Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on April 28, 2004, 07:29:06 AM
-
April 28, 2004 -- ANYONE who pines for genuine international multilateralism would do well to follow the bribes now being uncovered in the United Nations' Oil-for- Food scandal.
Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to topple Saddam Hussein's regime? And why did they press constantly, throughout the '90s, for an expansion of Iraqi oil sales? Was it their empathy for the starving children of that impoverished nation? Their desire to stop the United States from arrogantly imposing its vision upon the Middle East?
It now looks like they it was simply because they were on the take. Saddam was their cash cow. If President Bush has suffered some discredit over his apparently false - but not disingenuous - claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the lapse is minor compared to the outright personal selfishness and criminality that appears to have motivated many of those who opposed his efforts to rid the world of one of its worst dictators.
Throughout the '90s, France and Russia badgered the United States and Britain to increase Iraqi oil production. President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair fought them at each step, but then reluctantly gave way. First Iraq was allowed to sell 500,000 barrels daily. Then, on Franco-Russian insistence, it was raised to 1 million, then to 2 million and, finally, to 3 million barrels a day.
Each time, America and Britain - the nations now accused of coveting Iraqi oil - resisted the increases in Iraqi production and urged tighter controls over the program. Each time, the French and the Russians prattled on about the rights of Iraqi sovereignty and the need to feed the children.
Now we know why the French and Russians were so insistent. Iraqi government documents (leaked to the Baghdad newspaper Al Mada) list at least 270 individuals and entities who got vouchers allowing them to sell Iraqi oil - and to keep much of the money. These vouchers, and the promise of instant great wealth they carried with them, bought vital support in the United Nations to let Saddam stay in power.
The list of those receiving these bribes includes France's former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (who's a leader of Chirac's party) and Patrick Maugein, the head of the French Oil firm Soco International. France's former U.N. ambassador, Jean-Bernard Merimee, got vouchers to sell 11 million barrels.
In Russia, the payoff chain reached right into the "office of the Russian president." President Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party also got vouchers, as did the Soviet-era Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov and the Russian Orthodox Church. Nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky shared in the largesse.
Not to be left behind, the Rev. Jean Marie Benjamin of the Vatican got the rights to sell 4.5 million barrels as recompense for setting up a meeting between Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz and the pope.
Indeed, the list indicates that Benon Sevan, the United Nations official in charge of the Oil-for-Food program. received vouchers. He denies the charge, but has decided to retire next month anyway.
At the start of the Oil-for-Food program, America and Britain proposed that the money flow only to accounts entirely controlled by the United Nations. Soon this standard was lowered to include accounts not actually controlled by the United Nations, but only monitored by it.
Then-Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) warned that "oil is fungible" and noted that once Iraq was allowed to pump and sell it, Saddam could sell all he wanted outside of officially sanctioned channels and nobody could tell which black liquid was legal and which not. But nobody imagined that there were actual bribes going to specific French, Russian and U.N. officials as part of the program.
Now it appears that Secretary-General Kofi Annan's sanctimonious posturing may have concealed oil bribes which reached high up in the ranks of the U.N. organization itself.
The defect of international coalitions is that they include the just and the unjust, the bribed and the honest, the democratic and the autocratic. And their members cannot be trusted equally. The group that stood up and backed the invasion of Iraq was nicknamed "the Coalition of the Willing." Now it appears it was also "the Coalition of the Honest."
-
1) cite your source.
2) This isn't new... it's been running around the net for quite some time. Nobody really cares.
-
We are now getting some info into the "Oil for shutting the F*** up" program.
To bad the UN is trying so hard to make the investigation toothless. If this were an American scandal I bet we would see screams from the concerned press of Europe. I did a search on the BBC for "Oil for Food" and the pickings were slim. I am sure its being covered but it dosnt seem to be stirring up any excitement from the press.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
1) cite your source.
2) This isn't new... it's been running around the net for quite some time. Nobody really cares.
The New York Post
-
As they're saying, this has been around a long time. A lot of us suspect it's true, but has there been a 'smoking gun' type discovery?
curly
-
Yeah, i've been saying this from way before all the press sources jumped on the bandwagon.
But the problem is that it's France and Germany, not russia that really stood to lose from Iraq being free.
-
So Bush, Blair and Cheney terminated the "German_French_Russian_IraqiBa theRegime" cartel and replaced it with the "US_UK_Haliburton_IraqiExpatri otPuppets" scam. The cost being nothing to them but to the US public it's running at "only" several hundred US lives and over one hundred BILLION in US taxpayers $$$. And the cost, in blood and dollars, continues to climb rapidly.
http://costofwar.com/
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The New York Post
Considered by many to be a tabloid, not to say it isn't true. Btw, hijack time.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/28/wine_cigars_deer_head____charge_it_to_uncle_sam/
-
"Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to topple Saddam"
Because rightly like the rest of the world they realised that it was a bad idea to do so with force.
Unfortunetly England with it's poodle PM didn't follow suit.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Krusher
In Russia, the payoff chain reached right into the "office of the Russian president." President Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party also got vouchers, as did the Soviet-era Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov and the Russian Orthodox Church. Nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky shared in the largesse.
Putin's Peace and Unity Party? Did I miss something?
Nikolay Ryzhkov? That's cool! He was fired in 1990, before the first Gulf War.
