As
UN
Refuses to Account for $100 M, Ban Ki-Moon Doggle Alleged
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 10, 1pm -- On the $100
million of US Tax Equalization
Funds that are being “re-purposed” for use at the UN, Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky repeatedly told Inner
City Press this week to “ask the US State Department.”
While
Inner City
Press did
ask US Ambassador Susan Rice, it seemed strange for the UN
to refuse to provide information about its own plans and use of $100
million.
On February
10, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about a
statement by US Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick
Kennedy, that “In this case the United Nations notified the State
Department that it intended to use [TEF funds] for security
enhancement.”
Inner
City Press
asked Nesirky who in the UN told the State Department that the UN
intended to repurpose the $100 million in US funds: was it Capital
Master Plan director Michael Adlerstein? Department of Management
chief Angela Kane? Or Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself? Nesirky
would not
answer.
Inner City
Press asked if the $100 million will be paid to
the UN selected contractor Skanska, recently charged in New York City
with defrauding minority sub-contractor rules and involved in South
America in what is called the Skanska Scandal. Nesirky would not
answer.
Given that
the Capital Master Plan is ostensibly subject to UN General Assembly
oversight, with reports that purport to disclose cost overruns, Inner
City Press asked if this $100 million is anywhere in the UN budget
documents. Nesirky would not say.
Cutting
off the
questions, he said that this should be dealt with “off line” -
that is, not in the press briefings. But Inner City Press has
submitted a number of written questions to Nesirky's office that have
not been answered.
With Spokesman, without answers, Ban Ki-moon doggle?
Beyond the
above, there is unclarity about the
TEF. Inner City Press on February 9 asked in writing, with no
acknowledgment much less answer:
What
are
the sources of funds which are deposited into the TEF? Isn't the
TEF funded only through the Staff Assessment? You seem to be saying
that the TEF is funded through the Staff Assessment AS WELL AS
through "reimbursements" from the United States. Please
provide a balance sheet of the TEF which shows the deposits made into
it as well as the disbursements made from it for 2009 and 2010.
You
answered
that the "net balance of $179 million" was "due
to the United States" from the TEF as of 31 December 2009. What
was the net balance due to the United States from the TEF as of 31
December 2010, and what is the net balance due to the United States
as of today, 9 February 2011?
You
stated
that "The US levies taxes on its nationals in respect of
their UN earnings, and reimburses the UN for the same." Are you
saying that the US makes payments to the UN which are deposited into
the TEF, and that these payments are equal to the amount it receives
in taxes from its nationals who work for the UN?
Regulation
4.12
of the UN Financial Regulations states that --
“In
accordance with regulation 3.2, any balance on a Member State’s tax
equalization account after the obligations referred to in regulation
4.11 have been satisfied shall be credited against the assessed
contributions due from that Member State the following year.”
Were
the
balances from 2009 credited toward the US' assessment for 2010,
as required by UN Financial Regulation 4.12? If not, then why? Was
the UN not following its own financial regulations when it allowed
the "balances due" to the US to reach $179 million as of
the end of 2009? Please explain.
None
of these
questions have been answered. One problem here is that by refusing to
state which UN officials notified the US State Department about the
re-purposing of $100 million, responsibility must go to the top. And
when Ban said that 99% of his officials make public financial
disclosure and Inner City Press showed this is untrue, Nesirky said it
was all a metaphor. Watch this site.
* * *
At
UN,
Re-Purposing of US $100 M Defended by Susan Rice, Noone Else Paid
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 9 -- When US Ambassador Susan Rice came to the UN
Security Council stakeout late Wednesday morning, she was prepared to
answer questions
about the Tax Equalization Fund, some of which Inner
City Press submitted to the US Mission Tuesday morning.
In
the House of
Representatives a proposal is being considered to get the $179
million owed to the US applied to future UN dues. At some date still
undisclosed, some US State Department official told the UN it could
keep $100 million for security upgrades in the Capital Master Plan
renovation, beyond the CMP security elements already approved by the
General Assembly, for which the US pays 22%.
