As UN Refuses to Account for $100 M, Ban Ki-Moon Doggle Alleged

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 10, 1pm -- On the $100 million of US Tax Equalization Funds that are being “re-purposed” for use at the UN, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky repeatedly told Inner City Press this week to “ask the US State Department.”

While Inner City Press did ask US Ambassador Susan Rice, it seemed strange for the UN to refuse to provide information about its own plans and use of $100 million.

On February 10, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about a statement by US Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, that “In this case the United Nations notified the State Department that it intended to use [TEF funds] for security enhancement.”

Inner City Press asked Nesirky who in the UN told the State Department that the UN intended to repurpose the $100 million in US funds: was it Capital Master Plan director Michael Adlerstein? Department of Management chief Angela Kane? Or Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself? Nesirky would not answer.

Inner City Press asked if the $100 million will be paid to the UN selected contractor Skanska, recently charged in New York City with defrauding minority sub-contractor rules and involved in South America in what is called the Skanska Scandal. Nesirky would not answer.

Given that the Capital Master Plan is ostensibly subject to UN General Assembly oversight, with reports that purport to disclose cost overruns, Inner City Press asked if this $100 million is anywhere in the UN budget documents. Nesirky would not say.

Cutting off the questions, he said that this should be dealt with “off line” - that is, not in the press briefings. But Inner City Press has submitted a number of written questions to Nesirky's office that have not been answered.

Beyond the above, there is unclarity about the TEF. Inner City Press on February 9 asked in writing, with no acknowledgment much less answer:

What are the sources of funds which are deposited into the TEF? Isn't the TEF funded only through the Staff Assessment? You seem to be saying that the TEF is funded through the Staff Assessment AS WELL AS through "reimbursements" from the United States. Please provide a balance sheet of the TEF which shows the deposits made into it as well as the disbursements made from it for 2009 and 2010.

You answered that the "net balance of $179 million" was "due to the United States" from the TEF as of 31 December 2009. What was the net balance due to the United States from the TEF as of 31 December 2010, and what is the net balance due to the United States as of today, 9 February 2011?

You stated that "The US levies taxes on its nationals in respect of their UN earnings, and reimburses the UN for the same." Are you saying that the US makes payments to the UN which are deposited into the TEF, and that these payments are equal to the amount it receives in taxes from its nationals who work for the UN?

Regulation 4.12 of the UN Financial Regulations states that --

“In accordance with regulation 3.2, any balance on a Member State’s tax equalization account after the obligations referred to in regulation 4.11 have been satisfied shall be credited against the assessed contributions due from that Member State the following year.”

Were the balances from 2009 credited toward the US' assessment for 2010, as required by UN Financial Regulation 4.12? If not, then why? Was the UN not following its own financial regulations when it allowed the "balances due" to the US to reach $179 million as of the end of 2009? Please explain.

None of these questions have been answered. One problem here is that by refusing to state which UN officials notified the US State Department about the re-purposing of $100 million, responsibility must go to the top. And when Ban said that 99% of his officials make public financial disclosure and Inner City Press showed this is untrue, Nesirky said it was all a metaphor. Watch this site.

At UN, Re-Purposing of US $100 M Defended by Susan Rice, Noone Else Paid

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 9 -- When US Ambassador Susan Rice came to the UN Security Council stakeout late Wednesday morning, she was prepared to answer questions about the Tax Equalization Fund, some of which Inner City Press submitted to the US Mission Tuesday morning.

In the House of Representatives a proposal is being considered to get the $179 million owed to the US applied to future UN dues. At some date still undisclosed, some US State Department official told the UN it could keep $100 million for security upgrades in the Capital Master Plan renovation, beyond the CMP security elements already approved by the General Assembly, for which the US pays 22%.

Inner City Press asked Ambassador Rice who had approved this, and if any other country would be contributing toward the $100 million in additional security.

Ambassador Rice said that the Obama Administration opposes the House legislation. She cited Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island as supporting this position. Her answer implied that no other country is contributing to the $100 million -- she spoke only about $79 million of the $179 million being put toward UN dues. She did not say who had approved the $100 million.