Russian Orthodox church? I am an atheist and don't follow religious news, but I must say that I didn't hear any statements from Church officials regarding agression against Iraq and occupation regime.
Looks like sucking "facts" out of fingers becomes more and more popular practice in the "land of free" to justify their agression. Now they don't even bother to check with the reality before publishing their righteous hallucinations.
Yes, Russians are always to blame.
-
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
-
Let me put this straight.
France and Germany got almost all of their oil from Iraq at dirt cheap prices. Saddam himself took every penny made from the oil and saved it. Even if it was a low rate, there was a lot of oil so he was funneling a lot of money to himself, probably giving some money to his croneys.
Now, speaking hypothetically as in before the war took place, what do you think the reaction from France and Germany would be?
Suddenly, Iraq is free and the people know that France and Germany have been totally dicking them over. IF and only if, the Iraqi people felt like selling any oil at all to France or Germany, it would be for astronomical prices.
Now, the French and German government see this and damn near **** themselves when they realize what will happen. They claim "Moral objections" to it to try to swing the world against the US. They ***WANT*** UN support ***ONLY*** so that they can somewhat redeem themselves and get oil for a fair price.
But now the US and a bunch of other nations have committed troops to free Iraq. Not that I'm saying this war was about oil for the US, but who do you think that iraq will be nicest to when selling oil again?
BTW, during the war the US caught a few eighteen wheelers headed for syria that had a few billion dollars of Saddam's money in the back. This was all given to the people.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
BTW, during the war the US caught a few eighteen wheelers headed for syria that had a few billion dollars of Saddam's money in the back. This was all given to the people.
This is so funny that I simply don't know what to say.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Considered by many to be a tabloid, not to say it isn't true. Btw, hijack time.
[
tabloids are more reputable
-
Originally posted by stiehl
tabloids are more reputable
Um, New York Times is tabloid stuff, just look at the reporters making up false stories.
-
Update:
Secretary-General Names Independent Panel to Probe ‘Oil-for-Food’ Allegations
NEW YORK, 21 April–- United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan today announced the formation of the independent panel that will conduct an inquiry into allegations of impropriety in the administration and management of the Iraq “oil-for-food” programme.
The panel will be chaired by Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve System. Its other two members are Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, who previously served as the Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and Mark Pieth of Switzerland, a Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology at the University of Basel with expertise in money-laundering.
According to the terms of reference that will govern the independent inquiry, the panel will have the authority to:
-- Investigate whether the procedures established by the United Nations for the administration and management of the programme were violated;
-- Determine whether any United Nations officials, personnel, agents or contractors engaged in any illicit or corrupt activities in the carrying out of their respective roles in relation to the programme; and
-- Determine whether the accounts of the programme were in order and were maintained in accordance with United Nations regulations and rules.
To ensure a thorough and meticulous inquiry, the members of the independent panel will have the authority to access all relevant United Nations records and information, written or unwritten, and to interview all relevant United Nations officials and personnel. The panel is authorized to obtain records and interviews from persons unaffiliated with the United Nations who may have knowledge relevant to the inquiry, including allegations of impropriety. It is also authorized to seek cooperation from United Nations Member States to conduct its inquiry. The Security Council today adopted unanimously a resolution welcoming the appointment of the panel and calling upon the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Iraq and all other MemberStates –- including their national regulatory authorities -– to fully cooperate with the inquiry.
In addition, within three months of the initiation of its work, the panel should provide the Secretary-General with a status report of its work. The Secretary General has stated that he will employ his authority so that the Organization's privileges and immunities do not impede efforts to hold accountable those who have engaged in unacceptable conduct.
“Obviously, these are serious allegations which we take seriously, and this is why we’ve put together a very serious group to investigate it”, the Secretary-General said today. “The Organization will take whatever steps may be appropriate to address the issues raised by the inquiry. We have assembled a group of respected individuals that I hope will complete its work as soon as practicable.”
“As to the impact on our activities in Iraq, I hope the Iraqis realize that even if there have been wrongdoings by certain members on the UN staff, the UN, as a whole, did make a genuine effort to fill in their humanitarian needs”, he added. “There were hundreds of UN staff who worked very hard and diligently to establish the food distribution system and ensure that supplies did go in and, I think, that positive aspect of it should not be overlooked either.”
As provided in the terms of reference, the panel’s report will be made public.
LOL, now this is funny. How you gonna trace cash?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to topple Saddam"
Because rightly like the rest of the world they realised that it was a bad idea to do so with force.
...-Gixer
Just ignore the evidence... Bad evidence... Are you illiterate or simply ignoring the embarassing evidence behind the staunch "moral" anti-war stances of France and russia?
NO WAR, FOR OIL!!!!!
Very accurate slogan for the euro oil traitors...
LOL man is it funny... What sheep the european poulace is, they were demonstrating against a war for oil in the millions when their own governments were supporting continued sanctions and human rights violatiopns and suffering of 23million iraqis, just because of oil...
How do you say:
Baaaaa Baaaaaa Baaaaaa Baaaaaa...
In french?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How do you say:
Baaaaa Baaaaaa Baaaaaa Baaaaaa...
In french?
Not possible to translate we don't do/rape sheeps here.
The list of those receiving these bribes includes France's former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (who's a leader of Chirac's party)
Was wrong 2 years BEFORE the 28 april 2004.
