UNITED NATIONS, February 2 --When the US proposed budget for its State Department was released on February 2, it included a $10 million increase in proposed funding for the UN regular budget. Under this, three UN missions -- for Afghanistan, Libya and Ebola response -- were combined together for a request of $42 million. Documenthere, at Page 43.
On a background call, Inner City Press asked about this, including if the estimate for the UN Support Mission in Libya is impacted by that Mission hardly being present on the ground in the country anymore.
A Senior State Department Official replied, focusing on Afghanistan, telling Inner City Press that, “we believe that the funding level is probably doing to stay constant over the FY 2016 period. The funding levels that we've got for the political missions are for six months assessment for Afghanistan. We believe that that funding level then will catch up the the second six money will catch up. So that you'll be seeing a lag on the overall payment there.”
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made a range of claims about his budgets, the consistency with the US request we are still evaluating. For now, here is the State Department transcript:
OPERATOR:
Thank you. That’s Matthew Russell Lee from Inner City Press. Please
go ahead.
INNER
CITY PRESS: Sure, thanks a lot. I was looking at the UN section of it
– I think it’s around page 43 – and I just – I noticed that
for the mission – special political missions in Afghanistan and
Libya and also the mission on Ebola, they’re all kind of lumped
together at $42 million. I mean, it may have something to do with the
way the UN has funded them, but can you – is there any breakout of
that, and particularly this – given that the UN mission in Libya is
actually no longer present on the ground in the country, is that –
do you expect that number to go up or go down?
SENIOR
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: So we believe that that funding level
is probably going to stay constant over the FY 2016 period. The
funding levels that we’ve got for the political missions are for a
six-month assessment for Afghanistan. And we believe that that
funding level then will catch up the second six months, so you’ll
be seeing a lag on the overall payment there.
Other questioners on the embargoed call asked about the Green Climate Fund, Moldova and Georgia, migration and the so-called Cromnibus or Continuing Resolution / Omnibus, which has provisions impacting funding to the UN based on protecting whistleblowers (dubious) andcombating sexual exploitation and abuse (same), as well as on funding to the Palestinian Authority. We are digging into each of these. Watch this site.
On January 2 just after the UN accepted Palestine's papers to join the ICC, Inner City Press asked Mansour if the decision has been made to ask for action on Israel at the ICC, and about the CRomnibus appropriations bill provision to cut US funding to the Palestinian Authority if it does so.
Mansour said Palestine has already asked the ICC Registrar for retroactivity to cover the last Gaza war in 2014, and that he would met with a representative of the ICC Registrar, who happened to be in New York, in an hour's time.
On the threatened funding cut, which Senator Chuck Schumer issued a press release about, Mansour said it was strange to punish the Palestinians for seeking justice.
Inner City Press also asked Mansour if Nigeria's absention on the Palestine resolution surprised him. He said to focus on the larger power, and that Nigeria's Explanation of Vote sounded like they had voted Yes.
On the afternoon of December 31, the US State Department's Jeff Rathke, Director of Office of Press Relations, put out this statement:
"We are deeply troubled by today’s Palestinian action regarding the ICC. It is an escalatory step that will not achieve any of the outcomes most Palestinians have long hoped to see for their people. Actions like this are not the answer. Hard as it is, all sides need to find a way to work constructively and cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and find a path forward.
"Today’s action is entirely counter-productive and does nothing to further the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a sovereign and independent state. It badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace.
"As we’ve said before, the United States continues to strongly oppose actions – by both parties – that undermine trust and create doubts about their commitment to a negotiated peace. Our position has not changed. Such actions only push the parties further apart.
"Every month that goes by without constructive engagement between the parties only increases polarization and allows more space for destabilizing actions. Our efforts should focus on creating an environment for meaningful talks.
"While we are under no illusions regarding the difficult road of negotiations, direct negotiations are ultimately the only realistic path for achieving the aspirations of both peoples. All of us would like to see the day when that effort can resume, and can lead to the peace that we all know is the only real, sustainable answer to the underlying causes of this conflict."
The document is supposed to be filed or deposited with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is listed as on "annual leave." (Ban's spokespeople have no press briefing scheduled for today.)
The Palestinian resolution which failed on December 30 needed nine "Yes" votes to trigger the expected US veto. It got only eight "Yes" votes, as Nigeria abstained along with the United Kingdom, Lithuania, South Korea and Rwanda.
Afterward, Palestine's Mansour said, "Why have the efforts of the Arab Group, with the full support of the NAM and the OIC and all other friends worldwide, to legislate this consensus through the Council as a contribution towards bringing an end to this conflict through peaceful, political, diplomatic and non-violent means repeatedly blocked?"
