Tuesday, January 22, 2013

UN's Ban Ki-moon Speaks on Budget Cuts and Fairness, Calls on Staff to be Less Selfish, Conflict Brews



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 22 -- Ever since the UN Budget Committee's session ended on Christmas eve withcalls for $100 million in budget cuts and the deferral of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's mobility proposal until at least March 2013, Inner City Press has asked for Ban's reaction.

  First the answer was to wait for Ban's "Town Hall" meeting with staff. That meeting was closed-door, but Inner City Press learned that staff in Geneva criticized the proposal and in Africa asked for it to be withdrawn.

  The head of the UN Staff Union in New York compared the way she was lobbied to an "intellectual gang rape" - strange, given the UN's continuing inaction on actual gang rape of 126 women in Minova by the Congolese Army, the UN's partners.

  Then Inner City Press was told Ban would address it in his January 22 meeting with member states, and that Ban's opening speech would be open. Inner City Press went, but was blocked from getting in. Nor was it visible on UNTV, which doesn't work on Android phones.

  When Ban did his "monthly" press conference after the member states meeting, the first two questions were both about Syria.

  Three of the first four were given to Executive Committee members of the UN Correspondents Association, which should have pushed for access to Ban's speech but didn't. UNCA engaged in censorship and stealth complaints throughout 2012, so it is not surprising.

  After a question about Ban's participation in a concert this month culminating in a song some link to genocide, Inner City Press was called on. Transcript here.

  On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, FUNCA, Ban was told about the exclusion of the press from his speech. Then Inner City Press asked him about mobility and how he is proposing to cut $100 million -- only 30% from "non-post" cuts, meaning 70% comes from staff salary.

  Inner City Press has obtained Ban's Controller Maria Eugenia Casar's memos, the first of which is addressed to Herve Ladsous and "Jerry," not Jeffrey, Feltman. The second, including to Alicia Barcena, is here.

  Ban said he would look into the denial of access, ascribing it to member states. (Actually, it was access to Ban's part of the program that was offered then denied.)

  On budget cuts, Ban said even without guidance from the member states he made cuts "to flesh and bones." Then in December, he said, member states demanded $100 million more in cuts.

  This $100 million cut was explained to Inner City Press by a Fifth Committee member as involving the so-called "re-costing" of the budget. Of the $220 million, $100 million was left for the Secretariat to do.

  But why demand that 70% be from staff salaries?

Ban shifted and spoke with some passion about mobility, saying it is not fair that some UN staff are in the field, in danger, for years. 

 Ban called the UN Staff Union in New York "selfish" -- sure to be a big hit when the Union has its emergency meeting -- and said there are some member states, too, opposing the plan. 

   Ban argued at length for it, ranging from corporate-speak about "silos" to a rhyme of agile and mobile. 

  It should be noted that senior officials like Nicholas "Fink" Haysom and prospectively Michael Myer have gone to the field, to Afghanistan and Darfur respectively. 

  But others have stayed in New York -- what was that "S" word Ban used? -- including Mister Mobility Kim Won-soo, Bob Orr and Angela Kane. We'll have more on this.

  In other answers, Ban clarified that Lakhdar Brahimi said only that the "Syrian people" think 40 years is too long for the Assads.

  On Africa he said the UN should not just be a fire brigade, but should engage in preventive diplomacy. On the other hand some think sending Prodi to Mali and the Sahel was more about European patronage than problem solving.

   On Mali, Ban said he "applauds" France, only "appreciates" ECOWAS, the African Union and Troop Contributing Countries.

  Some think that should be reversed, and wonder how it will be known when Ban finally does what he's assigned under Security Council Resolution 2085: confirming in advance the satisfaction of the Council with the planned military action. Watch this site.