The possible reasons for Kofi Annan’s stonewalling the oil-for-food investigation have come into clearer focus. It wasn’t just to obstruct Kofi’s own negligent oversight, it was perhaps to protect his own son’s involvement in this massive scandal. From the London Times:
The son of the United Nations secretary-general has admitted he was involved in negotiations to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil under the auspices of Saddam Hussein.
Kojo Annan has told a close friend he became involved in negotiations to sell 2m barrels of Iraqi oil to a Moroccan company in 2001. He is understood to be co-operating with UN investigators probing the discredited oil for food programme.
In the transaction in question, Kojo was retained by "Hani Yamani, the son of Sheikh Yamani, the wealthy former Saudi oil minister who set up Opec" to help seal the deal. Eventually, the deal collapsed because of Yamani’s apparent greed. However, on top of Kojo’s continuing payments from oil-for-food contractor Cotecna, this smells to high heaven.
Kofi Annan now has a hopelessly untenable conflict of interest by remaining as UN Secretary General. President Bush should forward a no-confidence vote on Annan’s leadership straight away. How much longer should we sit by and passively accept the status quo on this decrepit international body and a leader with no moral authority?
Do you have any evidence that Kofi Annan was stonewalling the investigation?
One thing that has consistently puzzled me about Republicans calling for a full investigation on the Oil-for-Food scandal: why do they want to see Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton during the years Halliburton was into Oil-for-Food so enthusiastically, investigated for his corporation’s involvement in what these Republicans see as very shady activity?
And, if these Republicans think Dick Cheney is a vile criminal who ought to be investigated, why were they supporting his candidacy as Vice President?
However, snide comments about Cheney aside (when we’re talking about financial corruption, he and Halliburtion are such easy targets) the fact is that the right-wing attacks on the UN via Oil for Food have been both biased and context-free. For example:
It’s certain that bribery was involved in Oil for Food: Halliburton, which profited by it, would have been one of the companies that gave bribes. It’s acknowledged, however, that bribery is a fact of doing business in many countries: it shouldn’t be regarded as an automatic sign of depravity.
The “evidence” that anything more was involved comes from Ahmed Chalabi. Would anyone like to take a bet that it’s about as reliable as any other information provided by Chalabi – especially as he has refused to let anyone see the documents that supposedly prove the existence of this scandal?
“President Bush should forward a no-confidence vote on Annan’s leadership straight away.”
Maybe Rice should give a presentation to the Security Council. You know, like the one Colin Powell gave on Saddam’s WMD.
We’ve known about Kofi’s son’s potential involvement for almost a year now, CB; this isn’t the news you’re making it out to be. I note, however, that you haven’t addressed the points that a) almost all the information on the Oil For Food scandal came from Chalabi, and b) after the original problems were fixed most of the monies allegedly stolen were diverted at the behest of the US and US companies.
[And hey, if you’re so virulently opposed to leaders covering their son’s asses — as well you should be — can we retroactively impeach the first President Bush?]
I have to admire conservative dedication to the corruption that was the Iraqi sanctions program. All through the 90s, it was all I could hear from the right wing: “UN sanctions are corrupt! Starving children in Iraq!” I could barely get to campus without Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer mobbing the mail room with photocopied posters of malaria-ridden Iraqi toddlers and chants of “No Justice, No Peace!” You know how it’s like with these idealist types, though: after a while I just got desensitized. By the time Fred Barnes set himself on fire on the White House lawn in ’99 under the homemade No Iraqi Genocide sign I didn’t feel a thing.
How much longer should we sit by and passively accept the status quo on this decrepit international body and a leader with no moral authority?
You mean the United States of America and George Bush of course.
We? I thought we didn’t dive a flying fig about the UN? We don’t need their stinkin’ permission slip for nuttin; what do we care what their principal, er Sec-Gen, does? [/snark]
On a serious note, I do think the UN and its agencies should be above reproach; but it’s not seemly for the US to be calling for an audit now, being so involved in the scandal itself. Let another country/countries do an investigation.
The merits of the accusation aside, if indeed we did want to contest his leadership the ‘diplomatic’ thing to do (though the Bush administration may have to have someone look that up in a dictionary) would be to quietly suggest to a country with more UN credibility to spearhead the effort. Any accusations by the US would likely be met with snores.
Any accusations by the US would likely be met with snores.
Probably, but if we cut our funding until the UN investigation was open to Congressional oversight. Well.
Timmy: Probably, but if we cut our funding until the UN investigation was open to Congressional oversight. Well.
Well, it would look rather suspicious, since Dick Cheney is one of the suspects in Oil for Food, and he’s also President of the Senate. It’s not good practice to allow one of the people being investigated to preside over the body that is overseeing the investigation.
Yes Timmy, that would be very diplomatic. See, that word comes up again.
Yes, sidereal, if the UN Oil for Food Program is all about diplomacy, why investigate.
Jess, LoL on the man from Natrona County.
Timmy: LoL on the man from Natrona County.
My guess is this comment means something like “it’s absurd to think that Dick Cheney needs to be investigated, even though he was CEO of Halliburton when Halliburton was into Oil for Food up to its corporate neck.”
But that’s just a guess. I really don’t know. Anyone else got a TtWD translator?
Anyone else got a TtWD translator?
That presumes there’s content there to be translated…
‘slac, the cite you provide comes from an outfit that consults for and supports the UN. Nonetheless, there’s no doubt OFF did some good. But that doesn’t mean the major corruption apparently involved should be overlooked. I’ll be happy to see a full, open investigation and audit of OFF, whether the finger of guilt points to Annan, Halliburton (which you seem to have a bit of a fixation on), George Galloway, Megawati Sukarnoputri or whomever. You should be, too. And if the investigation points to corruption within the UN, those responsible should be fired and criminally prosecuted, whatever their status. The right may be doing the shooting, but the UN’s supplying all the ammo.
“On a serious note, I do think the UN and its agencies should be above reproach; but it’s not seemly for the US to be calling for an audit now, being so involved in the scandal itself. Let another country/countries do an investigation.”
None of the other major players care enough about corruption in the UN to bother with an investigation. In fact some, and if I’m naming names they are France and Russia, are almost certainly quite happy with high levels of corruption in the UN.
“…Halliburton when Halliburton was into Oil for Food up to its corporate neck.”
Strangely enough I haven’t heard any word that Halliburton was engaged in wrongdoing with the Oil for Food Program. Where did you get that impression?
Perhaps the noble member ‘Iraq’ can call for an investigation.
So Anarch, you’ve never been to Wyoming, I see.
And Jes, if you have some info on Haliburton, an oil service company and the UN Oil for Food Program, please share it. BTW, as Dick sits on no committees, I don’t see the conflict in Senate and there is no conflict in the House.
That presumes there’s content there to be translated…
True. 😉
So Anarch, you’ve never been to Wyoming, I see.
You presume incorrectly.
BTW, as Dick sits on no committees, I don’t see the conflict in Senate…
You’re aware that he’s the President of the Senate, right?
Sebastian: Strangely enough I haven’t heard any word that Halliburton was engaged in wrongdoing with the Oil for Food Program.
Strangely enough, I’ve seen no evidence that anyone was involved in wrongdoing with the Oil for Food Program – it’s all locked up in Ahmed Chalabi’s files. (Wrongdoing beyond bribery, that is: I doubt if anyone who did business in Iraq – as Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, energetically did – is free of bribery.)
You don’t protest Charles Bird’s unevidenced claims, however – why’s that?
Anarch: You’re aware that he’s the President of the Senate, right?
He ought to be – I pointed it out to him in my comment at 05:01 PM, which he responded to (albeit rather incoherently and incomprehensibly) at 05:05 PM.
You’re aware that he’s the President of the Senate, right?
Well yes but he has “no control” except to break tie votes.
And Anarch, you’re aware that the Congress has two houses?
Anarch, next time you are in the state just ask anybody, they all know him, where Dick is from and you will have you answer.
Timmy: And Anarch, you’re aware that the Congress has two houses?
You didn’t suggest that the US should blackmail the UN into allowing the House of Representatives to oversee the Oil for Food investigation, though, did you? Your suggestion was that blackmail should be applied to allow Congress to oversee the Oil for Food investigation: with the person who was CEO of Halliburton at the time when Halliburton was into Oil for Food with the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the investigation.
Not only undiplomatic, but not good practice, either.
Anarch, next time you are in the state just ask anybody, they all know him, where Dick is from and you will have you answer.
Ah yes, it’s back to reading comprehension 101. I didn’t say I didn’t understand your referent, Timmy, I implied that your remark lacked content. There’s a subtle yet profound difference there, one which I’m sure a gentleman — excuse me, Wonder Dog — of your obvious intellect can ascertain.
Jes, please see Congress is structured and then you will understand Dick isn’t responsible for anything.
‘slac said:
it’s all locked up in Ahmed Chalabi’s files.
Are you truly unaware of Paul Volker’s OFF investigation?
I doubt if anyone who did business in Iraq – as Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, energetically did – is free of bribery.
If that’s the sum of your evidence of Halliburton’s participation in the OFF scandal, I’m sorry I paid as much attention as I did.
‘syl: Are you truly unaware of Paul Volker’s OFF investigation?
Were you truly unaware of this?
Cheney’s done deals with Iraq under Oil For Food. Why are Republicans so reluctant to argue that his involvement with the corruption they claim for the program ought to be investigated?
I didn’t understand your referent
I don’t know what a referent is but I’m not an academic.
Tomysl puts it better, I’m sorry I paid as much attention as I did.
Quoted without comment:
Timmy: then you will understand Dick [Cheney] isn’t responsible for anything.
…ok, one little comment. LOL! It’d be so cute if it weren’t so frightening.
There is a difference in doing business with Iraq as compared to getting money under the table under the auspices of the UN Oil For Food Program.
Haliburton (and Schlumberger a French firm) have certain drilling technologies that you can only get from them.
Dick [Cheney] isn’t responsible for anything.”
He’s irresponsible for everything.
Anarch, you got it right (a miracle), VP, except for tie votes in the Senate, has no responsibilities, a lonely job.
Getting back to the main topic of conversation: could those on the right who think there’s substance to the Oil For Food scandal — I’m looking particularly at BD here, simply because it’s his post, although Sebastian might know this as well — tell me what evidence for the scandal exists that did not come from Chalabi and the INC? I’ve been trying to figure this out since the “scandal” (scare quotes most definitely intended) broke last year, but I can’t find any clear, reliable secondary sources on the matter. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
google, CLAUDIA ROSETT and UN Oil For Food Program, which should give plenty of info.
Timmy: There is a difference in doing business with Iraq as compared to getting money under the table under the auspices of the UN Oil For Food Program.
And what investigation, exactly, has cleared Halliburton from the suspicion of getting money under the table from the UN Oil For Food Program? After all, given that Cheney was CEO then and is Vice President now, it’s important for him to be cleared of criminal involvement… isn’t it? Especially as Bird and Dog appear to think that the Bush/Cheney administration ought to be pushing to run an investigation into this criminal activity.
Jes, I believe I said Congress should investigate. I don’t believe we can prosecute given certain treaties we executed, thus the executive is limited in the actions they can take.
I don’t know what a referent is but I’m not an academic.
and
Anarch, you got it right (a miracle)
Guys, I’d give Timmy some space, he’s off his game, as he usually doesn’t do personal insults, and usually doesn’t drop into the ‘I’m just folks’ mode. Don’t worry, though, I’m sure he’ll be in tar-baby form in no time.
