Byline: Matthew Russell Lee: News Analysis
www.innercitypress.com/unus1budget121107.html
UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- When a U.S. Ambassador convenes reporters outside a closed-door meeting about the UN's budget, it is grandstanding or a glimpse of transparency usually lacking from discussions of the world body's finances? On Tuesday Mark D. Wallace of the U.S. mission appeared in the UN's basement with copies of a statement he had read to an informal session the General Assembly's Fifth Committee. These informal session are invariably closed-door, and usually those in attendance emerge tight-lipped, other than whispering into cell phones and smoking in the UN's Viennese Cafe. News of the Fifth Committee's informal leaks out only by drip and by drab, often via staffers who are summoned to answer questions about budgets. Recently, the delegate of Singapore in a public session asked six detailed questions about the UN's no-bid $250 million contract with U.S.-based military contractor Lockheed Martin. The answers, if they are being provided, are all secret. The U.S. is aware of a request that the responses be made public. The odds still seem against it.
So Amb. Wallace's handing out of his statement, even if he did then insist that his remarks were all "on background," is a breath of fresh air in underground passages wreaking of tobacco. On the other hand, several European delegates shook their heads and said, "this changes nothing" and "he's only doing it for domestic political consumption, to show Americans that they're still fighting the U.N.." Reference was made to previous U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, with whom Wallace has been described as aligned more so that with new Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Recently Amb. Khalilzad praised a fragmented UN ethics system which, based on past comments, Wallace would have criticized as not going far enough. More than one Fifth Committee observer wondered Tuesday if Amb. Khalilzad will stand behind the Wallace-delivered critique, if and when the time comes.
Tuesday morning's media availability, consisting of a half-dozen reporters including three from major dailies, has resulted so far in two wire-service stories, AP and Reuters, both hearkening back to previous Ambassador John Bolton's 2005 showdown that threatened to leave the UN without funds. In his recent tell-all memoir, "Surrender Is Not an Option," Bolton describes contentious interchanges two Decembers ago which
"left the United States in an untenable position: either continue to insist on its position and risk being isolated (a form of hell for career diplomats) or give in to what the EU had negotiated and lose important substantive ground. I was determined to break this cycle... and engage directly with the G-77."
Two years later, the American rap remains the same. Amb. Wallace's statement riffs,
"As my colleagues from the G77 and China rightly point out in paragraph 30 of the Draft Resolution before us, 'approximately 75 percent of the budget resources are related to salaries and common staff costs... We must be fully and truly informed on the whole budget before we can take an informed decision on the budget as my G77 and Chinese colleagues rightly point out."
The language about the G77 is similar, but according to a chart handed out by Amb. Wallace, the UN's regular budget has risen from $3.656 billion in 2004-05 to fully $5.2 billion in 2008-09. (Back in October, Wallace put the estimate at $4.7 billlion, though adding "perhaps even in excess of that number." It's now risen $500 million.)
Later on Tuesday, senior Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions sources noted that ACABQ's report on what was actually spent during the UN's last budget has not yet been released, and should be consulted before the next budget is considered.
At Tuesday's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked Spokesperson Marie Okabe for any UN response to Amb. Wallace's budget figures and critiques. The UN Development Program previously called his comparison of spending in Africa to Latin America misleading. Ms. Okabe on the other hand said that there would be no comment until "we are out of the woods," presumably meaning, until the budget is passed by the General Assembly. As Wallace said on Tuesday, that could be next spring. So when will the coast be clear? Until it is, impromptu press conferences like Wallace's on Tuesday provide the only window into the UN's finances. Watch this site.
