For
$100M
Earmark, UN & US Mission Hide Behind Security, Won't
Describe Approval
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February
9 -- There is a $100 million
fight about the UN
heating up today in Congress, about which the UN refuses to answer
questions.
Of
the $179 million in the UN's US Tax Equalization Fund,
$100 million are said to be “re-purposed” for security at the UN
in New York City.
But
when Inner
City Press asked the UN, and the US Mission to the UN, how this $100
million has been or will be used, neither would provide any
information.
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's spokesman Martin
Nesirky said to “ask the [US] State Department,” even about the
UN's use of the money. He said information might be provided later on
February 8, but none was, including by the US Mission.
This
lack
of
transparency is inappropriate. Inner City Press covers the UN every
day and can list numerous human security lapses, as well as waste of
funds.
Proponents of
the $100 million earmark, or slush fund, say
that because part of the UN is over the FDR Drive, money is needed
for security. But what do they propose? Bomb screening for all cars
on the FDR Drive?
One
imagine a
defense of opacity revolving around the need to keep security
blueprints out of the hands of terrorists. But on February 8, neither
the UN nor US Mission would answer how the green light was given to
the UN to “re-purpose” the $100 million. This cannot be secret.
UN from East River, approval for $100 M not shown
From
the
UN's
February
8 transcript:
Inner
City
Press:
Sure. I have several questions, but I wanted to ask you
about this tax equalization fund that’s being discussed in
Congress. There is a quote by the [United States] Assistant
Secretary of State, [Esther] Brimmer, saying that $100 million of
this $179 million equalization of US staff members has been
repurposed for security. So, I wanted to know, how did the US
indicate to the UN that it could be repurposed in that way? How much
of that money — she says almost $100 million —has been spent? How was
it spent? And have other countries made similar
multi-million dollar contributions?
Spokesperson:
Well,
first of all, I would suggest that you ask the State
Department. I have seen those quotes, but I think that it would be
better if you asked the State Department about that aspect of it. We
did provide you with some figures a little earlier, and as I say, I
think that in the first instance you ought to check with the State
Department.
Inner
City
Press:
But is it true… for how they communicated to the UN,
maybe it is up to them to say. But how the UN used the $100 million
seems like a fair question.
Spokesperson
Nesirky
:
No, I am not saying it’s not a fair question, Matthew, I
am just saying start there. I am not saying that we are not going to
try to find out the answer to the second part, but please try to
start at the right address...
[Good]
Question:
Again
on the tax equalization fund, there are also news
reports that say that the UN asked the US whether it could keep the
surplus money to use for security reasons. So which happened first? The
UN requested, or did the US offer?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Well,
as I said, please check with the State Department. I
have also seen those reports, and I would expect to have something a
little bit later on that.
*
* *
UN
Officials
Refusing
Financial
Disclosure
Range from Sudan to Security, Abidjan to
Lebanon, Ban's Friends & UNtrue Claim
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee,
Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
January
25,
updated
-- In the run up to
UN corruption hearings in the
US House of Representatives today, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
angrily answered questions about lack of transparency by claiming
that 99% of his officials publicly disclose their finances. This is
not true, as Inner City Press has said and now documents.
On
the UN's website
for such disclosures, numerous Ban officials simply state “I have
chosen to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed
by me in order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program.” This
is not public disclosure of finances: it is its opposite.
Those
Ban
officials
refusing
make
even the most basic disclosure -- as simple
as in what country they own property, such as the one line disclosure
by top
UN
lawyer
Patricia
O'Brien that she owns “farmland, Ireland”
-- ranging from both of Ban's envoys in Sudan, Ibrahim
Gambari and Haile
Menkerios to UN officials with outside jobs that might
conflict, such as Terje
Roed-Larsen
(Lebanon
and
IPI), Peter
Sutherland
(migration
and
BP) and Ray
Chambers (malaria and hedge
funds).
When Chambers
took the job, Inner City Press asked him
about
his outside interests. Now Chambers
simply
states,
“I
have chosen
to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me
in
order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program.”
There
are
other
ways
to
not disclosure. Philippe
Douste-Blazy, whom Inner City Press
has exposed
as
wasting
millions
of dollars through the “MassiveGood”
scheme, discloses no finances, only service for the Millennium
Foundation.
Alexander
Downer, Ban's man on Cyprus, makes no
financial disclosure although he lists he works at the business
consultancy Bespoke Approach. And do its clients, in Turkey for
example, raise conflicts? There is no way to know.
Ban's
close
ally
and
Cote
d'Ivoire
envoy Choi Young-jin states that “I have chosen
to maintain the confidentiality of the information disclosed by me in
order to comply with the Financial Disclosure Program,” as does
Ban's UN Security chief Gregory
Starr.
UN's Ban & chief of staff Nambiar in Dept
of Management: empty forms not shown
These
refusals
are
noteworthy
given
how superficial even the “public disclosures”
are. Peacekeeping
logistics
deputy
Anthony
Banbury, who famously said
that “only” three rapes in a Haitian IDP camp “elated” him,
lists “Nil” for both assets and liabilities, as does General
Assembly Affairs chief Shaaban
Shaaban.
Some
officials
are
listed,
but
there is no link to any form, even one refusing to
disclose. These include Achim Steiner of UNEP and former UN lawyer,
still listed as adviser Nicolas Michel, who took money from the Swiss
government for his housing while serving as the UN's lawyer. Since
that scandal, there are issues about Ban officials receiving housing
subsidies through their spouses, not disclosed on the “public”
disclosure forms.