Being an academic, I can’t really do much but cite other people, so I’ll just repost what Sebastian wrote in the Pro Torture thread
Since we have so many people who are pretty good with math here, could someone give me some odds for the three possibilities?
Timmy: I believe I said Congress should investigate.
You did. And you never explained (except by saying that you think Cheney isn’t responsible for anything) why it’s okay for one of the subjects of the investigation to preside over the senior House that you think ought to be doing the investigating.
liberaljaponicus: Since we have so many people who are pretty good with math here, could someone give me some odds for the three possibilities?
I’d love to, but I think that speculation would constitute a breach of the posting rules.
This is a silly thread on a silly topic: given that, I don’t think TtWD’s comments have been as out of place or as disruptive as they have been on other threads.
Since we have so many people who are pretty good with math here, could someone give me some odds for the three possibilities?
Perhaps, but you’re overlooking the Heisenbergian element here.* The act of observation — more specifically, the act of openly observing — will change the dynamic being observed. Were we to disclose our predictions, the feedback loop thus enabled could allow him to alter his course, thereby rendering our predictions null and void. If only we could arrange for his posts to commute with our predictions… Ah well. ‘Tis but a dream within a dream.
That said, I’d put money on #3.
* Not that I’m still pissed at NUMB3RS or anything.
Actually LJ, with the election and all, I’ve been off of my game here, just a little give and take and some levity here.
Obviously, something else has upset you today, I truely hope it wasn’t the election.
As for the math and after performing a null hypothesis, my quess is that you will see less of me, simply reflecting that history has been made this Sunday in Iraq; combined with the fact that my annual newsletter will start taking up more of my time over the next several months, Eddie has to arrange a party for Ken White and myself (Eddie is buying, I’m bringing the cigars), and along with the other startup I’m working on.
Somehow I don’t think you will miss me. When you start discussing the Iraqi Constitution I will probably be back in full force along with my smile.
Anarch: Perhaps, but you’re overlooking the Heisenbergian element here.
It’s what I think Helene Hanff called “Sullivan’s Law” – “if you predict three possibilities, what will actually happen will be a fourth possibility you hadn’t considered”.
Sebastian predicted three options: Timmy mends his ways, Timmy escalates his behavior and is banned, Timmy continues (as now) to be a low-grade nuisance.
Fourth option: Timmy goes off to be a low-grade nuisance somewhere else.
And you never explained (except by saying that you think Cheney isn’t responsible for anything) why it’s okay for one of the subjects of the investigation to preside over the senior House that you think ought to be doing the investigating.
It’s OK, Jes — it’s not like he ever shows up!
Jes, please see Congress is structured and then you will understand Dick isn’t responsible for anything.
Frankly, “Bush/Cheney ’04: We’re Not Responsible For Anything*” should’ve been their campaign slogan. And as someone who carried their water for 2-3 years, it pisses me off as much as anyone.
*”Except the good stuff!”
Phil: Frankly, “Bush/Cheney ’04: We’re Not Responsible For Anything*” should’ve been their campaign slogan.
I kinda liked Don’t change Horsemen mid-Apocalypse: Bush/Cheney 2004, myself.
It’s OK, Jes — it’s not like he ever shows up!
I was going to make that joke myself, Phil, but I decided it was too obvious.
…glad someone did, though 😉
Why are Republicans so reluctant to argue that his involvement with the corruption they claim for the program ought to be investigated?
Read my post of 10:17 PM.
5:17pm, tomsyl?
Read my post of 10:17 PM.
Actually, it’s listed here as 5:17 PM… but aside from that, okay, I take your point, and amend my comment:
Why are so many Republicans so reluctant to argue that Cheney’s involvement with the corruption they claim for the program ought to be investigated?
The comment timestamps are in a different time zone in preview…
Aha! Proof that tomsyl lives in Greenwich.
Proof that tomsyl lives in Greenwich.
Odd place to find a Republican.
Obviously, something else has upset you today, I truely hope it wasn’t the election
Sorry if my attempt to answer Slarti‘s call for the Disraeliesque encouraged your belief that my happiness (or the happiness of anyone else who comments here) is in inverse relation to the situation in Iraq. Just to ease your mind, things are fine (but cold) here in the land of Wa. And, as a last stab at a Disraeli like rejoinder, I will just note that I am sure your newsletter will fill a well needed gap…
I’d also note that tomsyl could be living in Accra or Dijibouti or…
Funny, for some reason I thought this post was about Kofi Annan at the U.N. Conveniently it has been turned into one about Cheney. But, since it’s about Cheney and it comes from the left, I guess at ObWi that really isn’t a thread jack. We must keep our double standards in place.
Hey, but Smlook can:
“Oil-for-Food scandal: why do they want to see Dick Cheney,”
“And, if these Republicans think Dick Cheney is a vile criminal who ought to be investigated, why were they supporting his candidacy as Vice President?”
“My guess is this comment means something like “it’s absurd to think that Dick Cheney needs to be investigated, even though he was CEO of Halliburton when Halliburton was into Oil for Food up to its corporate neck.”
“Well, it would look rather suspicious, since Dick Cheney is one of the suspects in Oil for Food, and he’s also President of the Senate.”
“doubt if anyone who did business in Iraq – as Halliburton, under Dick Cheney, energetically did – is free of bribery.”
“Cheney’s done deals with Iraq under Oil For Food. Why are Republicans so reluctant to argue that his involvement with the corruption they claim for the program ought to be investigated?”
“After all, given that Cheney was CEO then and is Vice President now, it’s important for him to be cleared of criminal involvement… isn’t it?”
“I kinda liked Don’t change Horsemen mid-Apocalypse: Bush/Cheney 2004, myself.”
“Why are so many Republicans so reluctant to argue that Cheney’s involvement with the corruption they claim for the program ought to be investigated?”
Maybe, because the thread was about Kofi Annan???