This nice article has no usable function,except if you're having a dump and run out of paper.
@lasersailor184 : when will you notice you don't use your brain ?
I'll give you a hint to help you see the truth : compare the daily Iraqui Oil production to the daily consumation of France,Germany and Russia.
Try to avoid any destruction of your brain cell ,I truly enjoy your posts.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Not possible to translate we don't do/rape sheeps here.
You're right, incest is a very bad thing.... :rolleyes:
Ohh yea and what was date 2 years before april 2004?
Would that be April 2002? The same 2002 when the big Iraq war discussions were stareted? And certainly the artilcle mentions former so you really have no point. :)
-
go away GRUN !
I know you are trying to turn the fine saint Nicolas de Bourgueil I've in my belly in a sort of vinegar !
Still concerning Pasqua/Chirac I remember of 1998 so ... it more than 2 year again ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
go away GRUN !
I know you are trying to turn the fine saint Nicolas de Bourgueil I've in my belly in a sort of vinegar !
Still concerning Pasqua/Chirac I remember of 1998 so ... it more than 2 year again ;)
Dont even get my started about crappy french wines... ;)
-
Won't answer as I'm a bit tired and my next planed move is :
smoke a cigar* with a cognac in front of the chimney (fireplace ?)
PS : I love being in hollydays ;)
* a dominican one !
I'm sure you thought I'll have the bad taste to smoke a cuban one
no way ... they stink :p
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Saddam himself took every penny made from the oil and saved it.
I hate to punch a hole in that theory, but I don't remember them finding vaults full of euros, I believe it was vaults full of the greenback.
-
ZNet | Terror War
Corruption at the UN
by Anjum Niaz; April 20, 2004
His son Kojo is the cause. Kofi, the dad, running the United Nations as the first black to become the 7th Secretary General - thrashing through a 40 year UN thicket infested with hobbits and orcs - is normally a cool cat, known not to shrink from trouble but grow "calmer as a crisis mounts".
But this crisis is monumental; personal; and a grist for the gossip mills.
Colleague and crony Benon Sevan, appointed by Annan to oversee the $100 billion humanitarian Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq is accused of cribbing half of the 14 million barrels of oil allocated to the UN as its fee - 2.2% - on each barrel of oil sold. Apart from embezzling millions for himself, the UN under secretary-general is said to have allowed Saddam Hussein to do business with French, Russian and Chinese contractors, funneling the kickbacks offered in return, to Hussein's personal accounts, totaling more than $10 billion.
Charged with nepotism and cronyism, Annan, 64, has been emasculated into announcing an independent commission to investigate the theft that has invited vicious catcalls against him for "an open bazaar of payoffs, favoritism and kickbacks." He has now named the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to head the probe.
"The UN's mechanisms for controlling Oil-for-Food contracts were inadequate, transparency went by the wayside, and effective internal review of the program did not occur. . . . If the United Nations cannot be trusted to run a humanitarian program, its other activities, including peacekeeping, arms inspection regimes or development projects may be called into question," castigates Sen. Richard Lugar, heading the Senate's International Affairs Committee.
The House International Relations Committee too is scheduling its own hearings and its Chairman, Henry Hyde has already passed judgment on the UN saying that the Oil-for-Food program "represents a scandal without precedent in UN history."
The Oil-for-Food programme, set up in 1996, allowed Saddam to sell oil (Iraq being the second largest producer) to earn money to buy food and medicine; to remove land mines; and to build hospitals, schools and water treatment plants for his citizens, instead he bilked billions and the UN let him.
Iraqi oil pumped under Sevan's direct supervision for seven full years was openly sold to whoever lined Saddam and Sevan's pockets - 75% being Americans themselves - and the revenues deposited in a UN controlled escrow account (French bank, BNP Paribas)
for Iraq to purchase the necessities of life denied by America and the world under punishing economic sanctions .
Sweetheart deals among the French, Russians, Chinese and Iraqis, bastard many a thief of Baghdad, with UN as the midwife.
The former Iraqi oil minister claims that the UN "was stealing money from the Iraqi people," alleging that as many as 300 UN bureaucrats were employed to administer the programme. "We were not pumping oil to feed Iraqis, but to feed (300) UN bureaucrats in New York."
Before Sevan's recent mysterious disappearance into the nether world, facilitated by boss Annan, who shrewdly packed him off on long leave before retirement, Sevan nonchalantly admitted, " that as much as 10 percent" of the programme's revenues may have been "ripped off," telling a TV channel: "Even if 10 percent of the revenue was stolen, 90 percent got to the people it was intended for. Why does nobody report that?" he asked peevishly.
Kofi Annan's choice of giving the pivotal contract to the Swiss-based Cotecna Inspection SA. to inspect all Oil-for-Food shipments in Iraq has ripped open his reputation, with accusations of nepotism. The peripatetic Kojo, 30, born from Annan's first wife in Ghana, worked for Cotecna.
More intriguing is the question why Annan favoured Cotecna, the same depraved and convicted firm, that Pakistan's "Mr Ten Percent" Asif Ali Zardari, hired as Pre-Shipment Inspectors (PSI) when his wife, Benazir Bhutto was the Prime Minister!