Other
Ban
officials
stating
“I
have chosen to maintain the confidentiality of
the information disclosed by me in order to comply with the Financial
Disclosure Program” include West
Africa
envoy
Said
Djinnit, Middle
East and Lebanon
specialist
Michael
Williams, UNDP Asia boss Ajay
Chhibber (in
charge, another other places, of Myanmar), Jan Mattsson of UNOPS,
where Ban's son in law got a controversial promotion, and Cheick
Sidi
Diarra, whose brother
has been Microsoft's Ambassador to Africa,
allowed to use a UN dining room for this purpose.
In
another display
of non - transparency, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky on January 21
told Inner City Press he would
not answer any more questions until
Inner City Press acted “appropriately.” This outburst came after
Inner City Press asked for the second day in a row how UN Staff
Regulation 1.2 applies to UN official's outside political activity.
Ban
named Jack
Lang as his adviser on piracy, reporting to the Security Council
today. But Lang
continues
to
write
letters as an official of a
political party in France, for example regarding Ivory Coast
(where, again,
Ban's envoy Choi Young-jin refuses to disclose his finances). The UN
has refused to apply its Regulation 1.2 to this or other case, or to
even answer questions about it.
One
wonders how this will be dealt with at today's US House of
Representative hearings and afterward. Click here
for
footage
of
Ban's claims from a recent piece on Swedish TV
including Inner City Press and a hearing witness.
Ban's
main
claim
to
transparency,
the 99% of his officials make public financial
disclosure, is simply not true, and his spokesman refuses to answer
any questions. Watch this space.
Update of 11:15 am
-- Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesperson's office, Messrs. Nesirky
and Haq, the clarify Ban's now disproved claim, and received back only
this, from Haq:
On
the
House
of
Representatives,
what we have to say for today is:
The
United Nations has always worked constructively with the United
States, and we share the same goals: for a stronger UN, one that is
efficient, effective, and accountable. That is why the
Secretary-General has made strengthening the UN one of his top
priorities since taking office.
The
Secretary-General
is
convinced
that
a strong, effective and efficient
United Nations needs the active and constructive support of Member
States. To achieve that, he will continue to engage with the US
Administration and with the US Congress on ways to ensure that the
Organization can find solutions to today’s challenges, and deliver
on the mandates given by it Member States.
Still with no
answer at all are questions submitted January 22, including
Ban
Ki-moon
is
quoted
by
Bloomberg,
which he sought out, that
Congressional Republicans' "only complaint they may have is the
lack of much faster progress than they might have expected.” What
specific areas of "progress" was the SG referring to? Namely, which
areas does the SG acknowledge not having met
expectations and for which progress should have been made "faster"?
Michael
Dudley,
the
acting
head
of
OIOS' Investigations Division, is under
investigation, for among other things, retaliation and evidence
tampering. Given that Ban Ki-moon says he prides himself on the
transparency of his administration, what specifically are the facts
surrounding the investigation process regarding Mr. Dudley, and will
the UN be reassigning him to other duties during the investigation?
Watch this site.
* * *
As
UN
Corruption
Hearings
Loom,
Ban
Team Ignores Reform &
Elections Questions
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January
23
--
Two
days before hearings about problems in the
UN of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the US House of
Representatives, Ban's spokespeople refused to answer basic questions
about the case against the UN's lead investigator and Ban's admitted
delays in reform.
Even
on
an
African
election
Ban
said he would be “following with anticipation,” his
Spokesperson's Office refused to answer questions about the UN's role
in irregularities in voting.
This
followed
a
January
21
threat by lead Ban spokesman Martin Nesirky to no longer
answer questions from the Press rather than state how the Ban
administration enforces the UN's own rules.
Midday
on
January
22,
Inner
City
Press submitted to Nesirky and a staffer basic
questions including:
Ban
Ki-moon
is
quoted
by
Bloomberg,
which he sought out, that
Congressional Republicans' "only complaint they may have is the
lack of much faster progress than they might have expected.” What
specific areas of "progress" was the SG referring to? Namely, which
areas does the SG acknowledge not having met
expectations and for which progress should have been made "faster"?
Michael
Dudley,
the
acting
head
of
OIOS' Investigations Division, is under
investigation, for among other things, retaliation and evidence
tampering. Given that Ban Ki-moon says he prides himself on the
transparency of his administration, what specifically are the facts
surrounding the investigation process regarding Mr. Dudley, and will
the UN be reassigning him to other duties during the investigation?
Not
only did
Nesirky not answer these on January 22 - he and his deputy Farhan Haq
also ignored the questions on January 23, when posed in relation to
the upcoming House hearing, failing to even acknowledge the
questions.
Ban Ki-moon & Nesirky, refused questions about
corruption & elections not shown
Nesirky's job
description states that he “answers press
queries in person, by telephone and e-mail, around the clock...
including ability to present and defend difficult positions often in
unanticipated situations.”
On
January 21,
after he left the briefing room amid unanswered questions, Nesirky's
Office put out this statement, in his own name:
Statement
Attributable
to
the
Spokesperson
for
the Secretary-General: Elections
in the Central African Republic
The
Secretary-General
will
be
following
with
anticipation the
presidential and legislative elections due to be held on 23 January
in the Central African Republic... The United Nations Integrated
Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA) and the
UN Country Team have been working with the Central African
authorities to help consolidate peace in the country.
It
is not clear
under Ban and Nesirky what “following with anticipation” means.
On January 23 Inner City Press asked Nesirky and Haq:
What
is
the
UN's
comment
on,
involvement in and action on the reported
delays and irregularities at the polls in Central African Republic?
See, e.g., http://www.minews26.com/content/?p=4457
&
http://af.reuters.com/article/centralAfricanRepublicNews/idAFLDE70M09J20110123?sp=true
More
than six hours later, the question about breaking news of
irregularities in this election Ban was supposedly “following with
anticipation” was not even acknowledged. This is the UN of Ban and
his staff, including Nesirky. The hearings are brewing in DC. Watch
this site.
, 
