|
At UN, Ban's Budget
Add-Ons Top $1.1 Billion, Criticism of Political Missions and Mandate
"Alignment"
Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at
the UN: News Analysis
UNITED NATIONS, March 27 -- The
UN
budget committee has been asked for over $1.1 billion in "add-ons" to
the over $4 billion budget adopted in December, a document
obtained by Inner
City Press shows.
This includes $56 million for a new computer system,
$100 million to
construct a new UN building in Baghdad, and $1.5 million for
"accountability / results-based management." According to the
document, which Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson is
quick to point out is only a proposal, an additional $184 million would
be
spent on the UN's so-called Capital Master rehabilitation plan, $6.8
million
would be devoted to a controversial conference in Durban, and over $100
million
would be to off set currency miscalculations.
On
March 25, Inner City Press asked spokesperson Michele Montas if the "budget add-ons that the Secretariat has
requested are $1.1
billion, a 25 per cent increase over the previous budget...when the
presentation was made, there was only about a 2 per cent increase, how
does the
Secretary-General explain this over $1 billion additional request?"
Two
hours after the briefing, the Spokesperson's Office responded
"in
fact, the Secretariat has only provided a projection of how financing
needs
would evolve, if the Member States were to support a wide range of
political
missions and management reform proposals currently on the table.
However, that
projection is not the final amount, since this is a consultative
process and
its ultimate outcome will be determined by the Member States at large
in the
General Assembly, and not by the Secretariat. Also, the costs for
special
political missions, including Iraq and Afghanistan, cannot in any sense
be considered
'administrative costs.'"
But
what about the computer / "enterprise systems" in the UN's list?
Purloigned UN budget document -- no fingerprints
The
largest chunk of the add-ons concerns Special Political Missions. One
of these,
for Nepal, was slashed by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and
Budgetary Questions, which for example stated of "a position...
proposed
in the Medical Section for a Medical Officer" that "in view of the
lateness of the proposal and the plan to maintain the operational level
of the
Mission only until the end of July 2008, the Committee recommends
against
approval of this post. The functions should be provided for from within
existing capacity." The same could be said of many of the proposed
add-ons.
One
post elimination which continues to cause trouble for the Ban
administration
was putting the Office of the Special Adviser for Africa together with
under
mandates, including that of Small Island Developing States. After Ban's
spokesperson for days said the Group of 77's protest letter had not
been
received, on Thursday the following exchange occurred:
Inner
City Press: this G-77 letter I've been asking about.
Has it now been received and, in that case,
what is the Secretariat’s thinking about having two different
Under-Secretaries-General for Africa and for Small Island States?
Spokesperson: I can confirm now
that the letter of the G-77
has been received and, as you say, it's on the alignment of the two
offices,
the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries
with
that of the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa, under one
Under-Secretary-General. I have to say
that the letter from Ambassador Ashe, chair of the Group, asked for
another
meeting with the Secretary-General. I
will say that the Secretary-General is always open to further
discussions with
the Group, but I would like to point out, however, that his decision to
appoint
Chiekh Sidi Diarra as head of both programs was made in prior intensive
consultations with the African Group, who agreed with that decision. And the Secretary-General certainly never
intended to undermine the General Assembly on this matter.
There were extensive consultations with the
African Group and they all agreed.
Inner
City Press: I think part of the letter, the G-77 also represents these
Small
Island Developing States and some of them are now saying the merger
doesn't
serve their interests or their issues.
Spokesperson: It is not a merger. Each program is autonomous and
continues. The only difference is that
you have one person who is taking care of both, one
Under-Secretary-General. So I don’t think
it’s changing the programs as they are.
In fact, the money that was to be used for a second
Under-Secretary-General is going to be put back into the programs
themselves. So I think it can benefit
both programs.
Inner
City Press: Do you know if he met with States, such as Bangladesh, for
example,
that was instrumental in setting up the small island part of the thing
that got
put together. In any case, did he only
meet with the African Group about this or did he try to meet with both
sides of
the things that were being considered?
Spokesperson: He did meet
with a number of people on these
issues from the Group of 77. If they
need further discussion with the Secretary-General, I'm sure the
Secretary-General is open.
But,
as to another now-outgoing member of Team Ban, we've heard
that before.
Watch
this site.
* * *
These reports are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click
here for a Reuters
AlertNet piece by this correspondent
about Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. Click
here
for an earlier Reuters AlertNet piece about the Somali National
Reconciliation Congress, and the UN's $200,000 contribution from an
undefined trust fund. Video
Analysis here
Feedback: Editorial
[at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-453A, UN, NY 10017 USA
Tel: 212-963-1439
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available
in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-08 Inner City Press, Inc. To request
reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com -
|
