NationStates Jolt Archive

Hesitant U.S. stalls renovations


By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 18, 2006
NEW YORK -- U.S. concerns are holding up preliminary work on a $1.6 billion plan to renovate the aging United Nations headquarters, potentially boosting the price of the seven-year construction scheme, according to a senior U.N. official.
The U.N. General Assembly's budget committee was to have authorized $100 million for land surveys, architectural work, consultants and other routine pre-construction work by April 1, according to Louis Frederick Reuter, the executive director of the Capital Master Plan.
"We have unanimous commitment to everything, except for the United States," which would be the largest contributor to the scheme, Mr. Reuter told a group of American reporters yesterday. "I won't kid you, we are frustrated."
If the committee cannot approve the spending before it adjourns at the end of the week, Mr. Reuter said, costs will continue to rise as work is delayed, contracts are renegotiated and key personnel leave.
U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton said yesterday that Washington was prepared to approve $23.5 million worth of contracts but wasn't likely to endorse the full $100 million any time soon.
"We are certainly not trying to do anything to slow this down, but we want to proceed in a careful and prudent fashion," he said. "I don't think the justification has been made yet on the full $100 million. But, as I say, we are looking for a number in between, and we are prepared to deal on that basis."
The United States likely will be responsible for 22 percent of the cost of the $1.6 billion project, the same percentage it pays toward the overall U.N. budget based on its share of the global gross domestic product. The Bush administration has requested $22 million -- its presumed share of the initial $100 million -- in its current budget request, which is pending in Congress.
The plan to renovate the 56-year-old building has been approved in principle by the General Assembly, and is undergoing its third review by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The previous GAO assessments found the work to be necessary and appropriate.
The U.N. compound includes about 2.5 million square feet of floor space, ranging from an underground printing plant to the widely photographed General Assembly and Security Council chambers to about 30 floors of outdated office space.
The renovation will be conducted in stages and is not expected to be finished before 2014.
Under the current proposal, the United Nations in January will build a concrete-walled shell, sort of like an airplane hangar, to house the General Assembly on the present U.N. grounds.
Once the assembly chambers have been renovated, the space will be reconfigured to house meeting rooms for the Security Council and other bodies as well as several conference rooms. After that, the shell will be scrapped and the north lawn replanted.
The Secretariat tower will be gutted and rebuilt approximately 10 floors at a time, starting from the top. The remaining floors will continue to be occupied while work goes on.
The Secretariat tower, a modernist icon with blue-green glass walls, is rapidly deteriorating: In recent weeks, Mr. Reuter said, plaster has fallen from the roof of the Security Council chamber, and workmen have detected bulges on the foundation's south wall, the likely result of wind and rain.
The mechanical systems also are severely overtaxed, with electrical outages and blown phone lines increasingly common. The asbestos-coated headquarters also would fail New York state building codes, because it lacks sprinklers and fire alarms.
"The building is falling down. I can't wait years for this. It's an unsafe building, and I have to fix it up," Mr. Reuter said.

They should state their requirments and minimun standards and tender bids for the cheapest building. There are some very large convention centres already built that would make good United Nations buildings. All you'd need to do is add extra security. In these days where mail can be sent through phone lines and computers can fit on a single desk, your support staff don't even need to be in the same country as the U.N. building.

Why is the US the largest contributor? That doesn't seem right.

:D Put 'em in a field tent in Darfar!
That's your point?


Why is the US the largest contributor? That doesn't seem right.See article:
"The United States likely will be responsible for 22 percent of the cost of the $1.6 billion project, the same percentage it pays toward the overall U.N. budget based on its share of the global gross domestic product."

Why is the US the largest contributor? That doesn't seem right.
The U.N. dues are linked to the size of your economy. As the world's largest economy the U.S. pays the most dues. Well it would if it actually paid them. The U.S. also has a habit of not paying, which is a bit rich as it pretty much created the United Nations. (If the United States did something like pay less money for buildings and phone sex and more more malaria control and condom distribution, then yeah, I be down with that.)

Why is the US the largest contributor? That doesn't seem right.
The US is always "the largest contributor" to anything in which the UN is involved!

