Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations

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.

* * *