UN General Assembly Fails to Oversee Ban Ki-Moondoggle & Mercenary Deals

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 16 -- General Assembly President Joseph Deiss has staked a claim for global governance by the UN, which he calls the “G-192” to distinguish it from the G-20 club of large and rich nations.

But in his term so far, he allowed the already marginal General Assembly to be circumvented even by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, on matters ranging from the budget to the UN's relations with corporations.

Earlier this month in the GA's budget committee, a complaint was lodged that by adding money and time to the UN Capital Master Plan, in this case $100 million in US Tax Equalization Funds, Ban Ki-moon had violated a General Assembly resolution requiring that the GA be told and approval any such change in scope to the CMP.

Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman about the criticism to what is now being called the “Ban Ki-moondoggle” and was told to ask CMP chief Michael Adlerstein. But Adlerstein when asked said to ask the member states.

On March 16, Inner City Press asked Deiss and GA spokesman Jean Victor Nkolo if Deiss agrees with the Group of 77 that Ban violated a GA resolution in changing the budget and time table of the CMP without GA input.

That's up to the committee, Nkolo said. What then is the role of the President of the GA when the GA roles is being ignored?

Similarly, Inner City Press asked Nkolo about a UN Joint Inspection Unit report this year that the General Assembly should assert oversight power on the UN Global Compact, an initiative started by Kofi Annan that under Ban Ki-moon has put a convicted fraudster, from South Korea, on its board of directors, and most recently granted UNGC membership to a private military contractor, G4S, under fire for involvement in Israeli run prisons in the Occupid Palestinian Territories.

Nkolo said the Global Compact is a unit of the Secretariat -- exactly what the UN JIU was criticizing and asking the GA to change -- and that he would see what committee deals with the UN Global Compact. No GA commitee does: that's just the point that the JIU should be changed.

Meanwhile, neither Ban's spokesman nor the Global Compact has yet answered Inner City Press' questions about the mercenary firm G4S's membership in the UNGC, 24 hours after the questions were posed.

Finally on March 16, Inner City Press asked Nkolo if Deiss believes that meeting of the committee on revitalization of the GA, at which greater media access was called for, should remain closed to the public. Inner City Press went into the committee's meeting this week and quoted and analyzed a few statements by Japan and Peru in Twitter posts.

Then US Deputy Permanent Representative Rosemary DiCarlo came up and said that the meeting was closed to the press. A GA staffer later confirmed this. Deiss has said he is for openness. We'll see.

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.

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.

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.