Third World leaders - corrupt to their teeth like Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, Mugabe and the current crop of autocrats in Uzbekistan and Kazahkstan, have done business with this tight-knit group of five global companies, generating more than $800 million a year of revenue and $150-$200 million in profit from inspection contracts with 44 of such desperately poor countries.
"These companies' owners include some of the richest people on the planet, who dwell in premier capitals like Geneva, London, Paris, and Milan", says James Henry, author of the Blood bankers: Tales from the Global Underground Economy.
A Swiss court convicted Cotecna and SGS for bribing Benazir Bhutto, and leading members of her family, all through the 1990s, with the help of major Swiss, American UK, and French banks and a coterie of Swiss lawyers.
"In effect, all these Western institutions helped to undermine Pakistani democracy and its chances for providing a democratic alternative to Islamic fundamentalism and military dictatorship," says Henry, an economist by training, a lawyer and an investigative journalist, who tells us how many of the "world's leading banks and financial groups have, often with the complicity of their governments and supranational institutions, created and fuelled the new high-growth global markets for dirty debt, capital flight, money laundering, tax evasion, corruption, illicit weapons traffic, and other new transnational forms of dubious economic activity".
No surprise then if the World Bank and the IMF fail to police Cotecna and its ilk, and why Kofi Annan quietly handed on a platter the Oil-for-Food programme to them despite their stinking track-record.
"In Pakistan's case", explains Henry, "it shows how vulnerable democratic development can be to corruption - encouraged and facilitated by a coterie of unscrupulous First World bankers, lawyers, and inspection companies."
The Nobel Peace laureate Kofi, which means 'Friday' because that's the day he was born, with his M.A in Management from MIT, egregiously allowed his son and crony to smear his good name.
Kojo's bizarre trail of shady deals has gotten tongues wagging. Four years ago the contract for the $75million airport in Harare, capital of Zimbabwe, involved a nephew of its president Robert Mugabe; the son of a former Saudi oil minister; and the son of the UN chief!
After diplomatic pratfalls in Iraq, with everyone insisting that the UN must now step in, Bush and his cohorts on ther Right are desperate for a whistle-blower, someone who can squeal on the UN and discredit it.
And their choice? A Pakistani ex-Foreign Office type, for long with the UN in New York.
Serenading Shaukat Fareed, New York Times columnist William Safire, ended his March 29 column with: "All of us need an embittered whistle-blower. If an ex-UN type named Shaukat Fareed reads this - call me."
Safire is baying under the wrong tree. Shaukat Fareed is not an 'ex-UN'.
"I am unhappy that Safire got all the facts wrong," Fareed says. His response carried in the NYT Letter's column, six days too late, was a tepid one.
How did Safire pick Fareed's name from the 15,000 UN employees? Is there something that one is missing here?
"Well, I am the person who originally put the Oil-for-Food structure together. Later it was taken away from me and given to Sevan," says Fareed, now director, secretariat of the UN chief executives board of coordination, whatever that means!
Pulling rank, the opinionated William Safire, has a reputation of not acknowledging his mistake each time he's horribly wrong or making false assertions (frequently). Nor will his "Newspaper of Record" tell him to correct them.
"An opinion may be wrongheaded," Safire recently fired back at Daniel Okrent, the NYT Public Editor who felt that columnists should carry corrections if they have misstated, "but it is never wrong. A belief or a conviction, no matter how illogical, crackbrained or infuriating, is an idea subject to vigorous dispute but is not an assertion subject to editorial or legal correction."
No wonder Shaukat Fareed wants the Safire story to be put to bed. Either Safire knows Fareed well or he is too powerful a man for the UN director to lock horns with.
-
Doesn't anyone just post a link anymore? This C&P seems like such a waste of space. Just C&P sections you want to point out. Let them read the rest.
-
Hey JBA I can do C&P too look here bro :
New York (Nations Unies) de notre correspondante
Chypre, Irak, Côte d'Ivoire, Haïti... L'ONU n'a jamais été autant sollicitée. Paradoxalement, ses dysfonctionnements viennent d'être brutalement mis en lumière par plusieurs affaires, au risque de miner sa crédibilité.
De la "boîte noire" du Rwanda, retrouvée dans un placard, aux accusations portant sur le programme irakien "Pétrole contre nourriture", les enquêtes s'accumulent.
"L'ONU, c'est un pachyderme qui bouge lentement. Il ne voit pas les coups arriver", dit un familier du système. Il y a les coups, les "bourdes" et les possibles malversations. La bureaucratie est mise en cause, et aussi la gestion de Kofi Annan, alors que la rumeur a couru qu'il pourrait briguer un troisième mandat en 2005. Dans un entretien à Al-Hayat, le secrétaire général a démenti, le 20 mars, cette intention. "Non, je ne veux pas de troisième mandat. J'ai toujours dit que je quitterais mes fonctions à la fin du second", a-t-il déclaré. Mais sur l'Irak, "il y a clairement des efforts pour me mettre dans l'embarras et affaiblir l'organisation", a-t-il dit.