Inner City Press began asked what Ambassador Rice would say to those who now consider the $179 million, or at least $78 million of it, to be a slush fund -- Ambassador Rice asked, “Slush fund? There is no slush fund,” and her spokesman moved on to another questioner. Transcript below.

Minutes later at the UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky who the UN had spoken to within the US government to conclude that these $100 million could be spent, and if it had ever been approved or presented to the UN General Assembly.

Nesirky again said, ask the State Department -- we have -- and said he would look into whether there are other Capital Master Plan related funds that have not been disclosed or voted on by the General Assembly.

When asked to explain why the $100 million was so urgent it could not go through regular budgeting (and disclosure) procedures, Nesirky said to ask the State Department.

Earlier, Inner City Press had asked Nesirky's office

Ultimately, who within the Secretariat is responsible for spending this money? DM? DSS?

Has the General Assembly given its approval to this project? Is there a mandate from the GA for this activity?

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?

Answers will be reported when they are received. Watch this site.

From the US Mission to the UN's transcript:

Inner City Press: On Sudan, what do you make of this fighting in Malakal? The army, there are several dozens of people who have been killed of late, what does the US think of that? And I wanted to ask, on the Tax Equalization Fund—there’s a dispute in the House about this $100 million that the State Department has told the UN it can use for security improvements. Who approved that at the State Department and are other countries going to be contributing to that, or is the US paying the whole $100 million with no offset on the CMP payments?

Ambassador Rice: Well, let me start with Malakal. Obviously we’re very concerned about the violence in Malakal and along that border area. This is a function, as you know, of the need for these units that have been joint to now separate, and it is of concern that lives have been lost and violence has occurred, and it underscores the need for this process of disintegrating the joint units to be done carefully and with some supervision.

Let me turn now to the Tax Equalization Fund, and the application of these credits. The legislation that is pending in the House today is a piece of legislation the administration strongly opposes. And we do so because it was the City of New York that underscored the vital importance to US national security to enhance security—physical security—in this structure, above and beyond what was originally contemplated during the Capital Master Plan. We have thousands of New Yorkers who pass through this building and under this building every day. We have school children, we have members of the public, we have the President of the United States, come in this building on a regular basis. And the City of New York and the State Department and the administration feel that it’s in our national interests and in the interests of the people of New York that steps be taken swiftly to upgrade the physical security of this building. And that is what we have done, in coordination with the United Nations. That is also why Representative Peter King—a New Yorker—who is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the House, said very plainly yesterday that this is a crucial commitment that we’ve made, one that should be honored, and he opposes this legislation because it unwisely would make that impossible.

Let me just say also, Matt, we share, however, the spirit in which the legislation is offered, which is to reduce the deficit and to address the need for spending reductions. But the other portion of those credits—the $79 million—will do just that, because we intend to apply those to assessments that we would otherwise have to request resources from Congress to pay. So this is a way of ensuring that we are utilizing taxpayer dollars wisely.

Inner City Press: So it’s kind of a slush fund, there’s no approval?

Ambassador Rice: Slush fund? No, there’s no slush fund.

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.

On Myanmar, As EU Prepares Visit, Ban Delays Replacing Nambiar, GA Mandate To Be Cut?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 8 -- When the European Union's Catherine Ashton came to the UN on Tuesday, Inner City Press asked for the EU's position on Myanmar, and to contrast it with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's.

Ashton began, “With Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi is somebody we are in contact with, she and I have just been writing to each other, and I'm hoping that somebody from the EU will be visiting her shortly.”

By contrast after Ban's chief of staff and part time Myanmar envoy Vijay Nambiar visited Aung San Suu Kyi, when he returned his internal assessment within the UN as conveyed to Inner City Press by well placed UN sources was that she is out of touch and too hard line.

Ashton continued that “on all of these issues, we need to talk with the opposition, of course with her, she's central, but also with the others around her and engage with this... The EU will make its position clear when we've got that type of discussion out of the way and so we're waiting to be given the chance to talk with her.”