All those evil republican/conservatives who always defend their position by changing the subject… ha ha ha
Smlook, the question Bird asked was “Can We Fire Kofi Annan Now?” which he followed up with “President Bush should forward a no-confidence vote on Annan’s leadership straight away.”
Until Cheney has been publicly cleared of any connection with the Oil for Food scandal (and given that he was CEO of Halliburton, which did extensive business with Iraq under the OfF program, he is an appropriate target for investigation), it would be highly unwise of the Bush/Cheney administration to demand that anyone implicated in OfF ought to step down or be fired.
The connection seemed obvious to me. However, if you prefer to discuss Kofi Annan, don’t let me stop you. You don’t seem to have a lot to say about him so far.
Is trifling with my timestamps a violation of the posting rules?
Actually, I live in Sandwich – Isles, that is. Swimming pools. Movie Stars. &c.
Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
does the UN actually provide for no confidence votes?
Bloody peasant!
Hopefully, the UN will be overhauled under the watch of a respected American statesman, not George W. Bush.
Timmy’s suggestion that the US not pay its dues to the UN would be a lot more threatening if they actually paid them in the first place.
I thought, post-Strom, we had paid a lot of our owed dues.
I’m presuming that since Jesurgislac isn’t from America, she is unaware that the The Vice President’s function as head of the Senate is almost wholly titular. Its only current major function is that if Cheney is present and there is an exact tie on a vote he can cast the deciding vote. The idea that a senate investigation would be tainted by the fact that Cheney is it titular head doesn’t really make sense once you understand that.
As for Halliburton, I’ve been following the scandal pretty closely, and I haven’t heard of anything that suggests they were involved. That doesn’t mean they weren’t, but at saying that the Oil for Food program had lots of corruption is not the direct equivalent of saying that all who dealt with it were deeply corrupt–a fact that the International Red Cross will probably be very happy to hear. It also wouldn’t make a huge amount of sense for Halliburton to be involved in the corruption that we have heard about because the method of bribery makes more sense for those who were involved on the selling side, not the drilling side. The bribes were made possible when Saddam would sell crude at a price below the market so that the recipient of the bribe could immediately sell at the market price for a huge unearned (well unearned by legal means)profit.
Kofi Annan’s position looks odd because he ordered his all those who held financial documents pertaining to the case to refuse to turn them over and he manuevered to ensure that Volcker didn’t have subpena power to get them. As noted above, his son seems to have gotten huge bribes for his ‘work’ on the project. It seems to me rather indefensible that the UN won’t release its financial records on the project. What are they, defense secrets? I don’t think so.
Note that a group of senior (all or almost all I believe) American pro-UN diplomats/statemen met with Annan recently and gave him a private talking-to. Sorry no link. Anyway, there are bipartisan concerns about his leadership. (Though I tend to find the OfF protests somewhat, uhhh, opportunistic, given the UN’s scope. E.g. why do I seldom see posts about crooked US companies or posts about the #1-#n money wastes in the US budget [thanks Pentagon]?)
“Though I tend to find the OfF protests somewhat, uhhh, opportunistic, given the UN’s scope.”
Considering that even if the allegations were only half correct it would still be one of the biggest bribery programs in the history of the modern world, I can’t agree.
Timmy’s suggestion that the US not pay its dues to the UN would be a lot more threatening if they actually paid them in the first place.
McDuff, I think you will find that we currently pay our dues, in no small part becasue Kofi met with the Congress and promised some changes.
Big compared to the amount of bribery in the Indonesian economy? Anyway, fair point, it’s certainly worth discussing, but there’s also a wider context (which admittedly was as best I recall discussed at tacitus.org back when I was reading it and people [including CB?] proposed a new organization).
Do you have any evidence that Kofi Annan was stonewalling the investigation?
Kofi’s office was behind the hush letters written to UN oil-for-food contractors. Paul Volcker is running the investigation but Kofi did not give him subpoena power.
a) almost all the information on the Oil For Food scandal came from Chalabi, and b) after the original problems were fixed most of the monies allegedly stolen were diverted at the behest of the US and US companies.
As for a), the information obtained by Volcker and company is independent of what Chalabi had. As for b), do you have evidence to support this? US companies played a small role and I’ve heard nothing about the US behesting anything.
Jes, do you have credible evidence that Halliburton was involved with OFF? Last I heard, there were four American entities involved with OFF, and none of them had the word Halliburton in them.
Kofi did not give him subpoena power.
Can Annan grant subpeona power? I thought that the terms of the UN charter doesn’t give the S-G that much in terms of real power.
Stan Chess (En Passant)
http://lawtv.typepad.com/en_passant/2004/a_question_of_l.html writes “Kaplan’s Concord School of Law says it’s one of the largest law schools in the country, yet for each administration only about 25 of its graduates sit for the bar exam. What happens to the hundreds of other students in each class?”
And, according to the New York Times: Recently, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. The company acknowledged that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In February 2004, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
Kaplan is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.
Why didn’t the Justice Department and S.E.C. include Kaplan with their investigation?
Before the USA can judge the UN on the mis-use of funds it needs to account for Bremer’s own $9 billion screw-up in Iraq.
I think comparing the massive systemic corruption in a place like Indonesia (where there are hundreds of interests being bribed for and against) to the UN program which was corrupted to serve the purposes of Saddam Hussein doesn’t parallel as much as you might think. Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure that corruption in Indonesia unless very broadly construed dwarfs the UN corruption in the Food for Palaces scandal.
Bird: Jes, do you have credible evidence that Halliburton was involved with OFF?
Do you have any credible evidence that Kofi Annan has been stonewalling the UN investigation?
Been trying to (unsuccessfully) find a description of the Secretary-General’s powers, but I did find this.
link
This seems to contradict seb when he wrote
Also, since both you and Chas have followed this closely, I’m hoping you can point to any problems with these two links
Also, this editorial from over here may be of interest
For the conspiracy minded in the audience, there’s this
“Do you have any credible evidence that Kofi Annan has been stonewalling the UN investigation?”