La "boîte noire" du Rwanda. Par son apparente simplicité, c'est l'affaire qui fait le plus de tort à l'image de l'Organisation. Deux jours après les révélations du Monde, l'ONU a dû reconnaître qu'elle était en possession d'une boîte noire oubliée dans un placard depuis dix ans. Le juge d'instruction français Jean-Louis Bruguière, chargé, à la demande des familles des pilotes français, d'enquêter sur l'attentat contre l'avion du président rwandais Juvénal Habyarimana, le 6 avril 1994, attentat qui a donné le signal du début du génocide contre les Tutsis, affirme que l'Organisation a fait obstruction à l'enquête qu'il mène et dans laquelle il met en cause l'actuel président rwandais, Paul Kagamé. La thèse du "complot" onusien pour couvrir le régime tutsi n'est pas celle qui est privilégiée par le staff ou les diplomates. "On est nuls, soupire un responsable. C'est aussi simple que ça : on est nuls."
Tout le monde, à l'ONU, n'a pas pris la mesure de l'effet d'image dans l'opinion. "Quelle administration peut être sûre de savoir tout ce qu'il y a dans ses placards ?", demande un haut responsable. A l'époque, le département ne comptait que 200 agents pour 16 missions à travers le monde. Ce n'était pas un avion de l'ONU ni un équipage de l'ONU. La boîte noire est restée là.
Le juge Bruguière ne l'a jamais demandée formellement, indique-t-on de plusieurs sources. Il a eu une conversation téléphonique avec la juge Pillay, qui présidait le Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda (TPIR). En 2002, il a demandé à la représentation française à l'ONU de prendre contact avec le secrétariat, indique-t-on, mais sans déposer de requête. "Bruguière n'a rien compris à l'ONU", dit un interlocuteur bien placé. L'administration française ne semble pas avoir beaucoup cherché à l'éclairer. "Là, ajoute-t-il, on est dans le gris, le gris obscur"...
Les diplomates ne pensent pas que le TPIR avait compétence pour enquêter sur l'attentat contre l'avion. Le Tribunal est saisi de faits de génocide commis pendant l'année 1994. Pour ce qui concerne le crash, le Conseil de sécurité a simplement demandé au secrétaire général de collecter des informations. "Le secrétaire général n'avait pas le mandat d'une commission d'enquête, résume un diplomate. On ne peut pas dire non plus qu'il n'avait aucun mandat."
Outre celle du juge Bruguière, plusieurs enquêtes sont en cours. Une firme privée, à Ottawa, est chargée d'essayer d'identifier l'avion auquel appartenait la boîte noire. Le bureau des enquêtes internes de l'ONU tente de remonter la filière.
"Pétrole contre nourriture" en Irak. Le scandale de corruption lié au programme "Pétrole contre nourriture" en Irak est celui qui mobilise le plus aux Etats-Unis. Depuis janvier, la page éditoriale du Wall Street Journal ne ménage pas sa peine. Un consultant britannique, Claude Hankes-Drielsma, qui conseille le gouvernement irakien intérimaire à Bagdad, s'est spécialisé dans la promotion de cette affaire. Il a sorti la liste des personnalités internationales qui auraient reçu des coupons "pétrole" de Saddam Hussein. Le nom de Benon Sevan, le Chypriote qui administrait le programme "Pétrole contre nourriture", y figure. Comme les autres personnalités citées, il a démenti avoir touché des fonds.
La campagne est interprétée à l'ONU comme largement inspirée par le débat interne à Washington. Alors que l'administration se demandait "quel contrôle céder" à l'ONU en Irak (Washington Post, 18 février), les ultraconservateurs lançaient le "Kofigate", le nom de Kojo Annan, fils du secrétaire général, ayant été cité. Kojo Annan travaillait pour la Cotecna, la compagnie suisse qui vérifiait l'entrée des produits en Irak, à l'époque où celle-ci a obtenu ce contrat de l'ONU. Jusqu'aux bombardements de 1998, la Lloyds faisait ce travail. La Cotecna l'a remplacée après avoir présenté le dossier le moins cher, selon l'ONU.
Pourquoi attaquer l'ONU à un moment où la Coalition compte sur son soutien pour l'après-30 juin en Irak ? Certaines sources pensent qu'il s'agit de "la forcer à y retourner". D'autres pensent plutôt à des effets de campagne. Le 22 mars, le Washington Timesa expliqué son côté de l'équation : John Kerry, candidat démocrate à la présidence, reproche au président Bush d'avoir poursuivi une politique unilatérale faisant peu de cas des Nations unies, a-t-il écrit. Or les preuves s'accumulent contre l'ONU et montrent qu'il n'y avait pas d'alternative.
Le General Accounting Office du Congrès américain s'est saisi de l'affaire à la mi-mars. Il a chiffré à 10,1 milliards en cinq ans le montant des sommes détournées par Saddam Hussein et programmé des auditions. Le secrétaire d'Etat, Colin Powell, a téléphoné à Kofi Annan pour lui recommander d'ouvrir une enquête indépendante.
Le Conseil de sécurité et le secrétaire général ont décidé des termes de l'enquête qui va être menée. Il n'y a pas eu de résolution mais un simple échange de lettres. Le Conseil a "accueilli favorablement" l'enquête. Les pays et les compagnies qui ont traité avec l'Irak sont "invités", mais pas obligés, de collaborer à l'investigation. "Les enquêteurs n'ont aucun levier. Comment iront-ils inspecter les traders pétroliers installés aux îles Caïman ?", demande un spécialiste. "L'ONU est déjà décrédibilisée, dit un diplomate. Cette enquête vient trop tard."
La sécurité à Bagdad. C'est l'affaire qui mobilise le staff. La deuxième commission d'enquête mise en place par Kofi Annan pour enquêter sur les insuffisances de la sécurité à Bagdad au moment de l'attentat du 19 août a rendu ses conclusions le 29 mars. Seul un résumé du rapport, rédigé par le secrétariat, a été publié, ce qui a entraîné une protestation du syndicat des personnels. Le rapport note que les responsables de la sécurité ont semblé "aveuglés par la conviction que le personnel et les installations de l'ONU ne deviendraient pas une cible terroriste, malgré les signes clairs les avertissant du contraire".
La numéro deux de l'ONU, Louise Fréchette, a remis sa démission mais celle-ci n'a pas été acceptée. Elle présidait le groupe de pilotage qui a décidé d'autoriser le retour du personnel en Irak après la guerre alors que les évaluations de sécurité n'avaient pas été faites. Le responsable de la sécurité a été limogé et trois autres membres du staff sanctionnés. Une sanction considérée comme d'une sévérité sans précédent à l'ONU.
Corine Lesnes
-
I am cutting from a Subscriber site so a link won't work
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Title: "Shame For Oil "
Author:
Section: Issues & Insights Date: 3/30/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scandal: The U.N. wants to play a major role in helping Iraq make its switch to democracy. But as the oil-for-food scandal unfolds, this sounds like a cruel joke.
If you haven't heard of the "oil-for-food" scandal, don't feel bad. The United Nations has done its best to keep it off the world's front pages.
But what the burgeoning scandal says about the international agency's honesty and competence isn't reassuring. And it calls into question plans to give the U.N. a "bigger role" in Iraq.
In rough outline, from 1996 to 2003, the U.N. was charged with running the oil-for-food program that let Saddam Hussein sell some of his nation's oil on the world market. The money was supposed to be used for badly needed items for the Iraqi people - food, medicine, school supplies, things like that.
It didn't work out that way. As it turns out, the $100 billion program was rife with corruption, kickbacks and cronyism. It reached into upper levels of western governments and business, even into the U.N. itself. The General Accounting Office, Congress' accounting watchdog, estimates over $10 billion of the money can't be accounted for - which almost surely means it was stolen.
Who got the money? Saddam no doubt pocketed a good chunk.
But if an Iraqi newspaper's report is correct, there were at least 270 people - including a top U.N. bureaucrat, a member of the British parliament, a former high-level French government official and even some journalists - who were on Saddam's payroll.
Money also flowed into the dubious companies that signed contracts to do business with Saddam under the U.N. program. Another billion or so paid for the U.N. bureaucracy.
What did the U.N. do? Nothing. It seems to have looked the other way as the corruption festered. Because of it, literally thousands of Iraqi children went without food and medicine.
"That money was not used for food or health care or clean water," said Secretary of State Colin Powell Saturday. "It was used for palaces and debauchery."
U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has pledged to get to the bottom of all this. But don't count on it. He's got his own explaining to do.
Annan's own son, Kojo, suspiciously held a job at an obscure Swiss firm, Cotecna, until shortly before it won a multimillion-dollar contract to oversee the oil-for-food program contracts.
As it turns out, many of the companies that signed contracts didn't exist; they were fictions, shell companies used to distribute bribes and kickbacks under the program.
Annan also appointed his longtime friend, Benon Sevan, as director of the oil-for-food program. But guess whose name popped up on a list published by a Baghdad newspaper of 270 people who were getting kickbacks from Saddam? You got it. Sevan.
It's a little tough to find Sevan these days. It seems he has opted to take accumulated vacation time before retiring from the U.N.
All very sad, but also predictable. It's the inevitable consequence of giving too much power to an organization that is largely staffed and run by people who come from nondemocratic countries - countries where corruption is rife and honesty seen as weakness.
The U.N. wants a bigger role in Iraq. But its actions in the oil-for-food scandal call into question its moral fitness for the job.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Title: "Saddam's Helpers "
Author:
Section: Issues & Insights Date: 4/22/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scandal: It's starting to look as if top United Nations officials skimmed money from the Iraqi oil-for-food program. If so, heads should - must - roll.
Three top U.N. officials, maybe more, are suspected of taking multimillion-dollar bribes from Saddam Hussein in connection with the humanitarian aid program, ABCNews says.
The report, if true, is shocking. U.S. officials tell ABC Saddam diverted as much as $5 billion to accounts he controlled from the U.N.'s program that let Iraq sell oil to buy badly needed necessities.
To do so, it's alleged he bribed those in charge of the U.N. aid program - including U.N. Undersecretary General Benon Sevan, a protege of U.N. chief Kofi Annan, who ran the program for six years.
Sevan denies the charges and has announced his retirement.
Yet evidence is mounting of corruption on a massive scale.
In Baghdad, documents from Iraq's former Oil Ministry show some 270 foreign officials whom Saddam gave the right to buy Iraqi oil at a discount and resell it on the open market - a benefit worth millions of dollars to those who took part.
It is astounding and deeply disappointing that U.N. officials at the highest levels might have taken part in looting aid - aid that was supposed to go for schools, medicine and food for suffering Iraqis.
On Wednesday, the U.N. announced an independent investigation into the scandal, led by former Fed chief Paul Volcker. "We are going to investigate these charges very seriously," Annan said.
We hope so.
Because if the charges are true, it will mean a number of things, none of them very good, for the U.N. and its bureaucratic overlords.
One, Annan must go. Whether he participated in the rip-off or not, his competence and oversight will be in serious doubt.
Two, the U.N. can no longer lay legitimate claim to demanding an enhanced role in Iraq's postwar rebuilding; it will have squandered all its moral capital by its failure to stop criminal activity.
Three, the U.N.'s very existence, as now constituted, must be questioned. It will have to be reformed, top to bottom.
As it is, the U.N. gives far too much power, and far too many perquisites, to cynical people from disreputable and nondemocratic regimes. These are corrupt people, willing to betray the U.N. for cash.
Of course, we hope the charges aren't true. But we fear they are.
If so, it's beyond outrageous. It's unforgivable, a criminal betrayal of all the humanitarian ideals the U.N. was founded on.
That means criminal trials and mass resignations at the U.N. It also means the U.N.'s corrupt business as usual will come to an abrupt end.
-
kiken-gachi
-
Originally posted by Mini D
1) cite your source.
2) This isn't new... it's been running around the net for quite some time. Nobody really cares.
yup..
i would add no. 3
Does corruption of someone else excuse laying of US ?
I guess we will agree on no, even if they were secret gays with SH, it doesnt excuse public lays by US administrations.
ohhh im sorry we shold call it missinforming of president
-
Krusher, if you're genuinely interested in why the US invaded Iraq and why France and Russia opposed it, please read this essay (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html) , which contains a good analysis and cites sources for it's assertions.
-
(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/yawn.gif)
"pardon!"
-
Originally posted by JBA
I am cutting from a Subscriber site so a link won't work
How much? Is it worth the money? Newsweek or something?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to topple Saddam"
Because rightly like the rest of the world they realised that it was a bad idea to do so with force.
Unfortunetly England with it's poodle PM didn't follow suit.
...-Gixer
If that gets you through the day so be it. It sounds like a talking point but wtf, thats about what I expected.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Putin's Peace and Unity Party? Did I miss something?
Nikolay Ryzhkov? That's cool! He was fired in 1990, before the first Gulf War.
yes you did miss something. Its naming four benificiaries of what looks to be bribes. It didnt say they all work for the current goverment.
In Russia, the payoff chain reached right into the "office of the Russian president." President Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party also got vouchers,
as did the Soviet-era Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov
and the Russian Orthodox Church.
Nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky shared in the largesse.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Considered by many to be a tabloid, not to say it isn't true. Btw, hijack time.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/28/wine_cigars_deer_head____charge_it_to_uncle_sam/
you are right, Dick Morris worked for Bill Clinton how credible can he be.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Doesn't anyone just post a link anymore? This C&P seems like such a waste of space. Just C&P sections you want to point out. Let them read the rest.
like you would read it :)
-
Originally posted by lada
yup..
i would add no. 3
Does corruption of someone else excuse laying of US ?
I guess we will agree on no, even if they were secret gays with SH, it doesnt excuse public lays by US administrations.
ohhh im sorry we shold call it missinforming of president
well we all need to get layed now and then :)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Krusher, if you're genuinely interested in why the US invaded Iraq and why France and Russia opposed it, please read this essay (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html) , which contains a good analysis and cites sources for it's assertions.
I am more interested in why the UN can be corrupt from the top down and still be considered credible.
Well I guess I am not too surprised by the reaction, it seems to fit the bill. As long as they support a POV that suits the "America sucks" or the "Iraq was better under Sadam" crowd, the UN is a fine and dandy operation.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
like you would read it :)
Lol, I have a better chance of reading that than a C&P:aok
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I am more interested in why the UN can be corrupt from the top down and still be considered credible.
All organisations are corruptible, if you think the US government is any less corrupt than the UN then I'd say that's pretty naive. I'd also take it from your apparent refusal to consider the evidence I put before you that you're not really interested in the truth, but rather in promoting an agenda that rationalises your own country's actions.
Feel free to carry on in your state of self delusion and denial.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
All organisations are corruptible, if you think the US government is any less corrupt than the UN then I'd say that's pretty naive. I'd also take it from your apparent refusal to consider the evidence I put before you that you're not really interested in the truth, but rather in promoting an agenda that rationalises your own country's actions.
Well, one could debate Mr. Clark's motive's, but there does seem to be truth to OPEC's switch to the euro http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040112.wopec0112/BNStory/Business and no, it does not get much press here, it is controlled by the liberals, and even liberals want a strong greenback.
-
Because rightly like the rest of the world they realised that it was a bad idea to do so with force.
Yes, we should have asked Hussein nicely to stop dealings w/ terrorists and to stop the murdering of his own people. With as much attention as he paid the all those U.N. sanctions, I'm sure this would have had a really good chance of success.
:aok
-
I'd also take it from your apparent refusal to consider the evidence I put before you that you're not really interested in the truth
LOL you put forth an analysis/theory as "evidence"
Watch out whacko, are those black helicoptors over your house???!!!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
even liberals want a strong greenback.
if you want strong and stable currency, $$ is not they only once option.
Euro is much more stable that $$. And it will be much more used in futhure due to less agressive international strategy of Eu.
(yah yah yah feel free to call us terrorist lovers)
Dolar is loosing his prime. All around world.
