The Building You’re Buying the U.N.

BRETT D. SCHAEFER @NationalReview

With little attention from national media or Congress, the pieces are falling into place for the United Nations to build a brand-new building next door to its current 39-story tower. That’s fast work, considering the U.N. has yet to provide the Obama administration or Congress an official cost estimate for the project or a detailed justification of the need for this building.

Thus far, the action has been concentrated in New York. Earlier this summer, both houses of the state legislature approved a bill authorizing New York City to “sell, lease or otherwise transfer such land and interests therein to the United Nations development corporation” as are needed for the construction of a new office building on the Robert Moses Playground just south of the current U.N. building. Governor Cuomo signed the legislation on July 15. The legislation stipulates that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) must be completed and signed by the mayor of New York City, the temporary president of the senate, and the speaker of the assembly by October 10, or the legislative authorization will expire.

New York politicians and the U.N. have been working to overcome resistance from some local residents who strongly oppose the deal. In fact, the U.N. Foundation has hired a public-relations firm, Berlin Rosen, to gin up local support for the project. David Cantor of Berlin Rosen is the spokesman for the Friends of the East River Greenway, a “grassroots” groupspecifically created to advocate the project.

New York state-assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, one of the three individuals who must sign off on the MOU, and state senator Liz Krueger, who represents the 26th New York Senate district, where the Robert Moses Playground is located, are also represented by Berlin Rosen.

Once the MOU is complete, New York will enter into formal negotiations with the U.N. to sell the playground. Local politicians have presented the project as a financial windfall for the city. The New York Times quotes state senator Liz Kreuger as saying, “It is a very rare occasion where I would ever find myself supporting the alienation of open space in my district. But we think mathematically this is a win. It helps New York City make good on its commitment to a green ring around Manhattan. We’re in bad economic times. I just don’t see any money appearing on the horizon for something like this.”

Indeed, New York expects to make $200 million to $400 million from the deal. Much of that would be used to fill in the largest remaining gap in the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, from 38th to 60th Streets on the East River. The greenway is considered a legacy project by Mayor Bloomberg.

Woohoo — free money from the United Nations, right? Not exactly. Remember, the U.S. taxpayer pays 22 percent of the U.N. budget.

Earlier this decade, construction of a new U.N. building was estimated to run about $400 million. And New York wants $65 million for the playground property. Add those two figures for a lowball estimate. The cost could go much higher, however. After all, the current renovation of the U.N. building was initially estimated at $600 million. It’s now expected to wind up costing more than $2 billion.

The U.S. taxpayer will likely be expected to shoulder 22 percent of the increased expenses resulting from the new U.N. building. This works out to just over $100 million under the lowball estimate, but could easily be three or even four times that amount. And it should surprise no one if we’re also asked to assume sole fiscal responsibility for security upgrades related to the new building. After all, as we saw in 2010, the U.S. was expected to pay for $100 million in security-related expenses — above and beyond our regular “fair share” contribution for the renovation project.

What New York is really proposing, then, is for American taxpayers from around the country to pay hundreds of millions of dollars so that Manhattan’s bikers and hikers can have a scenic pathway along the East River. If the citizens of New York won’t pony up for their own esplanade, why should taxpayers in Ohio or Nevada or Florida or anywhere else? This may be a “win” for New York and the U.N., but it certainly makes the rest of America look like a loser.

Thus far, the Obama administration has stayed mute on this issue. It should speak up and oppose this project before things progress too far and the American taxpayer is stuck with another extravagant bill. In a time of fiscal austerity, neither the administration nor Congress should silently assent to this unnecessary increase in America’s contributions to the U.N.

— Brett D. Schaefer is the Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.

Clientitis at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations?

The Heritage Foundation Leadership for America

by Brett Schaefer

Ambassador Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, gave the first of a series of scheduled speeches last week in Portland, Oregon. The focus of the speeches is “Why America Needs the UN” and wasinspired, apparently, by congressional efforts to include U.S. payments to the U.N. among efforts to cut the U.S. budget deficit.

