WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House objected Thursday to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's description of the United States as a "deadbeat" donor to the world body.
Ban used the phrase Wednesday during a private meeting with lawmakers at the Capitol, one day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ban's "word choice was unfortunate," given that the U.S. is the largest contributor to the United Nations.
The United States pays 22 percent of the organization's nearly $5 billion operating budget but is perennially late paying its dues.
Ban, apparently concerned about his choice of words, issued a statement late Wednesday saying the U.S. "generously supports the work of the U.N., both in assessed and voluntary contributions."
Source: Breitbart.com
Since third world nations consist of 2/3rds of the membership of the General assembly of the United Nations, and contribute much less than the assessment we have to "purchase our seat and seldom listened to position". As illustrated by how long it took the UN to decide to do something about Saddam's genocide and procurement of WMDs.And there oher favorite target for "bashing" israel!
It would seem that his lame excuse for an apology is too little and "after ths cat got out of the bag"!
Late last year, the United Nations General Assembly, the international organization's main deliberative body, wound up adopting a $1.9 billion plan to renovate the UN Campus on the Hudson River in New York City.
Because of the renovation,The United Nations has agreed to lease the Albano Building on East 46th Street as substitute office space for the roughly 700 United Nations employees that will soon be dislocated from its signature headquarters tower, the Secretariat Building. A hallmark of the city's East Side skyline since it was built in the early 1950s, the Secretariat is scheduled to undergo an extensive renovation beginning in early 2009.
Given the precipitous rise of office rents in midtown and the widespread belief among real estate experts that the organization would have to pay astronomical rates for whatever space it could find, the UN's rationale seemed sound.
But if the terms of its lease at the Albano Building on are any indication, that concern was overblown and the UN's efforts to stay within budget seem off to a good start. According to a source with knowledge of the organization's leasing negotiations but who couldn't speak on the record because they had not been authorized to reveal information about the deal, the United Nations will lease the entire 180,000 s/f building for rents that start "south of $50 per s/f." Such a rate is considered a pittance compared to typical rents in the district, which can easily rise above $100 per s/f for high-end buildings.Seems like the UN is getting a real good deal when the USA economy is so bad that no landlord can afford to undercut market prices, but then the Un is a "Sacred Cow".
A sacred cow that costs the American taxpayers a great deal for what it gets in return. Personally I think the UN Bldg. should be torn down and the pieces sold like "pet rocks" were sold years ago to reduce our deficit, for all the good the UN has done to promote World Peace!Make them relocate to Geneva Switzerland or some place in the Hauge.
When the UN relocates to the new Bldg. many Press Corps.representatives will be without space unless they pay rent to the UN to help defray the cost of the relocation. As could be predicted the Liberal representatives of the Press Corps. are upset that they(the anointed ones who pass on their slanted news) will have to pay for their space as illustrated by this report from the IPS Internet site.
"from James A. Paul, executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, which monitors the United Nations on a daily basis.
"Now that neo-liberalism is less fashionable and understood to be largely responsible for the world financial crisis, it is surprising that the United Nations would enlarge its neo-liberal management practices and policies to cover the space made available to journalists," he told IPS.
"The new policy, therefore, may produce a small trickle of revenue, but it may be entirely the opposite of what is needed," he said.
Southern representation in the U.N. press corps may be especially at risk. So to act on a narrowly economic basis, may result in less coverage of the U.N., less support for the U.N., less effectiveness of the U.N. My comment is ,how important does this man think bias news is?
He continues by saying: "These foreseeable problems show that some people just are not thinking seriously about implications and long-term effects," he added.
And in typical left wing thinking he threw out the hate the rich guy card with this comment about how he believes the rent should be paid by others for the Third World Countries.
Paul said, "it's time for the U.N. to shake off these neo-liberal(?) habits and to return to some kind of welfare budgeting, that really takes into account the full picture and leads the U.N. in the right direction".
His idea of the right direction is what is wrong with the UN. It is too full off Countries with heir hands out for their despotic, and in some cases genocidal, leaders, and do little to co-operate with those Countries like the USA who do help them, and continually want more!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment