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?
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.