Her speech was dominated by unstinting praise for the U.N. and arguments intended to instill that viewpoint in her audience. Describing it as hagiographic would be going too far, perhaps, but not by much. Rice acknowledged some of the problems of the U.N., including its poor management, its anti-Israel bias, and its inability to punish peacekeepers who commit rape or other criminal acts. She argued that the U.S. is tirelessly trying to address these problems and provided a few tepid examples of the Administration’s successes. But throughout the speech was an unambiguous message that the U.N.’s foibles were an acceptable cost in exchange for the good done by the organization:

Main Street America needs the United Nations, and so do you and I, especially in these tough economic times. America can’t police every conflict, end every crisis, and shelter every refugee. The UN provides a real return on our tax dollars by bringing 192 countries together to share the cost of providing stability, vital aid, and hope in the world’s most broken places. Because of the UN, the world doesn’t look to America to solve every problem alone. And the UN offers our troops in places like Afghanistan the international legitimacy and support that comes only from a Security Council mandate—which, in turn, is a force multiplier for our soldiers on the frontlines.

It is all too easy to find cases where the UN could be more efficient and effective. I spend plenty of time pointing them out and trying to fix them—and not always diplomatically. But judging the UN solely by isolated cases of mismanagement or corruption misses the forest for the trees. We’re far better off working to strengthen the UN than trying to starve it—and then having to choose between filling the void ourselves or leaving real threats untended.

This line of defense is bizarre. Few people judge the U.N. solely by its foibles, but even fewer would seriously argue that the good works done by the U.N. should shield it from legitimate criticism or inoculate it from congressional efforts to use its power of the purse to leverage support for specific reforms to “strengthen” the U.N.

Nor is starving the U.N. on the table. In fact, the budgetary proposals put forward by the House involve small cuts to U.S. contributions to the U.N. For fiscal year (FY) 2011, the House majority is essentially proposing to reduce U.S. contributions to the two main accounts for U.S. contributions to the U.N. and other international programs (Contributions to International Organizations and International Organizations and Programs) back to the level they were at in FY 2008. How much money does the crash diet come to? About $120 million or about 6 percent less than the President’s FY 2011 request.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009 (the latest figure for which we have data). So, when compared to all U.S. contributions to the U.N. system, the current cuts proposed in the House work out to about a 2 percent reduction.

By comparison, President Obama’s own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reformrecommended reducing U.S. voluntary contributions to the U.N. and other international organizations by 10 percent, or about $350 million.

So let me get this straight: Ambassador Rice is seriously suggesting that cutting U.S. contributions to the U.N. by 6 percent is tantamount to starving the U.N. of funds? Was the U.N. starving in 2008? Is there no fat to by cut from the U.N. budget that would allow key activities to be funded despite reduced funding by the U.S.? Of course not. The Ambassador apparently likes knocking down straw men.

The speech took a nasty turn toward the end:

[T]hose who push to curtail U.S. support to the United Nations owe it to U.S. soldiers to explain why they should perform missions now handled by United Nations peacekeepers, and they owe it to parents around the world to explain why their children should suffer without the medicine, food, and shelter that only the United Nations provides.

True, many Members of Congress would like to further cut U.S. contributions to the U.N., and more proposals to withhold money from U.S. contributions to the U.N. are likely to be proposed. But in nearly every case, those withholdings are tied to specific reforms that would enhance U.N. oversight, accountability, management, or fiscal discipline. The point of these efforts is to improve the U.N. and make it more accountable, not to destroy it. Nor is the effort based on a desire to cause suffering or shirk our responsibilities. Ambassador Rice does a disservice to Congress by suggesting otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that the U.N. budget is “utterly opaque, untransparent and completely in the shadow,”in the words of former U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown. Tens of millions of U.N. dollars, perhaps hundreds of millions, are wasted, mismanaged, and stolen outright. How many lives are lost due to this mismanagement, opacity, and unaccountability? Should Congress ignore these problems because the U.N. has noble aims?

Perhaps Congress would feel less need to use financial leverage to press for U.N. reform if Ambassador Rice had been more successful in actually advancing the stalled U.N. reform agenda over the past few years. But that would entail actually attending meetings in Turtle Bay and would preclude Ambassador Rice’s whistle stop tour to enlighten America.

Which raises a final point: Why, when the U.N. has its own Department of Public Information funded to the tune of $43 million courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, is Ambassador Rice barnstorming the U.S. to defend the U.N. from congressional cuts? Her job is to convince the U.N. to adopt America’s agenda, not convince Americans to adopt the U.N.’s agenda.

As noted by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton in his book Surrender Is Not an Option, the State Department bureaucrats can fall victim to a “clientitis” problem. They begin—consciously or unconsciously—to see the countries, regions or organizations under their diplomatic tent as clients whose interests they feel compelled to defend inside the State Department or to the U.S. in general. Instead of scheduling a speaking tour to defend the U.N., Ambassador Rice might have been better served to arrange a listening tour of her real clients—the American taxpayers.

