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.

As UN Says It Will Return $180 M in Peacekeeping Leftovers, It Has Yet to Account for $100 M Security “Earmark” from US

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, February 8 -- The day before the US House of Representatives is slated to consider a proposal to get back from the UN funds left over from closed peacekeeping missions and some $179 million from the UN's US Tax Equalization Fund, the UN belatedly told Inner City Press that “we intend to return $180,745,000 of the cash balances of closed peacekeeping missions that had been owed to Member States as of 30 June 2010.”

On the Tax Equalization Fund, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky at the noon briefing on Tuesday, following the UN declining to answer Inner City Press' written questions:

After asking Friday and today at the noon briefing (and in emails in between) for a basic accounting or even estimate of the Tax Equalization Fund and money left over from closed peacekeeping missions and yet receiving no information or estimate by close of business today, I have the following additional questions, prior to Tuesday's noon briefing and action in the House:

Esther Brimmer, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, told CQ that “the $179 million in overpayments are in the form of credits, not cash, and thus cannot be refunded per se. Moreover, Brimmer said, much of that sum – up to $100 million – already has been repurposed to help enhance security at the U.N. complex in New York City.”

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?

Do the UN Secretariat agree with the State Dept that it is not possible to refund monies to the US from the Tax Equalization Fund?

How was the $100 million referenced in Esther Brimmer's quotes spent?

Is it possible for funds to be reimbursed to the US from the UN from the closed peacekeeping accounts?

When asked in person on Tuesday, Nesirky insisted that Inner City Press should “ask the State Department.” Inner City Press, fine it would ask -- and has asked -- the US how it conveyed its okay to the UN -- but how was the “nearly $100 million” spent?

Nesirky did not answer, but said that further information should be available later today. Watch this site.

On Tuesday morning, Inner City Press asked the spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN about Esther Brimmer's quote that “up to $100 million... already has been repurposed to help enhance security at the U.N. complex,” and about the US position on suspending International Criminal Court prosecution against Sudan's Omar al Bashir, and about an American national arrested in the Congo on gold smuggling charges, asking that the financial question be answered before noon.

By press time the answers had been received, but they will be reported here when they are. For now, here is the UN's response to Inner City Press on the peacekeeping “left over” funds, sent along with another answer just before the day's noon briefing:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply
Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM
Subject: Your question on peacekeeping funds
To: Inner City Press

The United Nations is returning the money owed to Member States from closed peacekeeping missions. To that end, we intend to return $180,745,000 of the cash balances of closed peacekeeping missions that had been owed to Member States as of 30 June 2010. That action is subject to a decision of the General Assembly (in the context of its consideration of the Secretary-General's report A/65/556).

As UN Won't Account for US Tax Fund, $100 M Earmark for Security Questioned

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 -- As in Washington the House of Representatives prepares to vote on a proposal to have the UN return hundreds of millions of dollars to the US, in New York the UN is refusing to answer simple questions about how much money is at issue.

Meanwhile it has emerged that for fully $100 million of the so-called Tax Equalization fund, the US Mission or US State Department told the UN to use it for security. To some it is unclear if this donation -- or “ultimate earmark,” as we are calling it -- was done legally or transparently.

The House bill targets money left over from closed down UN peacekeeping missions, for example in Eritrea and Chad, and the US Tax Equalization Fund. Of this, Esther Brimmer, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, told CQ that

“the $179 million in overpayments are in the form of credits, not cash, and thus cannot be refunded per se. Moreover, Brimmer said, much of that sum – up to $100 million – already has been repurposed to help enhance security at the U.N. complex in New York City.”

The question now arises, how did the US Mission or State Department give the UN the approval to “repurpose... up to $100 million,” even if ostensibly for security of the UN in New York City?

On February 4, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Farhan Haq about the proposal in Congress:

Inner City Press: there is this proposal in the House of Representatives by Eric Cantor [Republican-Virginia] and others to ask for a refund from the UN tax equalization fund and also from closed-down UN peacekeeping operations. I wonder if, I mean this is on — it’s not only on their website, they said they are going to bring it to a vote. Is there some way to know how much is in each fund and also what does the UN think about this open call by the host, in the host country’s parliament, I guess, to have this money returned?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Haq: Well, first of all, it is not by the host country’s parliament at this stage. This is something happening within a parliamentary body, if you will. And we don’t comment on processes as they work their way through the legislative system. So we leave it to the legislature of the United States to work out this particular matter.

Inner City Press: Is it possible to know how much money is in each, just objectively, in each pool…?

Acting Deputy Spokesperson: Yeah, I believe my colleagues in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations are looking into that matter.

But three days later not even an estimate has been provided.

On February 7, Inner City Press asked Ban's main spokesman Martin Nesirky:

Inner City Press: There is a discussion in Washington, although admittedly on probably more among one party than another about recouping funds from the UN. And I just wanted to, I understand that that’s something that’s taking place in Washington, but the numbers that they are using, they are saying there is $243 million in funds from closed peacekeeping operations and $180 million in this thing called the tax equalization fund. And I just wonder, is that something… can the UN… I’ve been trying to get this… Can they confirm that those were the numbers? And if they can, if there is some argument of why none of this should be returned, it would be good to hear it, but I just want to make sure if those are the numbers, the numbers being thrown around down there, are in fact the numbers accepted up here?

Spokesperson Nesirky: I think we will be able to give you some numbers a little bit later today.

By close of business six hours later, no numbers had been provided. Inner City Press has submitted more questions, including with regard to Esther Brimmer's quotes:

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?

Do the UN Secretariat agree with the State Dept that it is not possible to refund monies to the US from the Tax Equalization Fund?

How was the $100 million referenced in Esther Brimmer's quotes spent?

Is it possible for funds to be reimbursed to the US from the UN from the closed peacekeeping accounts?

Watch this site.