The NAM is the Non-Aligned Movement and as Inner City Press noted contemporaneous with the vote, both Rwanda and Nigeria are members of NAM (list here) -- but both of them abstained.
Rwanda's abstention was assumed, including in the Arab Group meeting held earlier on December 30. The abstention of Nigeria, which meant that the United States' "No" vote would not be considered a veto, was something else.
To the surprise of some, Nigeria and its President Goodluck Jonathan were not listed among the calls of US Secretary of State John Kerry. The State Department's spokesperson Jeff Rathke on December 30 said
"In the last 24 to 48 hours the Secretary has made a number of calls to counterparts. Let me give you a list of them. He has spoken with President Kagame of Rwanda; he has spoken on a few occasions with Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh; he has spoken with the Saudi foreign minister, the Egyptian foreign minister, with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, with the UK foreign secretary, with the EU high representative, Chilean Foreign Minister Munoz, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linkevicius. The – he has spoken, as I mentioned yesterday, with PA President Abbas. He has spoken with the Luxembourg foreign minister, with German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and with French Foreign Minister Fabius. So by my count, that’s 13 different individuals. Some of them he’s spoken with more than once, so more than 13 calls over the last day or two."
Despite this, it's said that Kerry called Goodluck Jonathan, and that a State Department spokesperson - Rathke? - said it. Where? We continue to wait.
It's reported that while Kerry doesn't list a call to Nigeria, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyau did -- for Goodluck, some say.
Inner City Press after the vote asked Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar if the Arab Group intended to put this or another Palestine resolution in front of the new line up of Security Council members entering in two days, with Angola replacing Rwanda and Malaysia replacing South Korea (and New Zealand replacing Australia, which voted no). She said the Arab Group would keep working, but did not say when another resolution will be put forward.
So what comes next? Below, we cover the issue of the International Criminal Court.
A source from inside the Arab Group meeting tells Inner City Press that question - the benefit or not of "making" the US veto - was a major topic in the meeting, but the decision was made by the Arab Group to support the Palestinians' strategy and request for a vote, with the above expectation, at this time.
On December 30 at around 1 pm, Mansour said, “We are happy that the Arab Group on the basis of previous ministerial meetings has considered in a positive and responsible way the request of the Palestinian leadership to put the draft resolution to a vote, possibly this afternoon, if not tomorrow morning, this is related to the readiness of the Secretariat of the Security Council.”
Referring it seems not only to the US but also to the UK, Palestine's Mansour said on Tuesday, “If one party decides for whatever reason that they do not want to go along with this massive support to find a solution to this conflict, to try to save the two-state solution by asking for an end of the Occupation that started in 1967, so that the State of Palestine could enjoy its independence, if a party is not going to go along with this mood, in Europe and in all corners of the globe... it is not for lack of giving time as Arabs, we have been deliberating for almost three and a half months.”
Down in the UN's first basement diplomats from Jordan paced around; the meeting upstairs in the Security Council about Sudan throwing out two more high UN officials was essentially forgotten.
Before the Sudan expulsions meeting on December 30 of the Security Council, for now their last of the year, UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told the press of the Palestine amended draft, “the new text has been circulated but no negotiations have been scheduled and no vote has yet been scheduled, so we wait to see if there will be a vote this year, or next year or not at all.”
On the contents of the resolution, Lyall Grant said “there are difficulties with the text, particularly the language on time scales and the language of refugees. We would have some difficulties with the text. We don't know when the vote will be held.”
Palestine met with the Arab Group at the UN about the pending draft Security Council resolution on December 29. Afterward, Inner City Press asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour and Jordan's Permanent Representative Dina Kawar about US opposition. Video here.
The text of the amended draft is below; six changes include:
New in PP 3 “and to independence in their State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital,”
New PP6 “Recalling also its relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, including resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, and bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community,”
New PP8: “Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,”
New phrasing in OP2: “a just resolution of the status of Jerusalem as the capital of the two States which fulfils the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;”
adding the 2 words “and prisoners;”
New 10bis. "Reiterates its demand in this regard for the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem."
Less than an hour before the Arab Group meeting ended, at the US State Department briefing in Washington, the Department's spokesperson said the US opposes the draft, and others oppose the draft as well, in part because it “fails to account for Israel's legitimate security needs.”
Update from US transcript:
MR. JEFF RATHKE: "We’ve seen reports regarding Palestinian and Jordanian plans to bring their text to a vote at the Security Council. There are discussions still taking place in New York and we are – and with the Secretary, who has spoken with some of his counterparts, and we are therefore engaging with all the relevant stakeholders. As we’ve said before, this draft resolution is not something that we would support and other countries share the same concerns that we have."