As Billy G. loosing govermenatal costumers :D
-
Originally posted by Steve
LOL you put forth an analysis/theory as "evidence"
Watch out whacko, are those black helicoptors over your house???!!!
An analysis with a lot of supporting evidence (all referenced BTW), which you plainly haven't read, or doubtless you'd be able to address specific points instead of making dumb "black helicopter" references. But reading and digesting would require some thought, which clearly isn't your forté, is it?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
yes you did miss something. Its naming four benificiaries of what looks to be bribes. It didnt say they all work for the current goverment.
In Russia, the payoff chain reached right into the "office of the Russian president." President Vladimir Putin's Peace and Unity Party also got vouchers,
as did the Soviet-era Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov
and the Russian Orthodox Church.
Nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky shared in the largesse.
It's not "naming four benificiaries of what looks to be bribes". It's a lie. A person who wrote it doesn't know anything about Russia.
What the hell is "Putin's Peace and Unity Party"? What did "crying bolshevik" Ryzhkov get the money for? What did Orthodox Church do to earn the "bribes"? Zhirinovsky is Hussein's personal friend, so I can expect some presents from him, but his party is too small to inflience legislation, and it's no surprise for me that they take bribes for voting in Duma (parliament).
With such "argument" the whole article is just a figment of some sick imagination stuck in McCarthy times. It's probably enough for American truck-drivers, but for anyone who knows something about current political sutuation in Russia it's a nonsence.
I really enjoy America going Soviet way. Soviet people were supposed to believe everything that is printed in the newspapers. Freedom to Angela Davis! ;)
-
"I am more interested in why the UN can be corrupt from the top down and still be considered credible."
Yeah right. More of that finger pointing stuff. It's not Bush' fault. He's only doing what Clinton started! The US isn't corrupt and discredited but look at the UN!
Perhaps if one were to understand how "corrupt from the top down" and discredited the US is now then one might be able to get a good idea on how the UN could be too?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"Why did France and Russia oppose efforts to topple Saddam"
Because rightly like the rest of the world they realised that it was a bad idea to do so with force.
Unfortunetly England with it's poodle PM didn't follow suit.
...-Gixer
We should heve continued sanctions which UNICEF said killed only 2 million innocent Iraqis over the 12 years.
an average of only 166,000 innocent deaths per annum.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
We should heve continued sanctions which UNICEF said killed only 2 million innocent Iraqis over the 12 years.
an average of only 166,000 innocent deaths per annum.
The "letter from Iraq" posted here, written by "American Marines" said they are killing Iraqi citizens by thousands daily. And I have serious doubts that humanitarian situation was improved by occupants. So far they hold the whole civilian population of El Fallujah surrounded, not letting them out, bombing them with cluster bombs. This can not be called an improvement, eh?...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The "letter from Iraq" posted here, written by "American Marines" said they are killing Iraqi citizens by thousands daily. And I have serious doubts that humanitarian situation was improved by occupants. So far they hold the whole civilian population of El Fallujah surrounded, not letting them out, bombing them with cluster bombs. This can not be called an improvement, eh?...
According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ (not exactly a pro-Bush site) between 8,958 and 10,810 civilian deaths.
According to a USAToday newspaper account,
"It's a pure guesstimate," said Dan Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute. He said the Pentagon issued the number to convince Iraqi fighters that the battle was lopsided and they should put down their weapons.
"It may never be known how many Iraqis were killed by coalition forces," Goure said. "It would have to be over 10,000 uniformed Iraqis and more if you include the irregulars."
According to http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
as of Ap 27, 841 coalition military casualties.
If you double the USA today estimate, add the worst case scenario from IBC.net, and the coalition casualties, you come up with 31,614.
31,614 < 166,000
can the case be made that military intervention has saved 130,000 lives? It appears so.
-
I'll make this post simple and understable by all :
Apple < Oranges don't you think Holden ?
-
Please clarify Straffo,
Which dead people do you consider apples and which dead people do you consider oranges?
-
I don't compare the deads .
I was just pointing that :
you compare a statistic made by UNICEF and so concerning children with a statistic concerning adult probably wearing a AK47 or a RPG.
So it's IMO Apple and Orange
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
can the case be made that military intervention has saved 130,000 lives? It appears so.
If you really believe that military invasion followed by foreign occupation can "save 130000 lives" - there is something wrong with you. Occupants can't even fix oil pipelines, and I doubt they bother to repair civilian infrastructure. They prefer to starve innocent civilians in El Fallujah instead, bombing them "to stone age" as a humanitarian bonus.
This is what civilized countries are against.
-
Boroda, I was just quoting the statistics as I found them and I found them from sources not entirely freindly to the policy of military action.
Find some information that shows that the deaths in Iraq are more this year than last or that the invasion policy is more murderous than sanctions.
I have looked extensively and have yet to find information contrary to the thesis I put forth a few posts ago. I am eager to hear of your progress.
-
Right I can't wait to see the UNICEF stats for 2003 :rolleyes:
Btw is there still any UN agency in Iraq ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Right I can't wait to see the UNICEF stats for 2003 :rolleyes:
Btw is there still any UN agency in Iraq ?
I concede Straffo, the facts and statistics you cite in your last argument are totally devastating to my thesis. (Imagine a little rolleyes emoticon here)