Heh. It'd serve 'em right if the whole thing collapsed while they're in there. Global anarchy! Woo!!!:p

That's your point?
Sure! Put 'em out there where they have to be in the middle of the worst place in the world and refuse to let them leave until they sort the frakking mess out! :p

Heh. It'd serve 'em right if the whole thing collapsed while they're in there. Global anarchy! Woo!!!:p

lol I'm not sure that global anarchy would be the result of the UN falling down.

The EU'd stick together, anyway.

Maybe if their precious UN Building is falling down they can move those precious politicians and ambassadors into low income housing in Queens until they get their precious $1.6 billion to make their building all pretty again. :p

The US is always "the largest contributor" to anything in which the UN is involved!
Would that also include all the corruption?

The US is always "the largest contributor" to anything in which the UN is involved!
As well it should be. Too bad actually paying doesn’t seem to be their forté:

Each State’s contribution is calculated on the basis of its share of the world economy according to an assessment formula which is reviewed on a regular basis.
The five largest contributors to the UN regular budget are USA ($341,4m or 22% of the total), Japan ($263,5m or 19,5%of the total), Germany ($131,9m or 9,8% of the total), France ($87,3m or 6,5% of the total) and the United Kingdom ($74,7m or 5,5% of the total.
As a result of the last review of the budgetary allocations in December 2003 Japan had to pay 19.5 percent of the UN budget although it accounts for 13 per cent of the global economy, while the United States paid only 22 percent for 30 percent of the world gross domestic product. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/2005/0929undues.htm)

The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $10 billion each year, or about $1.70 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world's military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced a debilitating financial crisis and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of December 31, 2005, members arrears to the Regular Budget topped $333 million, of which the United States alone owed $252 million (76% of the regular budget). (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/index.htm)


Sure! Put 'em out there where they have to be in the middle of the worst place in the world and refuse to let them leave until they sort the frakking mess out!
So let me get this straight – you think the UN is a piece of useless diplomatic bureaucracy who can’t get anything done, which is why you’re outraged that your country should be paying oh so much money for it, which is why you applaud your country’s policies of not really paying its dues (even for such mundane things like renovating a decades-old building compound), yet at the same time you want them to magically fix one of the worst conflicts of our time? Huh, interesting. Would you give them more or less time to fix it than you gave the weapons inspectors in Iraq? Oh, right, silly me, no oil, personal feud, or misled “war on terror” involved, of course they can take as long as they like then.

The region in western Sudan you are referring to is called "Darfur."

As well it should be. Too bad actually paying doesn’t seem to be their forté:

So let me get this straight – you think the UN is a piece of useless diplomatic bureaucracy who can’t get anything done, which is why you’re outraged that your country should be paying oh so much money for it, which is why you applaud your country’s policies of not really paying its dues (even for such mundane things like renovating a decades-old building compound), yet at the same time you want them to magically fix one of the worst conflicts of our time? Huh, interesting. Would you give them more or less time to fix it than you gave the weapons inspectors in Iraq? Oh, right, silly me, no oil, personal feud, or misled “war on terror” involved, of course they can take as long as they like then.
I think the UN, as constructed, is probably one of the least useful organizations ever concieved by the mind of man. Iraq was on the Human Rights Council? Give me a frakking BREAK!

As to resolving Darfur ... yes, I think the UN, a massive money-pit if ever there was one, needs to actually RESOLVE something ... virtually anything would be nice. But Darfur is, as you point out, one of the most intractable problems of our time. If the UN is the wonderful organization you seem to think it is, perhaps they should be given an incentive to, you know ... like, actually DO what they're SUPPOSE to do.

Set up a tent city in Darfur and put all those high-paid diplomats, representatives and assorted hangers-on in it, and refuse to let them come home until they had solved the problems. THEN I might reconsider and think a bit more highly of them.

I think the UN, as constructed, is probably one of the least useful organizations ever concieved by the mind of man. Iraq was on the Human Rights Council? Give me a frakking BREAK!

