At UN, Ban's Team Blames Budget on U.S., Whose Ambassador Khalilzad Eschews Ferrari-Driving

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un1budget032508.html

UNITED NATIONS, March 25 -- As governments all over the world tighten their budgets, including in light of the fall-out from the meltdown of the subprime mortgage market, the UN is proposing a 25% increase in its spending, unveiling an additional $1.1 billion "add-on" to the over $4 billion approved just before Christmas. On Tuesday Inner City Press asked Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson since "when the presentation was made, there was only about a 2 per cent increase, how does the Secretary-General explain this over $1 billion additional request?" The spokesperson as has become routine said that an answer would be provided later.

In the interim, Inner City Press spoke with a number of Ambassadors, finding even developing country representatives dissatisfied with the disorganized way Ban's first budget has been presented, some in December and more in March. One diplomat suggested that a move is afoot to require the Secretariat to propose a specific budget and stick to it, with no add-ons. At the Security Council stakeout, Inner City Press asked U.S. Permanent Representative Zalmay Khalilzad, "What's the U.S. position on this 25% increase requested by the Secretary-General?" Video here, last question.

Ambassador Khalilzad replied that "a 25% increase is excessive and we’re going to work with others to see what can be afforded now and what should be deferred... I’d like to have a Ferrari but since I can't afford it you know I'm probably going to get a cheaper car when I leave this job."

Subsequently, Ban's spokesperson's office told Inner City Press that "the Secretariat has only provided a projection of how financing needs would evolve, if the Member States were to support a wide range of political missions and management reform proposals currently on the table. However, that projection is not the final amount, since this is a consultative process and its ultimate outcome will be determined by the Member States at large in the General Assembly, and not by the Secretariat."

So, does that mean that the $1.1 billion is a negotiating position? The spokesperson's answer then named two specific missions, both favored by the United States, particularly to so-called bunker in Baghdad, noting that "the costs for special political missions, including Iraq and Afghanistan, cannot in any sense be considered 'administrative costs.'" So there. Onward to the bunker!
mmittee on administrative and budgetary questions, financial disclosure united nations,
And see, www.innercitypress.com/un1budget032508.html