Yes. His office instructed the contractors of the Food for Oil program not to give documents to investigators. In May he refused to turn over the UN internal audits to Congress or the Security Council. He denied that his son was involved in the program. He refused access to the accounts for the program held at the French bank BNP Paribas. He has refused to turn over current and past bank statements on the program to the Iraqi government.
Liberal Japonicus, you quote me on this but don’t respond to the question.
“It seems to me rather indefensible that the UN won’t release its financial records on the project. What are they, defense secrets? I don’t think so.”
Kofi Annan could have, at the beginning of the scandal, turned over all financial records held in all banks to the media for scrutiny. In fact, I see no reason why all UN financial records should not be open to the public at all times. They are not, because the UN is a junket-oriented joke that wouldn’t survive the real light of day.
They are not, because the UN is a junket-oriented joke that wouldn’t survive the real light of day.
Tangentially, I wonder how many businesses that’s true of…
I didn’t realize that one had to answer every question that you posed before being permitted to ask any. You don’t provide any cites (and I haven’t spoken to Kofi in ages (-_-)) I do note in one of the cites I provided, the following is mentioned.
As for why the UN doesn’t release all of its financial records, I really don’t know, so please feel free to ignore any questions I may ask, no matter how politely they are phrased….
Sebastian: His office instructed the contractors of the Food for Oil program not to give documents to investigators.
LiberalJaponicus’s comment at January 31, 2005 03:27 AM seems to deal with this claim – can you respond to it?
Got cites for your other assertions?
lj, the original OFF charter provides for a lot of structure, including regular audits of the program by qualified outside auditors (though it doesn’t specifically identify who gets access to those audits — I’ve never seen anything published from anyone who’s claimed to have seen them). It would be interesting to compare the charter to the actuality. But does anyone here truly believe that (i)there wasn’t massive fraud and crookery involved in the program, (ii) people within the UN knew about it, and (iii) people within the UN profited from it?
Even if it turns out US firms were involved in the fraud (and I believe four have been named, although at least one is s foreign front), the US wasn’t administering the program — Kofi and his minions were. And the fact that dishonest conduct may play into the hands of UN haters is just tough luck.
This is like the Plame Affaire in reverse — each day it gets worse instead of going away. A death of a thousand cuts for Kofi.
‘syl: But does anyone here truly believe that (i)there wasn’t massive fraud and crookery involved in the program, (ii) people within the UN knew about it, and (iii) people within the UN profited from it?
Certainly anyone who still believes in Ahmed Chalabi will believe all of that, yes.
A cite, a cite, my kingdom for a cite…
Tomsyl: This is like the Plame Affaire in reverse — each day it gets worse instead of going away. A death of a thousand cuts for Kofi.
Actually, I was thinking of the difference in attitude that Republicans are showing to Kofi Annan with regard to Oil for Food… and what they showed to George W. Bush with regard to 9/11.
Of course, the difference is obvious: OfF saved lives, and 9/11 killed over 3000 people.
Yet if there is sufficient evidence to fire Kofi Annan for “stonewalling”, there is rather more evidence to impeach George W. Bush for the same “crime”.
Odd, isn’t it? Collectively, the right-wing blogosphere didn’t appear to care about Bush stonewalling the 9/11 investigation. Yet collectively, they’re wasting a good deal of bile over a far lesser matter, where there is far less evidence…
Charles, Sebastian:
The links from libral japonicus appear to contradict what you said.
One could of course go to the UN site about the
OfF program inquity to see their answers to some questions. Or to the site of the inquiry self for
briefings and reports.
All the people who are so scandalized about the OfF program must be terribly concerned about the way it has been handled by the US since they took
over.
dutchmarbel, that makes interesting reading. I’m skimming articles randomly and was struck by the last paragraph in Facts in Response to Allegations made on Fox Breaking Point
But but but — Fox news is fair and balanced! [/snark]
Oil for Food: The UN View seems to give a good summation.
Jes,
“Yet if there is sufficient evidence to fire Kofi Annan for “stonewalling”, there is rather more evidence to impeach George W. Bush for the same “crime”.”
The distraction technique is ineffective. Everyone can see through it.
“it would be highly unwise of the Bush/Cheney administration to demand that anyone implicated in OfF ought to step down or be fired.
The connection seemed obvious to me. ”
I guess I was confused. I didn’t know Cheney worked for the U.N. and I thought Kofi did.
I guess the fact that the Bush admin is willing to do an investigation speaks to your charges rather well.
dutch,
“One could of course go to the UN site about the
OfF program inquity to see their answers to some questions.”
As Jes, might say isn’t this the fox guarding the chickens?
“LiberalJaponicus’s comment at January 31, 2005 03:27 AM seems to deal with this claim – can you respond to it?”
Arghh, when you want to you can be one of the most uncritical readers I have ever seen. Contractors are not UN officials. Contractors are independent. Annan has instructed the independent contractors that they should reveal the details of their financial dealings with the UN to outside investigators.
A news editorial saying that Annan has instructed UN officials to cooperate on penalty of dismissal (while pre-broadcasting that if they are found to have been bribed he will waive their diplomatic immunity–a statement not at all conducive to investigation, he could have certainly just waived it later) does not contradict the fact that he instructed contractors not to turn over documents to the Iraqi government-hired audits.
Your kingdom for a link? As already mentioned twice, you can get to a plethora of reports by using google and entering “Rosset” and “UN”. Claudia Rosset’s reports are both informative and damning.
Do you have any credible evidence that Kofi Annan has been stonewalling the UN investigation?
Yes. Hush letters, and Kofi’s refusal to open the books to anyone but Volcker are damning. Via Powerline, a letter written by Norm Coleman:
With a stroke of the pen, Annan has the authority to release whatever documents he sees fit. From William Safire:
A fellow editor also agrees with me.
