Angry reaction to U.N. showplace

Press, 15 November 1984, Page 13

Angry reaction to U.N. showplace

From

DAVID JULIUS

in New York

Britain, the United States, and the Netherlands are gearing up to take on the rest of the United Nations General Assembly in a major battle over the spending of more than $73 million to build a new conference centre in Addis Ababa.

What is particularly worrying the three countries is that the assembly wants to apportion such huge sums of money for a “concrete and steel monument” at a time when Ethiopia is going

through one of its worst periods of history, with thousands dying from hunger. The diplomats are working behind the scenes to get the General Assembly to ditch the idea, but according to official sources that seems highly unlikely. The United Nations’ Fifth Committee, which deals with the budget, voted in favour of this idea, with only 13, . including Australia, Belgium, France, West Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain, and Sweden, abstaining. ; ~

The plan to push ahead for the new conference centre has been well timed by Ethiopia’s friends at the United Nations. . Ironically, incomes at a time when its special representative is seeking more aid to help the drought and famine. Clearly, Ethiopia is trying to raise its profile in the world organisation, and is still trying for a seat on the Security Council to replace Zimbabwe at the end of the year. However, so far Ethiopia has not been very successful, and is locked in battle with Somalia. Despite protests from Britain and the United States about the new project in Addis Ababa, their angry words are likely to fall on deaf ears. The assembly can be expected soon to approve $73,501,000 being spent on the building of a new edifice over the next 6% years. The original idea, as put forward by the Secretary-General, Perez de Cuellar, was to spend $89,360,000. He said the Economic Commission for Africa (E.C.A.) badly needed to

improve its facilities. So far, all that exists for conferences in Addis is Africa Hall, and that is said to be overcrowded for most meetings. Britain’s United Nations delegate, Andrew Murray, says a new conference centre for Ethiopia at this time is “unnecessary and extremely costly.” He lashed out at the United Nations, saying it should be in a position to judge priorities when making such decisions. However, the harshest words have come from the United States delegate, Alan Keyes, who said 79 of the countries belonging to the United Nations pay so small a percentage of the total budget that almost no amount of additional spending represents any appreciable cost for them.

The Addis project would cost most countries in the General Assembly less than $7400, spread over six years. “For even the most hard-pressed Government, that is hardly an amount worth considering,” he said.

The United States, among the largest contributors to the United Nations, would have to fork out more than $2O million. “The resources being made available to the United Nations are being used to serve the narrow institutional interests of bureaucracy,” Keyes charged. 'Any funds for the project, he said, would “add the insult of waste to the injury of human suffering. It would be a disservice to the United Nations and leave this organisation open to further criticism in my country and elsewhere.” Copyright—London Observer Service.