The United Nations: Urgent Problems that Need Congressional Action

Full Committee

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL), CHAIRMAN

The United Nations:
Urgent Problems that Need Congressional Action

You are respectfully requested to attend the following open briefing of the Full Committee to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

DATETuesday, January 25, 2011

TIME10:00 AM

LOCATIONRoom 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building

BRIEFERSMr. Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, the Heritage Foundation

Mr. Robert Appleton
Former Chairman
United Nations Procurement Task Force

Ms. Claudia Rosett
Journalist-in-Residence
Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Mr. Hillel C. Neuer
Executive Director
UN Watch

*** Mr. Peter Yeo
Vice President for Public Policy
United Nations Foundation

*** Mr. Mark Quarterman
Senior Adviser and Director
Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation
Center for Strategic and International Studies

NOTEBriefing has been rescheduled from a previous date.
***New briefers added.

US Republicans to push UN overhaul

click here for this story

(AFP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama's Republican foes next week will open a fresh quest for sweeping changes at the United Nations on everything from peacekeeping to nuclear safeguards, a key lawmaker said Friday.

Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the new House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, announced she would hold a Wednesday briefing entitled "The United Nations: Urgent Problems that Need Congressional Action."

Her office said the Florida lawmaker planned to push legislation calling for broad changes at the world body, a frequent target of US conservatives who charge it is bloated, inefficient, and corrupt.

Ros-Lehtinen's bill calls for the United States to shun the UN Human Rights Council and to withhold an amount of UN dues equal to what it would contribute to the panel until the US State Department certifies that the council does not include countries regarded by Washington as major human rights abusers.

The measure, which would also have to pass the Senate, also calls for restrictions on US contributions to the UN nuclear watchdog to ensure that countries like Iran and Syria do not receive nuclear-related assistance as long as they are on a US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Ros-Lehtinen's proposal would also call for sweeping changes in the way the UN peacekeeping efforts are planned, managed, run and assessed, according to a summary from her office.

The bill would create a US inspector general to track how US dues to the United Nations are used, and would withhold US monies from UN entities that do not cooperate with such oversight.

The US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, has been given cabinet level ranking by President Barack Obama, who has set out to improve relations with the United Nations.

"The US has consistently pressed the issue of efficiency and accountability at the UN, pushing for a focus on results," Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the US mission at the United Nations said of the criticism.

"Simply, we want Congress to resume its traditional role as an oversight body and a check on the United Nations and other international organizations," commented Brett Schaefer, one of the experts due to take part in the briefing.

"Otherwise, the default inclinations of our diplomats is simply to go along to get along and not press for the reforms that are desperately needed," said Schaefer, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

Bolton to Headline UN Event in Twin Cities

Washington, D.C., Oct. 6, 2010—John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will speak about the effectiveness of the world body Wednesday, Oct. 13, at a dinner event at the Hyatt Minneapolis held by regional supporters of The Heritage Foundation.

Before the speech, three Heritage analysts who closely follow the U.N. will share their perspectives in a panel discussion.

Bolton, now a senior fellow in national security policy at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, served first as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and then as ambassador to the United Nations in the administration of President George W. Bush.

“Our contribution becomes like an entitlement,” Bolton said of mandatory U.S. funding of the U.N. in a recent interview. “There’s no incentive for effective performance, or responsiveness or transparency. … So much of what happens in the U.N. happens in a bubble that doesn’t really reflect much of the outside world’s reality.”

The event host is the Minneapolis/St. Paul Committee for Heritage, a group of regional business and civic leaders who support the think tank’s conservative public policy research. Approximately 8,200 of Heritage’s more than 696,000 members live in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

Robert J. Ulrich, honorary chairman of the committee, is the former CEO and chairman of the board of Target Corp.

Bolton’s speech will be preceded at 4:30 p.m. by a panel discussion entitled “ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives” and featuring three Heritage policy experts:

• Steve Groves, research fellow and leader of the Freedom Project at Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.
• Terry Miller, director of Heritage’s Center for International Trade and Economics and former ambassador to the U.N. Economic and Social Council.
• Brett Schaefer, research fellow in international regulatory affairs at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and editor of a book with the same title as the discussion topic.

The Minneapolis/St. Paul Committee for Heritage is one of 13 Heritage-affiliated groups in metropolitan regions across the nation, including Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco and Naples, Fla.