Inner City Press asked, and Mansour replied, “There was a telephone conversation between President Mahmoud Abbas and Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday and I'm sure they discussed all the issues.”
Dina Kawar said the amendments concern “the issue of Jerusalem, and others concern prisoners, water, settlements.” She said, “the Arab Group supports, they have now the copy of the new amendments, we are going to submit today to the Secretariat.”
On timing she said, “If I tell you this week and it happens next week you're going to come back and ask" why.
Dina Kawar and Riyad Mansour on Dec 28, 2104, (c) M.R. Lee
Mansour said on the timing of a vote, “realistically it could be tomorrow or the day after.”
UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- Amid reports that if a Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press on December 11 asked the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour about it. Video here.
Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state. Video here.
Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill has this to say:
"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—
"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or
"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."
Earlier this week, Palestine's Riyad Mansour was in UN Conference Room 1, with Palestine a non-member state, which no one opposed when proposed. Now this.
Earlier this month Palestine and the Arab League said Jordan would be pushing in the UN Security Council for a vote in December on a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, now January is being mentioned.
At first the commitment was to have a vote in November, when Australia was president of the Security Council. It didn't happen. On December 2, Inner City Press asked the Council president for December, Chadian Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif, why only a "Middle East debate" and not a vote on a Palestine resolution is on the Program of Work for December.
Ambassador Cherif said he is not yet seized of any Palestine resolution. Amid talk of a French resolution -- French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said on December 2 there is "no rush" on a resolution -- now Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar says "We're going to try to make it before Christmas. If not, it will be in January."
Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.
Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.
Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.
France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.
The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.
Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.
UNITED
NATIONS, December 11 --
With IMF quota
reform not included in the more than 1000 pages of the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus known as CRomnibus, what now will IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde do?
At the first IMF embargoed press briefing in four weeks, Deputy Spokesperson William Murray was asked (Inner City Press submitted this and five other questions before the briefing, see below.)
Murray referred to Lagarde's Work Plan for 2015, also under embargo until 10:30 am. Now, at that time, here it is, Paragraph 12:
"12.
Governance and resources. Prompt entry into force of the 2010 Quota and
Governance reforms is of utmost importance to preserve the quota-based
nature of the IMF, and strengthen its legitimacy, effectiveness and relevance. In line with the IMFC’s commitment to maintaining a strong and adequately-resourced IMF, steps will also be taken to ensure the availability of sufficient Fund resources for crisis prevention and resolution. As flagged in the Spring WP, in the event that the 2010 Board Reform Amendment and the 14th General Review of Quotas have not become effective by the end of 2014, a Board meeting on alternative options for rebalancing quotas and increasing Fund resources will be scheduled for January 2015. The Board will discuss a draft report to the Board of Governors on the
15th General Review of Quotas before the end-January deadline for the completion of the 9 Review. The timing of Board meetings on the 15th General Review and on revisions to the quota formula will be determined, taking into account progress made in ratifying the 2010 reforms."
So there will be an IMF Board meeting in January on the topic. Murray said the date of the next briefing, in January, is not yet set, pending the date of Lagarde's cusp of the year speech then travel to Davos. Watch this site.
Inner City Press on December 11 - actually, submitted December 10 -- asked:
If
not asked “in the room,” what if the IMF's response to IMF quota
not being included in the US Congress' end of year Continuing
Resolution / Omnibus?
On
Yemen, does Saudi Arabia withholding budget support due to advances
by the Houthis impact the IMF's program or predictions? Relatedly,
what is the IMF's response to the Yemeni central bank's Mohammed Bin
Humam being quoted that “our current level of foreign reserves is
still sufficient and in line with our program with the IMF”?
On
Ireland, what is the IMF's response to protests against its role in
the raised water charges for consumers in that country?
What
is the IMF's response to UNASUR Secretary-General Ernesto Samper
being quoted, Dec 8 in Quito, opposing Managing Director Lagarde's
comments on Latin America and that “the IMF does not have the moral
authority to give any recommendations to us after we were subject to
their constraints for many years, negating any possibility for
progress”?
On
Dec 10, the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs' World
Economic Situation and Prospects 2015 report addressed Ebola imposing
“major economic costs in the affected countries through disruptions
to travel and trade.” What are the IMF's estimates now of Ebola's
impact?
Watch this site.
Who to believe
on when Ebola
will be under
control: the
UN or the
International
Monetary Fund?
Or are the two
using
different
definitions?
Inner City
Press on
November 13
asked the IMF
and then the
UN.
When the IMF
held its
biweekly
embargoed
media briefing
on Thursday,
November 13,
Inner City
Press again
asked about
Ebola,
including new
World Bank
estimates of
budget
shortfalls in
Liberia.