Sebastian: does not contradict the fact that he instructed contractors not to turn over documents to the Iraqi government-hired audits.
I’m sorry, are you asserting that when there is an Iraqi government, the US will have instructed contractors not to turn over documents to it?
the US – the UN. Slip of the finger, sorry.
smlook: dutch,”One could of course go to the UN site about the OfF program inquity to see their answers to some questions.”
As Jes, might say isn’t this the fox guarding the chickens?
If you follow the link (or check votermums quote) you can see what Fox guards. But saying they are chicken is against the posting rules AFAIK.
Sebastian: from the UN site:
Please note the weasel language–“All documentation possessed by the UN on the OFFP has been turned over to the Volcker inquiry and the Secretary-General has ordered all staff to comply with any requests from Mr. Volcker, including for interviews, on pain of dismissal for non-cooperation.”
This does not contradict the fact that Annan instructed the major 3rd party holders of documentation not to turn it over.
Before the USA can judge the UN on the mis-use of funds it needs to account for Bremer’s own $9 billion screw-up in Iraq.
“Before the USA can do anything about the War on Terror it needs to bring peace to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.
Same logic, and wrong in both cases.
Charles: “Do you have any credible evidence that Kofi Annan has been stonewalling the UN investigation?”
“Yes. Hush letters, and Kofi’s refusal to open the books to anyone but Volcker are damning. Via Powerline, a letter written by Norm Coleman:”
Eh…. Norm Coleman does the UN investigation??? Oh no, he investigates the UN. According to the UN:
The letter can be read here (pdf file).
Sebastian, I quote 5 points, you take part of one and dismiss the rest of the points.
Please note the weasel language–“All documentation possessed by the UN on the OFFP has been turned over to the Volcker inquiry and the Secretary-General has ordered all staff to comply with any requests from Mr. Volcker, including for interviews, on pain of dismissal for non-cooperation.”
This does not contradict the fact that Annan instructed the major 3rd party holders of documentation not to turn it over.
Turn over to whom?? The US, or to Volcker?
(Duty calls, so it will be a while before I can answere here again)
Look, I don’t want to have a pile on here, but when I look up the story on google news, it has 5 related, including such sterling sources as the Wash Times and WorldNet Daily. Furthermore, 1 of the 5 is this one
Furthermore, on the question of Cotecna, I find this
There’s some snark about the linkage between credulity and one’s ability to accept that some countries might have laws about employers providing health insurance, but beyond that, I have to wonder if this is as good as your argument gets.
This just in – CPA lost track of $8.8 billion in DFI funds.
Seems that more than 10%, gasp, of the Iraq supplement have been lost to corruption, fraud and deceit.
Can we fire Bush now, or Cheney, or Rummy, or Bremer (wait…) ?
Dutchmarbel, I dealt with the only of your 5 points that was particularly on point and good for your case.
For example, the report whines that they couldn’t control the money once Saddam got his hands on it.
“But since this was money clandestinely extorted from contractors, which did not pass through the UN account, it is not obvious how the UN could have been in any position to influence the Iraqi regime’s decisions on how to spend it.”
I didn’t bother responding to it since I thought it was obviously self-refuting. The program was corrupted in multiple ways, most of which ought to have been detectable by the people running the program. It doesn’t speak to the problem of the fact that the program was deeply corrupted, it doesn’t speak to the fact that it was corrupted in ways that the UN ought to have detected, it doesn’t speak to the fact that the corruption directly involved Mr. Annan’s son. It doesn’t go to the fact that the corruption with Annan’s son presumabley had a point….
Maybe this is only obvious to me because I’ve worked on cases where the cheesy defense goes along these lines, but the holes are huge.
Liberal Japonicus, your last post makes no sense. Cotecna after having been found out in a ridiculous case of obvious bribery has complied with subpenas showing what we already found out? Does that speak to bank records? Does that speak to Kofi Annan instructing contractors not to turn over records? No. Sheesh.
BTW you need to be careful about relying on google news unless you are good at the date controls, since much of this was initially reported in May and June of 2004. For older things straight up google is often better.
Sebastian: the report whines that they couldn’t control the money once Saddam got his hands on it.
*blinks* Statement of fact rather than a whine, I’d have said, most likely. (I notice you don’t actually quote what it says, but paraphrase with your own anti-UN bias.)
They weren’t supposed to be running a system where he could have gotten his hands on $10 billion dollars without anyone noticing.
Sorry Charles but Norm Coleman’s political theater proves nothing. Coleman is not the UN auditor. A Safire is hardly a reliable source. Jeez, he’s still pushing that silly Atta in Prague nonsense!
I have no love for Annan in any case but there is an investigation going on and they are cooperating with it.
And please stop bringing up that “no subpeona power” canard. Annan doesn’t have the authority to do that. You might as well accuse him of not giving the investigators mind-reading abilities.
Sebastian,
Do you have link explaining what Annan did and said exactly re the contractors?
Sebastian: They weren’t supposed to be running a system where he could have gotten his hands on $10 billion dollars without anyone noticing.
I repeat calls for a cite.
“Before the USA can do anything about the War on Terror it needs to bring peace to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.
If we accept the so-called “War on Terror” we must accept that so much of the roots of the anti-American sentiment derive from our historical support of Israel vs. the Palestinians. If we are going to defeat “terror”, if one can even do such a thing, we have to address the root causes.
You don’t defeat cancer by killing every cancer patient, you work on cures that stop it from spreading.
“I repeat calls for a cite.”
I’m really trying to be nice. But I find it annoying that there is this great internet tool available that you seem unable to use. Those who read the news in depth sometimes come across things that happened almost some years ago and don’t have a cite directly at our fingertips. If we want to research it again we often use Google to find out about it. In this instance if you were to type in the words “Annan”, “Contractor” and “Letter” you would find a number of articles on the subject. The annoying thing for me is that I spend a lot of time reading current news and would rather do that than finding a source for older information that I read which should be just as easily findable by you.
From these articles you would see things like
Normally if I make an assertion that might sound odd to someone who has been following the topic, I provide a link. If my knowledge comes from an older source which is not at my fingertips and which should be well known to people who have been watching the topic, I don’t provide a link–I presume that people who were not following the topic but now are interested can research it just as I do.
Since we have a history, and you tend to play the “I don’t believe you, please link” game ad infinitum the link is intentionally not provided, though the roadmap to it is above.
lj, don’t be so fast in giving Cotecna and Kojo Annan a clean bill of health, so to speak. Kojo recently admitted he lied when he claimed he had nothing to do with the award of oil contracts, and it remains to be seen whether the continuing Cotecna financial connection was simply a series of very expensive health plan payments.
I used to think we should just wait for the Volker report (assuming Annan releases it without censoring it first) but from what I’ve read above about restricted budgets, I’m glad congress is investigating. And I’m glad some are keeping this thread on point, despite efforts to derail it OT with references to Cheney, Bush, Bremer, 9/11, Indonesia, &c., &c, ad nauseum. What’s the next attempted distraction, folks, Enron?
Just realized I looped BD’s source, but at least I got in the “vampire-like” epithet, which I kinda liked. Not that my link was slanted or anything.
Sebastian:
Dutchmarbel, I dealt with the only of your 5 points that was particularly on point and good for your case.
When people ask for specifics you answered “google UN and Rosett” and said that her reports were good. My points showed that according to the UN her reports were not that good.
For example, the report whines that they couldn’t control the money once Saddam got his hands on it.
I didn’t bother responding to it since I thought it was obviously self-refuting.
Well, maybe you can refute a bit more in future, for silly me.
The program was corrupted in multiple ways, most of which ought to have been detectable by the people running the program. It doesn’t speak to the problem of the fact that the program was deeply corrupted, it doesn’t speak to the fact that it was corrupted in ways that the UN ought to have detected, it doesn’t speak to the fact that the corruption directly involved Mr. Annan’s son. It doesn’t go to the fact that the corruption with Annan’s son presumabley had a point….
But it *was* detected by the UN and reported on. But the security council did not do much with it, or approved things the UN advised against.
Maybe this is only obvious to me because I’ve worked on cases where the cheesy defense goes along these lines, but the holes are huge.
darn, that must be silly me again. I thought in your line of work you were used to going for *facts* instead of allegations and being rather specific about them.
Maybe this is only obvious to me because I’ve worked on cases where the cheesy defense goes along these lines, but the holes are huge.
that bit should have been italic too, sorry
The points you cited did not refute Rosset’s work, in three cases they avoided the main points in one case she appears to have been wrong and in one case they appear to be talking about something different from what she was talking about. Basically you are taking a mere administrative denial as thouroughly refuting an investigative report. I suspect you wouldn’t do the same for a Republican administration.
The points you cited did not refute Rosset’s work, in three cases they avoided the main points in one case she appears to have been wrong and in one case they appear to be talking about something different from what she was talking about. Basically you are taking a mere administrative denial as thouroughly refuting an investigative report.
This is so vague that it is hard to have any kind of discussion about which specific points and allegations you want to make.
She said things went unchecked – you said that the UN should have noticed things: the UN says it did and it reported them to the SC.
She said that OfF-money ended up in terrorist hands, the UN says that cannot be checked, but if it had happened it was with money they had no control over.
She said that Kofi Annan signed of things that he did not sign off.
The documents she claims are not being handed over *were* handed over to the Inquiry Committee, but not to the US congress. I quoted Volckers reasoning for that elswere in this thread.
The last point was less relevant to the discussion, but served more to show that Rosett’s report was leading.
I suspect you wouldn’t do the same for a Republican administration.
If I were not, there are many here who would do it for me I quess, including you ;-).
But if the US had elected a Democratic administration I would argue the same.
The righty lawyers on this thread should know enough about administrative law to understand the difference between staff and directors.
the UN is an administrative agency. it has staff, led by kofi, and directors, known as ambassadors, each appointed by the member countries.
Kofi is senior staff; he reports to his board of directors. He has a role in setting policy, but must ultimately defer to his directors. for example, i doubt that Kofi has the ultimate power to decide how the UN will respond to document requests. i suspect that such power lies in one of the UN’s arcane committees.
here’s the point: the “decrepit” international body exists pursuant to treaty. for those who need to brush up on their US Constitution, Art. VI says in part:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . .
Don’t like the UN? take it up with the other member countries. renegotiate our treaties (presuming anyone will listen).
but laying all the blame for the OFF scandal on Kofi demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how admin. agencies work. If this statement is true: “UN officials frequently drew the attention of the Security Council Sanctions Committee charged with overseeing the Programme to anomalies in the pricing of both imports and exports” (lifted from dutchmarbel’s 11:03 post), then the scandal lies with the directors, not staff.
other countries stalling a bribery / corruption investigation? espionage at the UN? American righties pointing the finger at staff rather than our allies?
i’m shocked, i tell you, just shocked!
republicans control the house, senate and presidency. if the UN is so objectionable, why aren’t republicans making more of an effort to renegotiate the treaties under which the UN exists?
as best i can tell, the reason is that UN serves the same role in republican party politics as Michael Moore — a convenient whipping boy useful for drumming up contributions out of a witless ignorant american polity.
cheers.
Francis
“if the UN is so objectionable, why aren’t republicans making more of an effort to renegotiate the treaties under which the UN exists?”
Hey good idea. Seriously. Though I would prefer to simply withdraw at this point.
22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.
see, especially, section 287e
“There is hereby authorized to be appropriated annually to the Department of State, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for the payment by the United States of its share of the expenses of the United Nations as apportioned by the General Assembly in accordance with article 17 of the Charter”
last i checked, as posted above, treaties are law of the land.
i mean, i know that the theory of unchecked presidential power is kicking around a lot these days, like in the torture memos, but still . . .
shouldn’t the US at least follow the process required by law for withdrawing?
yes, i’m still looking for the section of the Charter allowing for withdrawal. i’ll post it when i find it.
OK. thanks for all those cites. errr, maybe not. I’m trying to be nice too, and I will cheerfully admit that this is not something that I’ve invested a huge amount of time researching. The front page post references one newspaper article and two Tacitus posts. So, when someone says “I’ve been following the scandal pretty closely”, if I ask them politely for some more details, I get ‘try google’, well, I’m a little embarrassed for you. When someone cites Worldnet Daily my embarrassment turns to mortification. It really is pathetic.
On a side note syl, I didn’t give Cotecna ‘a clean bill of health'(I would never do that to any multinational, especially one that dealt with oil…)
Is this cite better? Or this? Or this?
I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate the WorldDayNewsly cite, but the statement that “U.N. officials have become vampire-like in their fear of the light of truth” was just too good to pass up. Har.
fdl, weren’t the UN “administrators” charged with administrating the UN’s OFF program? And isn’t that where the alleged fraud occurred? I don’t think anyone’s alleging that the ambassadors were getting kickbacks or oil vouchers — the charges are in the area of administrative oversight, fraudulent or botched audits, fixed deals and the like. With few exceptions, the names showing up on lists of those ostensibly benefitting from the scheme are private corporations and banks (George Galloway and Megawati Sukarnoputri being two notable exceptions).
Sorry, tomsyl but the first two cites are drawn from the Sunday Times article. {insert snark here}. The Wapo article is about Samir Vincent and if you want a cite for Samir, this might be more appropriate, but I thought the request was about Kojo Annan. However, if your desire to cite is driven by the fact that a piece has a good one-liner in it, well, I see where you are coming from.
For those of you looking for a little light relief, check out WorldnetDaily’s advertisement for ENEMIES WITHIN (all caps are theirs)
How can you “fuel global chaos”? By spraying gasoline randomly up in the air?
Someone forgot to oil the metaphor machine.
I guess by being a “global criminal enterprise determined to shift power away from individuals and sovereign nation-states to a small band of unaccountable international elites.” That dang United Nations…
Someone forgot to oil the metaphor machine.
I don’t know, the writers seemed well lubed to me ….
I would be carefull with wat I said about Galloway Tomsyl, unless you have a lot of money spare.
And the UN administrators had alerted people a lot, and for years, about kickbacks and such. But the decisions about what to investigate and what to change were for a big part made elsewhere. Have you read *any* of the UN documents I linked to??
Sebastian: Though I would prefer to simply withdraw at this point.
I wasn’t aware you were a member.
DutchMarbel: Have you read *any* of the UN documents I linked to??
I suspect they haven’t: after all, what good are facts?
The two links (I am an optimist Jes 😉 ) about Galloway I referred to are here and here.
For those not inclined to following links (I guess I am ap pragmatist too 😉 ): they link to two seperate articles about two seperate libel court cases George Galloway one. One against a UK newspaper:
And one against an American newspaper:
A warning, dutchmarbel: IIRC, the case against Galloway had no finding of fact in it whatsoever, despite his claims. The only question that was asked was whether the Telegraph had the right to print what they did based on the breadth and reliability of their sources. He could be as guilty as sin for all the court case cared; the point was that the Telegraph lacked the grounding to claim that in a public forum.
anarch: I know (it’s kind of a CBS analogy isn’t it 😉 ?). Frankly, I don’t like the guy overly much, he is to biased in his own way of thinking for me. But opinions about the validity of the documents vary widely.
There might be truth in it, it might be part of a smear campaign: I don’t know. I *do* know that so far none of the accusations about his profiting from Iraq could be proven and most are disproven.
dutchmarbel, I assuming you’re joking when you suggest I should be afraid of being sued by George Galloway for saying that he’s a crook. Has he sued the WSJ yet? You might want to be careful who you defend. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
As to the Telegraph article, maybe the documents they relied on were fake but accurate. Har.
Tomsyl you are linking to an extensive opinion piece in the WSJ that has exactly *one* sentence about Galloway:
AFAIK that the documents upon which the al Madi list were based have never been seen by anybody but Chellabi and his associates. Wasn’t all information about them mysteriously hacked from one of the associates computers, including the info on the backup files?
The bit about sueing was a little snark; unless you have a lot more influence and money than I assume you have it would not really be cost-effective anyway I assume. However Galloway *has* sued over those allogations and won.
My comment was not intended as a defence for Galloway in particular (as said before, I am no fan of his) but to show that your data and allogations are unfounded and/or unproven.
dutchmarbel, I have no money and less influence. But I despair — now there are reports that Paul Volker failed to disclose connections to Banc Paribas before he took the job, problems that may compromise the credibility of the report that I naively hoped would be the last word on the subject.
Agreed with the particulars of your post. Cheers.
tomsyl:
dutchmarbel, I have no money and less influence.
Join the club. Crowded, but with lots of good company 😉
But I despair — now there are reports that Paul Volker failed to disclose connections to Banc Paribas before he took the job, problems that may compromise the credibility of the report that I naively hoped would be the last word on the subject.
If I google Volcker and Banc Paribas I only find this column by Ian Williams and I have sincere doubts that that is what you mean 😉
Are you referring to the story Heritage came up with? Does not strike me as something that seriously undermines Volckers credibility so far, to be honest. As we Dutch say: “If you really want you can always find a stick to hit the dog with” so people who do not like the outcome of the report will always try to find justifications.
Actually I was referring to the facts mentioned in this article’s fifth paragraph.
Ah. The NBC reporter sounds pretty stupid from the article – but the article is hardly objective in tone, so I have difficulty judging it.
The story about Volcker is the same as I mentioned (see my Heritage link).