Tickets are $30 for Heritage members, $60 for non-members and $20 for students. Online registration is at http://www.myheritage.org/committees/minneapolis/.

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with more than 696,000 individual, foundation and corporate donors. Founded in 1973, it works to develop effective policy solutions based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and a strong national defense.

Obama Soft-Pedals Reforms at UN

CLICK HERE TO VIEW STORY ON NEWSMAX.COM

By: Kara Rowland

When President Obama speaks to the United Nations this week, he'll highlight gains from his policy of engaging the world body, but critics say that will come at the expense of U.N. reform — a Bush-era priority that, at least publicly, seems to have taken a back seat.

The White House has not permanently filled a key reform-centered ambassadorship to the United Nations after Mr. Obama's first nominee, Jide Zeitlin, withdrew his name late last year amid controversy about some business dealings.

Despite evidence of mismanagement at the massive organization, critics say, the U.S. delegation has backed away from the tough watchdog role it played under President George W. Bush.

The Obama administration said its multilateralist approach has helped advance interests on scores of issues, including nuclear nonproliferation and female empowerment.

Officials say the delegation continues to air grievances on management shortcomings, but does so privately and strategically.

Veteran diplomat Joseph H. Melrose Jr. is the acting U.S. representative for management and reform.

John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2005 and 2006, said the Obama administration's lack of a permanent ambassador to deal with the reform agenda sends the wrong message.

"That is the kind of signal in New York to the secretariat and other countries, basically, that the administration simply doesn't care about reform, management, budget kinds of issues," Mr. Bolton said.

Mr. Bolton, an outspoken critic of the U.N. political leadership, said the administration's "political calculus is 180 degrees in the wrong direction." He noted Mr. Obama's decision to recognize the Human Rights Council and submit a review on human rights in the U.S. Among the council's 14 member states are several nations accused of human rights violations, including Libya, Angola, and Malaysia.

"By not taking a strong reform stand, they are actually undercutting the U.N.'s credibility," he said of the U.S. delegation.

Indeed, the credibility of the 192-nation body has been marred by scandals such as the Iraq oil-for-food program and accusations of sexual misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers in Africa.

A departing U.N. investigator issued a stinging internal report this summer that accused Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of thwarting her efforts as head of the office of internal oversight services to probe mismanagement and corruption. In the memo, which was leaked to the press in July, Swedish auditor Inga-Britt Ahlenius concluded that the "secretariat now is in a process of decay" owing to Mr. Ban's leadership.

U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice said in a statement one week later that she was "frustrated by the recent direction of the investigations division, which must more vigorously pursue fraud and misconduct."

A U.S. official stressed that the administration's low-key public response didn't reflect the displeasure behind the scenes. Mr. Ban swiftly nominated a replacement for Ms. Ahlenius, partly because of U.S. pressure to keep the internal-oversight office as operationally independent as possible, the official said.

The official said the U.S. was instrumental, through behind-the-scenes lobbying, in getting the U.N. General Assembly to approve a new framework aimed at improving effectiveness and efficiency in global peacekeeping missions.

Patrick Ventrell, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., said the shift in strategy has been a boon to American interests.

"The U.S. mission to the United Nations has been on the front lines of President Obama's new era of engagement, achieving tangible results that make Americans safer, like the passage of tough sanctions [against] Iran and North Korea, and the reinvigoration of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with a successful review conference," Mr. Ventrell said. "These gains are the result of our work to end needless American isolation, scrap outdated positions, repair frayed relationships and build a strong basis for cooperation to advance America's security."

Ms. Rice, a Clinton administration foreign-policy adviser, laid out the new approach last summer at New York University. She said the Bush administration's "stiff-arming" of the U.N. failed to advance core U.S. values and that the new delegation embraces the Millennium Development Goals, supports climate change initiatives and no longer blocks U.S. aid for health programs over concerns about abortions.

Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network, said the debate boils down to two competing philosophies on how best to accomplish U.S. goals.

"I don't think there's any evidence that we've backed away from the internal-watchdog role; we've backed away from the external critic role," she said. "You just can't measure what is or isn't happening by the degree of rhetoric coming from the U.S. mission to the U.N."

Ms. Hurlburt said the Obama administration's willingness to engage at the U.N. has resulted in more cooperation on U.S. priorities, such as sanctions against North Korea and Iran, and nuclear nonproliferation.

"You could argue that for the previous administration, U.N. reform was actually more important than any of the things the U.N. actually did," she said.