Inner
City Press
asked Ambassador Rice who had approved this, and if any other country
would be contributing toward the $100 million in additional security.
Ambassador
Rice
said that the Obama Administration opposes the House legislation. She
cited Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island as supporting
this position. Her answer implied that no other country is
contributing to the $100 million -- she spoke only about $79 million
of the $179 million being put toward UN dues. She did not say who had
approved the $100 million.
Inner
City Press
began asked what Ambassador Rice would say to those who now consider
the $179 million, or at least $78 million of it, to be a slush fund
-- Ambassador Rice asked, “Slush fund? There is no slush fund,”
and her spokesman moved on to another questioner. Transcript below.
Susan Rice at UN stakeout, Tax Equalization Fund not shown
Minutes
later at
the UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin
Nesirky who the UN had spoken to within the US government to conclude
that these $100 million could be spent, and if it had ever been
approved or presented to the UN General Assembly.
Nesirky
again
said, ask the State Department -- we have -- and said he would look
into whether there are other Capital Master Plan related funds that
have not been disclosed or voted on by the General Assembly.
When
asked to
explain why the $100 million was so urgent it could not go through
regular budgeting (and disclosure) procedures, Nesirky said to ask
the State Department.
Earlier,
Inner
City Press had asked Nesirky's office
Ultimately,
who
within the Secretariat is responsible for spending this money?
DM? DSS?
Has
the
General Assembly given its approval to this project? Is there a
mandate from the GA for this activity?
How
was
the referenced money “repurposed”? Did the US Mission or
State Department indicate how it could be repurposed? How? What other
countries have allowed extra budgetary money to be similarly
repurposed and how much?
Answers
will be
reported when they are received. Watch this site.
From
the
US Mission to the UN's transcript:
Inner
City
Press: On Sudan, what do you make of this fighting in Malakal?
The army, there are several dozens of people who have been killed of
late, what does the US think of that? And I wanted to ask, on the Tax
Equalization Fund—there’s a dispute in the House about this $100
million that the State Department has told the UN it can use for
security improvements. Who approved that at the State Department and
are other countries going to be contributing to that, or is the US
paying the whole $100 million with no offset on the CMP payments?
Ambassador
Rice:
Well, let me start with Malakal. Obviously we’re very
concerned about the violence in Malakal and along that border area.
This is a function, as you know, of the need for these units that
have been joint to now separate, and it is of concern that lives have
been lost and violence has occurred, and it underscores the need for
this process of disintegrating the joint units to be done carefully
and with some supervision.
Let
me
turn now to the Tax Equalization Fund, and the application of
these credits. The legislation that is pending in the House today is
a piece of legislation the administration strongly opposes. And we do
so because it was the City of New York that underscored the vital
importance to US national security to enhance security—physical
security—in this structure, above and beyond what was originally
contemplated during the Capital Master Plan. We have thousands of New
Yorkers who pass through this building and under this building every
day. We have school children, we have members of the public, we have
the President of the United States, come in this building on a
regular basis. And the City of New York and the State Department and
the administration feel that it’s in our national interests and in
the interests of the people of New York that steps be taken swiftly
to upgrade the physical security of this building. And that is what
we have done, in coordination with the United Nations. That is also
why Representative Peter King—a New Yorker—who is chairman of the
Homeland Security Committee in the House, said very plainly yesterday
that this is a crucial commitment that we’ve made, one that should
be honored, and he opposes this legislation because it unwisely would
make that impossible.
Let
me
just say also, Matt, we share, however, the spirit in which the
legislation is offered, which is to reduce the deficit and to address
the need for spending reductions. But the other portion of those
credits—the $79 million—will do just that, because we intend to
apply those to assessments that we would otherwise have to request
resources from Congress to pay. So this is a way of ensuring that we
are utilizing taxpayer dollars wisely.
Inner
City
Press: So it’s kind of a slush fund, there’s no approval?
Ambassador
Rice:
Slush fund? No, there’s no slush fund.
* * *