Inner City Press asked Ashton if she agrees with Ban Ki-moon's recent assessment, if the EU is on the same page.

Ashton replied that she doesn't have a “detailed, finger tip knowledge of the last thing the UN said.”

Ban Ki-moon put out a statement about the new parliament, 25% of whose members are appointed by the military and in which proposals have to be shown to a screener 10 days before they are introduced, with the possiblity of prohibition without any chance of appeal.

After for weeks declining to answer Inner City Press' questions about the banning of the National League for Democracy in Myanmar, the plight of the Rohingya and when Ban would finally move on the request by the UK, Mexico and others to replace Nambiar with a full time envoy, the UN sent this:

From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:18 PM
Subject: Your questions on Myanmar
To: Matthew Russell Lee [at] Inner City Press

In response to your emailed question about the dissolution of the NLD in Myanmar, we have the following to say: We have taken note of the decision with concern and continue to follow developments closely. We believe that in order to succeed any transition must be inclusive and participatory, including both those who won seats in the recent elections and those who did not participate.

Regarding the Rohingya boat people, UNHCR is trying to obtain access; please follow up with UNHCR on that matter.

On replacing Nambiar, the UN has had nothing to say. Now, sources in the UN tell Inner City Press there is a reason. The goal is to get the entire UN mandate on Myanmar eliminated in the General Assembly, by pointing to the new parliament and recycled president. That, the sources say, explains Ban's statements and delay. Watch this site.

For $100M Earmark, UN & US Mission Hide Behind Security, Won't Describe Approval

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 9 -- There is a $100 million fight about the UN heating up today in Congress, about which the UN refuses to answer questions.

Of the $179 million in the UN's US Tax Equalization Fund, $100 million are said to be “re-purposed” for security at the UN in New York City.

But when Inner City Press asked the UN, and the US Mission to the UN, how this $100 million has been or will be used, neither would provide any information.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky said to “ask the [US] State Department,” even about the UN's use of the money. He said information might be provided later on February 8, but none was, including by the US Mission.

This lack of transparency is inappropriate. Inner City Press covers the UN every day and can list numerous human security lapses, as well as waste of funds.

Proponents of the $100 million earmark, or slush fund, say that because part of the UN is over the FDR Drive, money is needed for security. But what do they propose? Bomb screening for all cars on the FDR Drive?

One imagine a defense of opacity revolving around the need to keep security blueprints out of the hands of terrorists. But on February 8, neither the UN nor US Mission would answer how the green light was given to the UN to “re-purpose” the $100 million. This cannot be secret.

From the UN's February 8 transcript:

Inner City Press: Sure. I have several questions, but I wanted to ask you about this tax equalization fund that’s being discussed in Congress. There is a quote by the [United States] Assistant Secretary of State, [Esther] Brimmer, saying that $100 million of this $179 million equalization of US staff members has been repurposed for security. So, I wanted to know, how did the US indicate to the UN that it could be repurposed in that way? How much of that money — she says almost $100 million —has been spent? How was it spent? And have other countries made similar multi-million dollar contributions?

Spokesperson: Well, first of all, I would suggest that you ask the State Department. I have seen those quotes, but I think that it would be better if you asked the State Department about that aspect of it. We did provide you with some figures a little earlier, and as I say, I think that in the first instance you ought to check with the State Department.

Inner City Press: But is it true… for how they communicated to the UN, maybe it is up to them to say. But how the UN used the $100 million seems like a fair question.

Spokesperson Nesirky : No, I am not saying it’s not a fair question, Matthew, I am just saying start there. I am not saying that we are not going to try to find out the answer to the second part, but please try to start at the right address...

[Good] Question: Again on the tax equalization fund, there are also news reports that say that the UN asked the US whether it could keep the surplus money to use for security reasons. So which happened first? The UN requested, or did the US offer?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Well, as I said, please check with the State Department. I have also seen those reports, and I would expect to have something a little bit later on that.