Inner
City Press on
November 13
asked, "On
Ebola, what is
the IMF's
response to
the US call
for debt
forgiveness
for three
countries? The
World Bank has
indicated that
Liberia's
revised
2014-15 budget
has an unmet
financing gap
of more than
half of the
budget deficit
projected at
over $300
million. What
can or will
the IMF do
about this?"
IMF Deputy
Spokesperson
William Murray
replied that
given the
flare up of
Ebola cases in
unexpected
areas. "The
IMF staff's
previously
projections
were assuming
the epidemic
would be
brought under
control in the
first quarter
of 2015.
However it now
appears that
it could be
well into the
second half of
2015 before
the Ebola
epidemic is
brought under
control in
these three
countries."
Three hours
later at the
end of a UN
General
Assembly
session on
Ebola, Inner
City Press
asked a panel
of UNGA
President Sam
Kutesa and UN
Ebola envoys
Anthony
Banbury and
David Navarro
about the
IMF's new
projection: is
it consonant
with the UN's?
It was Tony
Banbury who
answered,
saying that
the UN is
aiming at 70%
safe burials
for example by
December 1 and
to turn the
Ebola epidemic
around.
Is that the
same thing as
getting the
epidemic
"under
control," the
definition
under which
the IMF now
projects the
second half of
2015?
The work goes
on. Watch this
site.
The day before
at the UN on
November 12
when the UN
Security
Council met,
Liberia's
Ambassador
Marjon Kamara
spoke not of
the IMF but of
the World
Bank, saying
"the World
Bank recently
gave a gloomy
depiction of
the economic
effects of the
disease on the
three most
affected
countries -
Guinea,
Liberia and
Sierra Leone."
Per Thoresson,
Deputy
Ambassador of
Sweden which
chairs the UN
Peacebuilding
configuration
on Liberia,
specified that
“according to
the World
Bank, the
two-year
regional
financial
impact could
reach $32.6
billion by the
end of 2015.
The World Bank
also indicated
that Liberia's
revised
2014-15 budget
has an unmet
financing gap
of more than
half of the
budget deficit
projected at
over $300
million.”
So where's the
money going to
come from?
Back on
October 30,
Inner City
Press asked
the
International
Monetary Fund
about its
stated $130
million
commitment to
Liberia,
Sierra Leone
and Guinea.
Inner City
Press asked
IMF
spokesperson
Gerry Rice for
an update at
the IMF's
embargoed
briefing on
October 30.
Rice said the
outlook has
worsened, with
region-wide
fall offs in
travel and
tourism. As to
the three
countries most
impacted,
there are
"large
financing
needs likely
for 2015."
At the Annual
Meetings
earlier this
month, the IMF
met with the
three
countries'
authorities,
Rice said.
"2015 is going
to be a
challenging
year." If the
outbreak
spreads, it
would have
larger
spillovers.
The IMF, Rice
said, is
ready. We'll
see.
In the UN
Security
Council on
November 12,
the head of UN
Peacekeeping
Herve Ladsous
recited that
Justice
Minister
Christiana Tah
resigned and
five soldiers
have been
demoted for
disciplinary
offenses while
enforcing a
quarantine of
an
Ebola-affected
community in
Monrovia.
Also during
the October 30
embargoed IMF
briefing,
Inner City
Press
submitted this
question: "On
Ghana, does
the IMF have
any comment on
the October 28
launch of the
“Civil Society
Organization
Platform on
the IMF
Bailout to
Ghana”? Will
the IMF meet
with the
group?")
On
Ebola back on
August 28 Rice
told Inner
City Press
that the IMF
was working on
the ebola
crisis with
the government
of Liberia,
Sierra Leone
and
Guinea.
Later came the
$130 million
commitment.
While
most questions
on August 28
concerned IMF
Managing
Director
Christine
Lagarde being
under
investigation
-- she will
brief the IMF
Board “very
soon,” Rice
said, calling
it “highly
unlikely” it
would be on
August 29
along with the
Board's
meeting on
Ukraine --
Inner City
Press also
asked about
Yemen, Ghana,
Pakistan --
and ebola,
IMF transcript
here:
“Has
the IMF
produced any
estimates of
the impact of
the ebola
crisis? Any
IMF responses
to it?”
Rice
read out the
question, then
said that
ebola's "acute
impacts" are
“macro-economic”
and social,
hitting three
“already
fragile”
countries
(Guinea,
Liberia and
Sierra Leone).
He said
"growth is
likely to slow
sharply in all
three cases"
and
significant
financial
needs will
rise:
"increased
poverty and
food
insecurity"
and impacts on
employment in
the key
agricultural
sector.
Rice
concluded, "We
are actively
working with
all three
countries to
prepare...
additional
financing that
may be
required."
