As
US
Let UN Keep $100 M for Security, Who Decided, Will $78M Be Offset &
Will
Other Countries Pay?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 9 -- Who approved the use of $100 million in
US
funds to pay for the entirety of a security project in the UN's
Capital Master Plan renovation?
As the battle to have the funds
returned heats up in the House of Representatives, the UN on
Wednesday belatedly answered some of the questions asked by Inner
City Press.
UN
deputy spokesman
Farhan Haq on February 9 e-mailed Inner City Press that “the
present discussion about additional security upgrades reflects
heightened security concerns by the Host Country and UN security
authorities. The US, under its Host Country obligations, is funding
these new security upgrades. The total anticipated cost of the new
security upgrades is $100 million.”
While
the US
Mission to the UN has not responded in writing to questions Inner
City Press put to it, the position is that the UN approached the US
State Department to ask for $100 million from the $179 million which
otherwise would reduce the US' dues to the UN.
The
UN said that
the improvements, which have be tied in FP's
Cable blog to dangers
posed by car bombs on the FDR Drive, were urgent. The conference
rooms over the FDR Drive are currently empty, undergoing asbestos
abatement. It is hard to understand how merely reconfiguring the
rooms would cost $100 million, or be urgent.
But
even if it is
urgent, why is the US paying the whole $100 million, and not just the
$22 million that would represent its 22% share of CMP costs?
Will
the extra
$78 million be subtracted from what the US would otherwise pay for
the rest of the CMP? Inner City Press recently asked the CMP about
contributions of $2 million and $1 million to the CMP from Norway and
China.
The response
were article the CMP had placed on the UN's
i-Seek web site. If the UN publicized $1 million from China, why no
secretive on $100 million from the US?
Hillary Clinton & UN Ban on Feb 5, $100 million not shown
Inner
City Press
understands that the decisions on this $100 million (or $179 million
) slush fund were made at a level above Assistant Secretary of State
Brinner. So should or will it be called Hillary's slush fund? Watch
this site.
Cynics say
that with the US trying to show it deals differently with the UN, it is
or was convenient to have $100 million in discretionary funds. But
there are questions about the approvals.
Here
is what the
UN sent Inner City Press on the morning of February 9. Other
questions remain pending.
From:
Deputy
Spokesman [at] un.org
Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:29
AM
Subject: Re: Press questions II on Tax Equalization Fund
To:
Matthew Russell Lee [at] InnerCityPress.com
Regarding
your
questions on the tax equalization fund, we have the following
information:
The
31
December 2009 audited accounts of the UN showed as balance due to
the United States of $179.0 million as of that date. The US levies
taxes on its nationals in respect of their UN earnings, and
reimburses the UN for the same. The balance represents the net
amount due to the United States after such reimbursements have been
taken into account. In some financial periods there is a surplus,
and in others a deficit. The net balance of $179.0 million has
accumulated since 1 January 1996.
Regarding
security
improvements: The Capital Master Plan (CMP) already includes
a number of security improvements for the delegates, staff, and
visitors who work at or visit the premises. Those security
improvements have been designed after consultation with the Host
Country security authorities. They are covered by the budget of the
CMP, to which the U.S. contributes 22%, and which was approved by the
General Assembly in 2006. The present discussion about additional
security upgrades reflects heightened security concerns by the Host
Country and UN security authorities. The U.S., under its Host Country
obligations, is funding these new security upgrades.
The
total
anticipated cost of the new security upgrades is $100 million.
* * *
On
Myanmar,
As
EU
Prepares
Visit, Ban Delays Replacing Nambiar,
GA Mandate To Be Cut?
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February
8
--
When the European Union's Catherine Ashton
came to the UN on Tuesday, Inner City Press asked for the EU's
position on Myanmar, and to contrast it with Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon's.
Ashton
began,
“With
Myanmar,
Aung
San Suu Kyi is somebody we are in contact with,
she and I have just been writing to each other, and I'm hoping that
somebody from the EU will be visiting her shortly.”
By
contrast after
Ban's chief of staff and part time Myanmar envoy Vijay Nambiar
visited Aung San Suu Kyi, when he returned his internal assessment
within the UN as conveyed to Inner City Press by well placed UN
sources was that she is out of touch and too hard line.
Ashton
continued
that
“on
all
of these issues, we need to talk with the opposition,
of course with her, she's central, but also with the others around
her and engage with this... The EU will make its position clear when
we've got that type of discussion out of the way and so we're waiting
to be given the chance to talk with her.”
Inner
City
Press
asked
Ashton
if she agrees with Ban Ki-moon's recent assessment, if
the EU is on the same page.
Ashton
replied
that
she
doesn't
have a “detailed, finger tip knowledge of the last
thing the UN said.”
Ban
Ki-moon put
out a statement about the new parliament, 25% of whose members are
appointed by the military and in which proposals have to be shown to
a screener 10 days before they are introduced, with the possiblity of
prohibition without any chance of appeal.
Catherine Ashton at the UN, previously, ASSK
assessment not seen
After
for
weeks
declining
to
answer Inner City Press' questions about the banning of
the National League for Democracy in Myanmar, the plight of the
Rohingya and when Ban would finally move on the request by the UK,
Mexico and others to replace Nambiar with a full time envoy, the UN
sent this:
From:
UN
Spokesperson
-
Do
Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Mon, Feb 7, 2011
at 4:18 PM
Subject: Your questions on Myanmar
To: Matthew
Russell Lee [at] Inner City Press
In
response
to
your
emailed
question about the dissolution of the NLD in
Myanmar, we have the following to say: We have taken note of the
decision with concern and continue to follow developments closely. We
believe that in order to succeed any transition must be inclusive and
participatory, including both those who won seats in the recent
elections and those who did not participate.
Regarding
the
Rohingya
boat
people,
UNHCR is trying to obtain access; please
follow up with UNHCR on that matter.
On
replacing
Nambiar, the UN has had nothing to say. Now, sources in the UN tell
Inner City Press there is a reason. The goal is to get the entire UN
mandate on Myanmar eliminated in the General Assembly, by pointing to
the new parliament and recycled president. That, the sources say,
explains Ban's statements and delay. Watch this site.
