Serbia: Foreign minister under fire for financing his UN presidency bid

Jeremić: Power struggle commencing within DS party

All above press and others were pointing out a fact:

Serbian foreign minister Vuk Jeremic, who was elected president of the United Nations General Assembly last month, found himself in the midst of controversy and public criticism on Thursday for excessive costs of his one-year presidential term.
Even before he was elected president on 9 June, Jeremic had asked government to approve 7.5 million dollars to finance his UN activities and special teams formed for that purpose to support him in Belgrade and New York.Serbian press reported that Jeremic had set himself a monthly salary of 28,000 dollars, plus 15,000 dollars monthly allowance for renting an apartment in New York. The figures sent shock-waves in a country with almost one million unemployed, over 20 billion euros foreign debt and average monthly salary of about 350 dollars.According to the UN rules, the world organization participates in financing the post of Assembly president with 300,000 dollars, while other expenses are picked up by the president’s home country.Jeremic, 37, had already been criticized by the media for “squandering millions of dollars” on his presidential campaign which was seen by many analysts as his “personal promotion”. The post of General Assembly president is largely ceremonial, but Belgrade has hailed Jeremic’s election over Lithuanian candidate Dalius Cekuolis as a great success for Serbian diplomacy...

But one fact is escaping every one:

UNDP gives Serbia every year 8.7 Million dollars ...in "developing assistance".

Why would it make sense for United Nations to continue to support Serbia if the current Government there can afford to pay publicity, campaign and other representation $$$ to the tune of $7.5 Million dollars for one year?

If Serbs are so rich - why do they need United Nations assistance ? Or is U.N. funding Jeremic ?

Government of Serbia for Presidency of General Assembly : $7.5 Million

UNDP Assistance to Government of Serbia (2011) : $8.7 Million

No comments:

Post a Comment

Andrew Mitchell - says Helen Clark is up to no good!

1. UNDP’s partnership with the World Bank needs to be more effective, particularly in fragile and crisis-affected countries. 2. UNDP’s near universal mandate means its technical resources are spread very thinly. The Board does not provide strategic direction. HR management is weak. It has a weak results chain. 3. There is limited evidence of active senior management consideration of cost control. Country evidence points to mixed progress on demonstrating cost-efficiency. 4. The Executive Board is politicised and there is a lack of consensus on the key areas for reform. It is not clear that current plans for change will deliver the required depth and breadth of reform. 5. Evidence gathered at country level was highly critical of UNDP’s ability to deliver results. Its delivery can be undermined by staffing issues and bureaucratic processes. 6. Its performance in fragile states is mixed. It has reasonable training and a range of guidance and analytical tools but struggles to fill posts. 7. There is no evidence that the Climate Strategy was directly guiding resource allocation decisions

H.E. Dirk Niebel - German Development Minister

"I take the accusations made in the media concerning corruption and breach of fiduciary duty at the Global Fund very seriously and I am sure that the Fund will clarify the matter without delay. Germany is one of the biggest donors to the Global Fund. I have therefore seen to it that a special review will be held. I have frozen all further disbursements to the Fund until matters have been fully clarified, and I will ask a representative of the Fund to come to the BMZ to discuss the matter."

Share now information about illegal dealings at United Nations

Ban Ki Moon supports Ethics Decision on UNDP North Korea