As Egypt Ambassador Dismissing Web Crackdown, His UN Job Search Continues, Yemen & Tunisia Perm Reps Compete?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 8 -- Amid continuing protests and crackdowns on media in Egypt, the Mubarak government's Permanent Representative to the UN Maged A. Abdelaziz spoke to the Press on Tuesday. Inner City Press asked him about the blocking of the Internet and social networks and whether these attacks on freedom of expression would continue.

“I'm sure you know better than that,” Abdelaziz said. “Now everything is working -- social networks, Internet, Twitters... you have contact with your people back there, you see everything.”

But the fact that television networks can work around restrictions and threats does not answer the question. Abdelaziz said that as Ambassador to the UN in New York, there were questions he could not answer.

Earlier on Tuesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was asked about complaints by Abdelaziz, first to Ban's chief of staff Vijay Nambiar, about comments about Mubarak stepping down. Ban said

“I think that there was some misunderstanding about my statement. I hope that there will not be much misunderstanding on that. What I said was that the Government leaders should listen more attentively to the genuine aspirations of the people and there should be a transition, and the sooner the better. And the future of their country and transition process should be something which should be decided by the people.”

Less than an hour later, Abdelaziz seemed pleased when he said that what Ban Ki-moon had just said “is the UN position.” Abdelaziz met with Ban on Monday.

Abdelaziz' and the Egyptian Mission's spokeswoman commented to Inner City Press on Tuesday about its reporting that Abdelaziz is seeking a job. She denied he is seeking an IMF job -- which Inner City Press never reported. But there are many sources for his UN job search.

Also, the Permanent Representatives of Yemen and Tunisia are said to be seeking UN jobs -- one effect of what's sweeping the region. But it is like musical chairs. Watch this site.

With UN Panel Blocked from Sri Lanka, Ban Says “There Was An Agreement"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 8 -- On Sri Lanka, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday insisted to Inner City Press that “there was an agreement” and that his “Panel will visit Sri Lanka.”

But not only have seven weeks gone by since Ban praised President Mahinda Rajapaksa for his “flexibility” and announced his Panel on Accountability would go -- since then, a range of UN officials have acknowledged that Sri Lanka has now refused to let the UN Panel go and speak with Rajapaksa's Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission.

Inner City Press has it from both sides that the UN is now offering a mere video conference call or even answers to written questions.

So much for the agreement.

Left unanswered, still, is with whom the stated agreement was.

From the UN's transcript of Q&A with Mr. Ban on Tuesday:

Inner City Press: Sri Lanka – I need to ask you this. In both of your two last monthly press conferences, you said that your Panel was going to travel to the country, you praised President Rajapaksa’s flexibility. It now appears, and I’ve now heard from people on both sides that the Panel is probably not going to go, that they’ve offered a video conference. I just wondered what happened. Who did you speak with before you said that they could go and how do you read this now, with their failure to go, as the deadline approaches?

SG Ban: I can tell you that there was an agreement and that my Panel will visit Sri Lanka and they are still discussing about the format and their role in Sri Lanka. And whenever it is decided, I will let you know.

{Inner City Press: If they don't go, their work is not finished?}

SG Ban: I didn’t say that they [wouldn’t] go.

{Inner City Press: They will go?}

SG Ban: They will try to go anyway.

Watch this site.

On Thai - Cambodia, UN Moves for Monday Council Meeting, With ASEAN

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 8 -- A day after the UN Security Council did not act on Cambodia's request for a Council meeting, late Tuesday agreement emerged to hold the requested meeting on Monday, February 14.

To make clear that the UN is deferring to the regional group ASEAN, its mediator between Thailand and Cambodia Marty Natalegawa will be invited to come and speak.

Meanwhile Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the Press on Tuesday that he had spoken with the prime ministers of Thailand and Cambodia. Some wonder why Ban isn't mediating, or even asked to mediate, under UN Charter Article 99.

Natalegawa was previously Indonesia's Permanent Representative to the UN, and some now mentioned him for higher, even the highest, UN position.

Footnote: also in Council consultations Tuesday, discussion was had of a Council trip to the Middle East. Watch this site.

EU's Ashton, Who Cut Sri Lanka's GSP Plus, Says Rajapaksa Blocks Inquiries, While Ban Praises His "Flexibility"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 8 -- While UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praises Sri Lanka president Mahinda Rajapaksa's “flexibility,” even as Ban's Panel on Accountability is blocked from traveling to Colombo, the EU's Catherine Ashton on Tuesday was more direct when Inner City Press asked her Tuesday about the removal of GSP Plus tariff benefits for the country.

“It's me that did the GSP Plus removal from Sri Lanka,” she said. “It's important if you have a program that says, this is conditionality, if you don't do it or you do something in breach of it that there are consequences. I stand by that completely. We did our own independent look into what had been going on. I'd like to see Sri Lanka make progress.”

Inner City Press asked her about the UN's position, saying (before being cut off by her spokesman) that “the government is not going to allow.”

Ashton said that “the government usually doesn't allow things like that. The President took the power to prevent independent inquiry, wouldn't allow someone in to do the inquiry into GSP Plus, which meant that it was much more complicated. So the words 'the government doesn't allow' are not unusual.”

Meanwhile Ban Ki-moon cites a 2005 visit while he was South Korean foreign minister as somehow pushing for accountability, and praises Rajapaksa's “flexibility.” Seven weeks later, with the UN now offering Sri Lanka a mere video conference call, will Ban explain his statements? Watch this site.

Inner City Press also asked Ashton about Myanmar. She said she and ASSK are exchanging letters, and that she hopes the EU will be able to send someone to visit her soon, as well as others in the opposition. We'll see.

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).

On Thai - Cambodia, UNSC Defers to ASEAN's Natalegawa, UN Replacement?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 8 -- Despite a request from Cambodia's prime minister Hun Sen for a UN Security Council meeting on the fighting with Thailand, the Council on Monday did not schedule a meeting, deferring instead to the mediation of Indonesia's foreign minister Marty Natalegawa, for ASEAN.

Inner City Press, which reported before the Council's consultations on the matter that two countries wanted to hold a meeting, is now told that in the consultations, Russia spoke in favor of having a meeting, saying this is what the Council is for.

As Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin left the Council on Monday, Inner City Press asked him about the Council having a meeting on Cambodia's request. We are not against it, he replied.

Inner City Press then asked the Council's president Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti if Hun Sen's public request that the UN establish a buffer zone around the Preah Vihear temple.

No, she answered, that request had not been made to the Council. Meanwhile, Thailand's prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has said he will call UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday.

Natalegawa was previously Indonesia's permanent representative to the UN, and knows the system well. His successor on January 31 told Inner City Press that ASEAN led by Indonesia is trying to get Western sanctions on Myanmar lifted, while getting Myanmar to agree to an ASEAN envoy to that country.

Some expect Natalegawa to be able to keep the Thai - Cambodia issue off of the Council's formal agenda, by the withdrawal of Cambodia's request just as a similar request was withdrawn in 2008, when Viet Nam was president of the Council. But for now the fighting has continued.

A buzz at the UN this week concerns the open dissatisfaction with Ban by several countries, including veto-wielding Security Council member Russia. If Ban were denied a second term, as the US denied one to Boutros-Boutros Ghali, the next five or ten years would be seen as belonging to the Asia group, just as Kofi Annan replaced Boutros for the African group.

What higher profile and more adept replacement could there be from the Asia group, some say, than Natalegawa? Watch this site.

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.

On Sri Lanka War Crimes, UN's Ban at Oxford Listed 2005 Trip for S. Korea, Now His Panel Offers Mere Video Call

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 -- “I visited Sri Lanka twice” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on February 2 at Oxford, answered a question about the UN failing to protect Tamils and failing to pursue accountability for those who ordered them killed.

Inner City Press had covered Ban's May 2009 trip to Sri Lanka, but was unaware of any other trip Ban made to the country since he became UN Secretary General. So for five days Inner City Press has asked Ban's spokesperson Martin Nesirky for the date of the second trip, without response.

On February 7 at the day's UN press briefing, Inner City Press asked Nesirky if Ban might paradoxically have been referring to a trip he made in 2005, when he did not yet work for the UN but was South Korea's foreign minister.