Critics of the Obama approach say it's incumbent upon the U.S. to prioritize U.N. reform.

"Unfortunately, no other country in the organization really steps forward when the U.S. fails to fill that role," said Brett Schaefer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "If you're going to be a serious body, then you have to be transparent. When we give you money, you have to allow us to find out where that money goes and how it's used. You can't have cronyism; you have to open yourself to a minimum level of due diligence."

A Republican takeover of the House or Senate could complicate the administration's U.N. strategy. Republicans have held congressional hearings or withheld funds as leverage to adopt specific U.N. reforms.

"I think the Obama administration has been wary of being overly critical of the management failings of the United Nations for fear that it will simply arm congressional critics, who might then tar the United Nations with too broad a brush," said Stewart Patrick, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "There's fairly little upside for them."

Analysts noted that the Obama administration seems to have taken a page from the Bush administration's playbook by using organizations outside the U.N. — such as the Group of 20 finance ministers and the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany — to advance certain interests.

In a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations this month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "The U.N. was never intended to tackle every challenge, nor should it. So when appropriate, we are working with our partners to establish new venues and organizations to focus on specific problems."

"That's a pretty stunning remark from what I consider to be the most pro-U.N. administration in several years," Mr. Schaefer said.

U.N. Remains Uninterested in Oversight and Accountability

by Brett D. Schaefer

This Associated Press story does a wonderful job of revealing just how uninterested theUnited Nations is in combating U.N.-related mismanagement, fraud, and corruption. As I detailed in a 2009 Heritage Foundation paper, the U.N. has a well-earned reputation for mismanagement and vulnerability to corruption and fraud. The United States tried for years to get the U.N. to take steps to address this problem, with little success. But when the extend of fraud and mismanagement under the Iraqi Oil-for-Food program became clear, the Bush administration was able to get the U.N. to create the United Nations Procurement Task Force (PTF) as an ad hoc group within the U.N.’s quasi–inspector general, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), to investigate and pursue allegations of fraud and mismanagement.

The PTF began work in January 2006 and over the next three years uncovered fraud, waste, and mismanagement in U.N. procurement and other activities involving contracts valued at more than $630 million. The evidence unearthed by the PTF led to misconduct findings against 17 U.N. officials and the conviction of a senior U.N. procurement official. Unfortunately, the PTF did its job too well. As punishment for pursuing cases against Singaporean and Russian nationals, those countries led a successful effort to eliminate the PTF in December 2008.

My prediction that the decision to eliminate the PTF would undermine accountability and oversight at the U.N. is, unfortunately, proving true. As detailed in the AP story, U.N. investigations into fraud, corruption, and mismanagement have ground to a halt since the elimination of the PTF:

Since [the elimination of the PTF at the end of 2008], the number of cases opened, pursued or completed has dropped dramatically and the [OIOS's permanent investigation division] division has let go most former task force investigators, the AP found in an examination of U.N. documents, audits and e-mails, along with dozens of interviews with current and former U.N. officials and diplomats.

Over the past year, not a single significant fraud or corruption case has been completed, compared with an average 150 cases a year investigated by the task force. The permanent investigation division decided not to even pursue about 95 cases left over when the task force ceased operation, while another 80 unfinished cases have languished.

It also stopped probes into contractors and cut qualified staff and other resources — and halted five major corruption investigations documented by the task force in the final days of 2008.

Moreover, the U.N. management under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seems determined to prevent efforts to bolster investigatory capabilities in the existing U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which was supposed to pick up the slack following the demise of the PTF. For instance, Ban’s office reportedly twice blocked the appointment of the head of the OIOS permanent investigation division for more than two years because the most qualified candidate — as determined by an independent panel — was an American.

Meanwhile, the acting head of the division, Michael Dudley, has severely curtailed new investigations by barring new inquiries into anyone outside of the U.N. In other words, any U.N. employee can escape investigation or prosecution simply by quitting.

The story reports that, according to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, the loss of the PTF and the lack of an OIOS permanent investigation director are each “a source of concern to the United States.” But apparently the concern was not strong enough to lead the U.S. mission to demand reinstatement of the PTF in return for U.S. support of the U.N. budget this past December. The U.S. did not even bother to call for a vote on the budget.

Since the U.S. pays for 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, you would think that the probability of U.S. tax dollars being misused at the U.N. would be more alarming to the person in charge of U.S. relations with the U.N.

— Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at the Heritage Foundation and editor ofConUNdrum: The Limits of the U.N. and the Search for Alternatives.