As to resolving Darfur ... yes, I think the UN, a massive money-pit if ever there was one, needs to actually RESOLVE something ... virtually anything would be nice. But Darfur is, as you point out, one of the most intractable problems of our time. If the UN is the wonderful organization you seem to think it is, perhaps they should be given an incentive to, you know ... like, actually DO what they're SUPPOSE to do.

Set up a tent city in Darfur and put all those high-paid diplomats, representatives and assorted hangers-on in it, and refuse to let them come home until they had solved the problems. THEN I might reconsider and think a bit more highly of them.

Yes, silly America for creating such a stupid organization. They should have stayed out of it. If the U.S. had gone isolationist after World War II again the world would have been a much better place, comrade.

I think the UN, as constructed, is probably one of the least useful organizations ever concieved by the mind of man. Iraq was on the Human Rights Council? Give me a frakking BREAK!

The member states select who holds the positions, not the UN itself. Blaming the UN for that is hardly constructive.

And, mind you, many reacted the same way when the US was on the council as well. Your own country is not exactly a beacon of respect for human rights, but you got to hold a position because of that silly thing called "diplomacy."

As to resolving Darfur ... yes, I think the UN, a massive money-pit if ever there was one, needs to actually RESOLVE something ... virtually anything would be nice. But Darfur is, as you point out, one of the most intractable problems of our time. If the UN is the wonderful organization you seem to think it is, perhaps they should be given an incentive to, you know ... like, actually DO what they're SUPPOSE to do.

Again: The UN can only do what the member states sanction it to do.

Set up a tent city in Darfur and put all those high-paid diplomats, representatives and assorted hangers-on in it, and refuse to let them come home until they had solved the problems. THEN I might reconsider and think a bit more highly of them.

You seem to be blaming the UN for working like it was designed to work, and doing so from one of the veto holding nations. How ironic.

Oh man - when will people actually understand that the UN is only a forum of the world's nations and not a governing body of itself - they can only do what the member states and especially the security council agree upon. :headbang:

But of course I'm virtually certain that some on here will see this as some huge plot by the big, bad, mean ole Americans to somehow undermine something or other.


U.S. Envoy to Expose 4 Sudanese
in U.N. Debate About Darfur


By WARREN HOGE
Published: April 18, 2006
The New York Times
UNITED NATIONS, April 17 — John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador, said Monday that he intended to offer a Security Council resolution on Tuesday that would publicly identify four Sudanese individuals responsible for atrocities in Darfur and possibly force a vote on whether the panel would impose sanctions on them.

"We've been pushing sanctions for years, and the effort was always to make it clear to the government in Khartoum that there would be individual consequences," Mr. Bolton said in a telephone interview.

He said he decided on the move after learning that China and Russia had objected to action against the four individuals. Their names were circulated among Council members last Thursday under a so-called silence procedure that would have applied the sanctions unless they met opposition.

On Monday, China said it opposed the sanctions, and Russia said it backed China's view. Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador, said that taking action now would complicate African Union-sponsored peace talks on the conflicted Darfur region under way in Abuja, Nigeria. "At this sensitive moment, to publish the list of names will have a negative effect on the negotiations there," he said. [ i.e. China wants to give "peace" another and another and another chance. :rolleyes: ]

The four — including a member of government, as well as fighters from pro- and anti-government militias — are charged with committing atrocities and undermining peace efforts in Darfur. The sanctions include travel bans and freezes on assets.

Mr. Bolton said he was surprised by the response of China and Russia, despite the two countries' traditional reluctance to endorse sanctions, because these were aimed at individuals rather than countries.

"That's the whole idea of targeted sanctions, not to have a broader effect than necessary," he said. "These are people who are involved in atrocities and killing people and turning people into refugees."

Mr. Bolton said he hoped China and Russia would reconsider their opposition, avoiding a showdown vote. Both countries are permanent members with veto power.

"This will be in effect a test of the Council to see if the sanctions procedure is going to work at all, and we have moved slowly, unfortunately slowly, but we certainly have come to the point where it's time for a decision," he said.

Why is the US the largest contributor? That doesn't seem right.

Because, despite the official propaganda of the last ten years, the US finds the UN to be generally useful idiots.

We can be quite UNy when it suits us. Just look at the cold war.