As
UN
Says
It Will Return $180 M in Peacekeeping Leftovers,
It Has Yet to Account for $100 M Security
“Earmark” from US
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
February
8 -- The day before the US House of Representatives
is slated to consider a proposal to get back from the UN funds left
over from closed peacekeeping missions and some $179 million from the
UN's US Tax Equalization Fund, the UN belatedly told Inner City Press
that “we intend to return $180,745,000 of the cash balances of
closed peacekeeping missions that had been owed to Member States as
of 30 June 2010.”
On
the
Tax
Equalization Fund, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky at the noon briefing on Tuesday,
following the UN declining to answer Inner City Press' written
questions:
After
asking
Friday
and today at the noon briefing (and in emails in
between) for a basic accounting or even estimate of the Tax
Equalization Fund and money left over from closed peacekeeping
missions and yet receiving no information or estimate by close of
business today, I have the following additional questions, prior to
Tuesday's noon briefing and action in the House:
Esther
Brimmer,
assistant
secretary of state for international organization
affairs, told CQ that “the $179 million in overpayments are in the
form of credits, not cash, and thus cannot be refunded per se.
Moreover, Brimmer said, much of that sum – up to $100 million –
already has been repurposed to help enhance security at the U.N.
complex in New York City.”
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?
Do
the
UN
Secretariat agree with the State Dept that it is not possible
to refund monies to the US from the Tax Equalization Fund?
How
was
the
$100 million referenced in Esther Brimmer's quotes spent?
Is
it
possible
for funds to be reimbursed to the US from the UN from the
closed peacekeeping accounts?
When
asked
in
person on Tuesday, Nesirky insisted that Inner City Press should “ask
the State Department.” Inner City Press, fine it would ask -- and
has asked -- the US how it conveyed its okay to the UN -- but how was
the “nearly $100 million” spent?
Nesirky
did
not
answer, but said that further information should be available later
today. Watch this site.
UN's Ban in DC, repurposed $100 M not shown
On
Tuesday morning,
Inner City Press asked the spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN
about Esther Brimmer's quote that “up to $100 million... already
has been repurposed to help enhance security at the U.N. complex,”
and about the US position on suspending International Criminal Court
prosecution against Sudan's Omar al Bashir, and about an American
national arrested in the Congo on gold smuggling charges, asking that
the financial question be answered before noon.
By press time
the answers had been
received, but they will be reported here when they are. For now,
here is the UN's
response to Inner City Press on the peacekeeping “left over”
funds, sent along with another answer just before the day's noon
briefing:
From:
UN
Spokesperson
- Do Not Reply
<unspokesperson-donotreply [at] un.org>
Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at
11:50 AM
Subject: Your question on peacekeeping funds
To: Inner
City Press
The
United
Nations
is returning the money owed to Member States from
closed peacekeeping missions. To that end, we intend to return
$180,745,000 of the cash balances of closed peacekeeping missions
that had been owed to Member States as of 30 June 2010. That action
is subject to a decision of the General Assembly (in the context of
its consideration of the Secretary-General's report A/65/556).
* * *
As
UN
Won't
Account for US Tax Fund, $100 M Earmark for Security
Questioned
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February
7 -- As in Washington the House of
Representatives
prepares to vote on a proposal to have the UN return hundreds of
millions of dollars to the US, in New York the UN is refusing to
answer simple questions about how much money is at issue.
Meanwhile
it
has
emerged that for fully $100 million of the so-called Tax Equalization
fund, the US Mission or US State Department told the UN to use it for
security. To some it is unclear if this donation -- or “ultimate
earmark,” as we are calling it -- was done legally or
transparently.
The
House bill
targets money left over from closed down UN peacekeeping missions,
for example in Eritrea and Chad, and the US Tax Equalization Fund. Of
this, Esther Brimmer, assistant secretary of state for international
organization affairs, told CQ that
“the $179 million
in
overpayments are in the form of credits, not cash, and thus cannot be
refunded per se. Moreover, Brimmer said, much of that sum – up to
$100 million – already has been repurposed to help enhance security
at the U.N. complex in New York City.”
The
question now
arises, how did the US Mission or State Department give the UN the
approval to “repurpose... up to $100 million,” even if ostensibly
for security of the UN in New York City?
On
February 4,
Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy
spokesman Farhan Haq about the proposal in Congress:
Inner
City
Press:
there is this proposal in the House of Representatives by
Eric Cantor [Republican-Virginia] and others to ask for a refund from
the UN tax equalization fund and also from closed-down UN
peacekeeping operations. I wonder if, I mean this is on — it’s
not only on their website, they said they are going to bring it to a
vote. Is there some way to know how much is in each fund and also
what does the UN think about this open call by the host, in the host
country’s parliament, I guess, to have this money returned?
Acting
Deputy
Spokesperson
Haq: Well, first of all, it is not by the host
country’s parliament at this stage. This is something happening
within a parliamentary body, if you will. And we don’t comment on
processes as they work their way through the legislative system. So
we leave it to the legislature of the United States to work out this
particular matter.
Inner
City
Press:
Is it possible to know how much money is in each, just
objectively, in each pool…?
Acting
Deputy
Spokesperson:
Yeah, I believe my colleagues in the Department
of Peacekeeping Operations are looking into that matter.
But
three days
later not even an estimate has been provided.
On February
7, Inner
City Press asked Ban's main spokesman Martin Nesirky:
Inner
City
Press:
There is a discussion in Washington, although admittedly
on probably more among one party than another about recouping funds
from the UN. And I just wanted to, I understand that that’s
something that’s taking place in Washington, but the numbers that
they are using, they are saying there is $243 million in funds from
closed peacekeeping operations and $180 million in this thing called
the tax equalization fund. And I just wonder, is that something…
can the UN… I’ve been trying to get this… Can they confirm that
those were the numbers? And if they can, if there is some argument
of why none of this should be returned, it would be good to hear it,
but I just want to make sure if those are the numbers, the numbers
being thrown around down there, are in fact the numbers accepted up
here?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
I think we will be able to give you some numbers a little
bit later today.
By
close of
business six hours later, no numbers had been provided. Inner City
Press has submitted more questions, including with regard to Esther
Brimmer's quotes:
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?
Do
the
UN
Secretariat agree with the State Dept that it is not possible
to refund monies to the US from the Tax Equalization Fund?
How
was
the
$100 million referenced in Esther Brimmer's quotes spent?
Is
it
possible
for funds to be reimbursed to the US from the UN from the
closed peacekeeping accounts?
Watch
this
site.
*
* *
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.
* * *
, 
