staff. Public disclosure is optional but encouraged by the UN Secretary-General, according to the program’s website, “as it assures the public and Member States that UN staff members—in the discharge of their official duties—will not be influenced by any consideration associated with their private interests.”

Bishop is the only Special Envoy on Myanmar who has not publicly released their financial disclosure and declaration of interest statement through the UN’s Financial Disclosure Program.

The UN Special Envoy on Myanmar position was established in 2018 and Julie Bishop’s two predecessors voluntarily disclosed their financial interests. A review of the UN Ethics website shows public disclosures from Noleen Heyzer, the second Special Envoy on Myanmar, appointed October 2021, and Christine Schraner Burgener, the first Special Envoy on Myanmar, appointed in April 2018.

Previously, the UN Secretary General had a Special Advisor on Myanmar, Vijay Nambiar, who publicly disclosed his financial interests. Nicholas Koumjian, Head of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, also continues to publicly disclose his financial interests.

Neither of the previous UN Special Envoy’s on Myanmar had outside activities, according to their financial disclosures, in contrast to Bishop’s numerous engagements outside the UN.

The UN Special Envoy on Myanmar is at the Under Secretary-General level and therefore has a gross annual pay of US$235,064, according to the latest UN salary scale. Bishop is not working full-time and is remunerated on a “when actually employed” basis, according to a spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General.

The UN denied requests from Myanmar Now for the release of Bishop’s financial disclosure form. UN spokesperson Farhan Aziz Haz stated that the forms are not made public “as a general rule” but can be voluntarily disclosed.

Bishop would not provide a list of outside engagements and assets when contacted by Myanmar Now, responding that she “complied with all obligations regarding declarations of interests as required by the UN.”

When asked by Myanmar Now why she is not participating in the UN’s public financial disclosure program, Bishop did not respond.

International expert on financial disclosure Dr Tilman Hoppe said that “the ultimate decision on whether there is a conflict of interest or not should not be made by the person perceived to be in such conflict, but by their supervisor. The reason why the supervisor believes there is no conflict of interest should be made public, at least when the officeholder concerned is high-level.”

Transparency International Australia CEO Clancy Moore said that the lack of financial disclosures related to the UN Special Envoy on Myanmar “casts a shadow on her role.”

“The real, or perceived, conflict of interest in her role with ETM might negatively impact people’s perceptions of her impartiality and integrity in the role.”

The UN’s practice of not mandating the disclosure of financial interests of senior staff contrasts with international standards in anti-corruption. For instance, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe recommends that rules for the public disclosure of assets, liabilities and income of senior officials should be introduced and enforced.

The Asian Development Bank also recommends making disclosures public to increase confidence and to give journalists and civil society a role in scrutinising the accuracy of disclosures. And a good practices guide on managing conflicts of interest in the public sector, prepared by the World Bank Group, the OECD and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, argues that making disclosure forms public acts as a deterrent and provides more opportunity for oversight and accountability.

The UN’s approach to public disclosure has been criticised for falling short of global best practices.

Anti-corruption, ethics and compliance expert Poitevin said, “institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, and European Commission require public disclosure of assets and interests for their senior leadership, recognising that transparency is essential to prevent even the perception of conflict. In today’s environment of heightened scrutiny, the UN should consider aligning its practices with these standards—particularly for high-profile envoys in politically sensitive roles.”

Moore of Transparency International Australia said public officials, including UN Special Envoys, should disclose their assets and interests as a rule so as to demonstrate transparency and accountability and build trust.

Dr Melanie O’Brien, Associate Professor of international law at the University of Western Australia and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, warned that Bishop’s decision not to disclose her financial interests could deepen mistrust.

“As we have observed in the United States with President Trump, voluntary disclosure rather than mandatory disclosure of financial interests means that powerful people with something to hide choose not to disclose their financial interest. If you don’t have anything to hide, why wouldn’t you disclose? It’s that simple,” she said.

Bishop is also embroiled in a serious conflict of interest row in her native Australia. As Chancellor of the Australian National University, payments made by the university to the firm of her former chief-of-staff and her employment of staff from her consulting firm in the university contributed to a no confidence vote by university staff.

When asked about this, Bishop said that she has “complied with all ANU disclosure requirements and the staffing arrangements for the Chancellor’s office provided by ANU are in line with previous Chancellors.” She added that she has the support and confidence of the ANU governing body and that only 17% of eligible staff voted.

However, the no-confidence vote was only open to members of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), not to all staff, and one of the three staff members elected to the ANU’s governing council resigned in protest at the university’s response.

Dr Lachlan Clohesy of the NTEU said, “with more than 800 participants, it is the largest vote of no confidence in an Australian university. More than 95% of voters voted that they had no confidence in the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor. We’re disappointed that ANU leadership continue to minimise and dismiss the views of staff.”

UN undermining trust among stakeholders

Trust in the UN is already low in Myanmar and the ongoing controversy over Julie Bishop’s role as Special Envoy provides further challenges over how the global body addresses the worsening crisis in the country.

The mandate of the UN Special Envoy on Myanmar is defined in UN General Assembly resolutions and involves “engagement and inclusive dialogue with all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, and affected populations.”

It is some of these very stakeholders that are raising the alarm.

Khin Ohmar, chair of the Myanmar human rights organisation Progressive Voice and a spokesperson for the open letter sent to the UN Secretary General and General Assembly, said Bishop’s conflict of interest undermines the UN’s peacebuilding mission.

“In the aftermath of the earthquake crisis, with the junta continuing its terror campaign against the people, the UN Special Envoy should be playing a central role in the global response… Instead, she’s clouded by conflicts of interest and has lost trust from a lot of the stakeholders she needs to be engaging with.”

While the UN has yet to respond to the 290 civil society organisations that sent the open letter, Bishop dismissed concerns in a comment to a LinkedIn post of the letter by Sayedul Karim, founder of the Rohingya Justice Initiative. “Your assumptions are baseless,” she wrote.

Dr Melanie O’Brien said that the UN needs to consider the security and sensitivity of the Special Envoy’s mandate. “The UN Secretary-General’s Envoy is tasked with meeting Rohingya communities and civil society, and such groups or individuals are unlikely to trust an Envoy with interests linked to China, given the connection between China and Myanmar. China is an authoritarian regime supporting another authoritarian regime in Myanmar. The Rohingya are already incredibly distrustful of authority figures and fearful of being sent back to a country where they are persecuted.”

Now, amid compounding humanitarian crises in Myanmar caused by the military coup and earthquake, the UN is facing a crisis of integrity in the country that shows no sign of abating.

---

Original post.