“I think your analysis is correct,” Nesirky said, “he was referring to a trip he made when he was foreign minister.”

The question still remains, what was accomplished for accountability during that trip? Some in fact tie that 2005 trip, which included a detour to President Mahinda Rajapaksa's Southern hometown of Hambantota where late a Chinese port was built with South Korea involvement, with Rajapaksa convincing Sri Lanka's candidate for Secretary General to withdraw in favor of Ban.

Here is how media reported the 2005 trip at the time:

Korean PM here today

Lee Hae-chan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea will be in Sri Lanka today and tomorrow... The Prime Minister will be accompanied by a high level delegation including Ban Ki-moon, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Kang Dong-suk, Minister of Construction and Transportation and Cho Young-taek, Vice Minister for Public Policy Co-ordination in Prime Minister's Office... The relief supplies will be later distributed by the Korean NGOs operating in Sri Lanka. Together with Prime Minister Rajapakse, Prime Minister Hae-chan will travel along the western coast to have a first-hand view of the destruction to lives, livelihoods and property and will make a stop-over in Hambantota.

How is referring to this trip an answer to this question, asked at Oxford?

Q: The UN has failed to protect and prevent in such countries as Sri Lanka, where over 40,000 innocent civilians were massacred in 2009. Will you ensure, during your term, that those responsible are brought to justice? Will you ensure there is a proper investigation of war crime?

On this last, Ban on February 2 said

I visited Sri Lanka twice and I had very serious talks with the President and Government leaders. After a lengthy, very difficult, almost turbulent course of negotiations, I was able to convince the Sri Lankan Government that a group of experts would be established. Still, it has not yet been able to complete its mission. They are still negotiating with the Sri Lankan Government.

Inner City Press on February 7 asked Ban's spokesman to confirm or deny that the UN is now offering Sri Lanka a mere video conference call or even just written questions, rather than a visit. The discussions continue, Nesirky said, repeating that a visit to Sri Lanka is “not essential.” Nesirky's Deputy Farhan Haq said that a visit to Sri Lanka is “desirable.” So what is a video conference, or written questions? Watch this site.

As Congo Arrests American for Gold Trade, UN's Meece Knows Little, No LRA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 -- Last week in Eastern Congo, four foreigners were arrested for illegal gold trading and exploitation. Two Nigerians, an American and a French national were taken from their plane at the airport in North Kivu capital Goma, province governor Julien Paluku said.

On February 7 Inner City Press asked Roger Meece, the head of the UN Mission in the Congo MONUSCO, about the arrests and MONUSCO's role. He said the Congolese acted on a situation “at best irregular, that's the most charitable description.”

Inner City Press asked him if the US (or France or Nigeria) had communicated with Kinshasa or the UN about their nationals being arrested. “I can't speak for the countries involved,” said Meece, previously the US Ambassador to the Congo. Nor has the US said anything about the arrest, or about the US-registered plane, which flew from Nigeria.

After Inner City Press asked, Meece said that it is possible the Bosco Ntaganda is involved -- the same Ntaganda who has bragged of working with the UN after being indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

The UN in Sudan transported ICC indictee Ahmed Haroun in an UNMIS plane, saying that it was necessary in order to try to calm tensions. The UN in Congo, MONUSCO, could make the same argument about Bosco Ntaganda.

The Brazilian president of the Security Council for February read out a press statement in which the Council took issue with the promotion of men implicated in human rights abuses.

Inner City Press asked if the Lord's Resistance Army had even been discussed. Yes, under security, the Brazilian Ambassador answered. Still, given that the long Council press statement did not even mention the LRA, it seems it was an afterthought, even to the US delegation. Watch this site.

Footnote: Inner City Press also asked Meece if MONUSCO will respond to the call to provide more protection in Virunga national park, where rangers are being killed. Meece gave a long answer whcih did not make it clear if any additional protection will be provided, or even attempted. Meanwhile a "new rebel group" has become to protect the part -- some dub it "guerrillas for gorillas."