U.N. Officials Bribed by Saddam?

[Brandon]

Well what have we here?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/I..._040420-1.html

Monumental Rip-Off?
Allegations of Widespread Corruption Involve Saddam Hussein, U.N. Senior Officials
By Brian Ross

April 20— At least three senior United Nations officials are suspected of taking multi-million dollar bribes from the Saddam Hussein regime, U.S. and European intelligence sources tell ABCNEWS

One year after his fall, U.S. officials say they have evidence, some in cash, that Saddam diverted to his personal bank accounts approximately $5 billion from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program.

In what has been described as the largest humanitarian aid effort ever undertaken, the U.N. Oil-for-Food program began in 1996 to help Iraqis who were suffering under sanctions imposed following the first Gulf War.

The program allowed Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil, under supposedly tight U.N. supervision, to finance the purchase of much-needed humanitarian goods.

Most prominent among those accused in the scandal is Benon Sevan, the Cyprus-born U.N. undersecretary general who ran the program for six years.

In an interview with ABCNEWS last year, Sevan denied any wrongdoing.

"Well, I can tell you there have been no allegations about me," he said. "Maybe you can try to dig it out." And in a Feb. 10 statement, Sevan challenged those making the allegations to "come forward and provide the necessary documentary evidence" and present it to U.N. investigators.

But documents have surfaced in Baghdad, in the files of the former Iraqi Oil Ministry, allegedly linking Sevan to a pay-off scheme in which some 270 prominent foreign officials received the right to trade in Iraqi oil at cut-rate prices.

"It's almost like having coupons of bonds or shares. You can sell those coupons to other people who are normal oil traders," said Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British adviser to the Iraq Governing Council.

Investigators say the smoking gun is a letter to former Iraqi oil minister Amer Mohammed Rasheed, obtained by ABCNEWS and not yet in the hands of the United Nations.

In the letter, dated Aug, 10, 1998, an Iraqi oil executive mentions a request by a Panama-based company, African Middle East Petroleum Co., to buy Iraqi oil — along with a suggestion that Sevan had a role in the deal. "Mr. Muwafaq Ayoub of the Iraqi mission in New York informed us by telephone that the abovementioned company is the company that Mr. Sevan cited to you during his last trip to Baghdad," the executive wrote in Arabic.

A handwritten note indicated that permission for the oil purchase was granted by "the Vice President of the Republic" on Aug. 15, 1998.

The second page of the letter contains a table entitled "Quantity of Oil Allocated and Given to Mr. Benon Sevan." The table lists a total of 7.3 million barrels of oil as the "quantity executed" — an amount that, if true, would have generated an illegal profit of as much as $3.5 million.

"Somebody who is running the Oil-for-Food program for the United Nations should not be receiving any benefit of any kind from a rogue dictator who was perpetuating terror in his country," said Hankes-Drielsma.

Full Investigation Announced

The United Nations, at first, dismissed the allegations about Sevan, but this week, Secretary General Kofi Annan said there would be a full investigation led by the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Paul Volcker.

"We are going to investigate these allegations very seriously," Annan said during a press conference.

In addition, Congress is scheduled to begin hearings into the bribery scandal this week.

As for Sevan, when news of the scandal first broke earlier this year, he took a long vacation to Australia.

He declined to answer questions when ABCNEWS found him last week staying at a luxury casino resort.

A U.N. spokesman says Sevan, who makes $186,000 a year, has submitted his retirement papers, effective May 21. The spokesman said Sevan would remain on full salary through the course of the U.N. investigation, which is expected to last at least three months.

Oil Contracts for Political Support

The inquiries into the United Nations Oil-for-Food program result from the release in January of a list of 270 individuals, companies and institutions that allegedly received lucrative oil contracts from Saddam Hussein's former regime in return for political support.

The list was published by an Iraqi independent newspaper which claimed the document was discovered in the files of the former Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad.

Oil vouchers were allegedly given either as gifts or as payment for goods imported into Iraq in violation of the U.N. sanctions.

The following are the names of some of those listed as receiving Iraqi oil contracts (amounts are in millions of barrels of oil):

Russia
The Companies of the Russian Communist Party: 137 million
The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party: 79.8 million
The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq: 6.5 million and 12.5 million (two separate contracts)
Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet: 90 million
The Russian Orthodox Church: 5 million

France
Charles Pasqua, former minister of interior: 12 million
Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million
Ibex: 47.2 million
Bernard Merimee, former French ambassador to the United Nations: 3 million
Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club: 17.1 million

Syria
Firas Mostafa Tlass, son of Syria's defense minister: 6 million

Turkey
Zeynel Abidin Erdem: more than 27 million
Lotfy Doghan: more than 11 million

Indonesia
Megawati Sukarnoputri: 11 million

Spain
Ali Ballout, Lebanese journalist: 8.8 million

Yugoslavia
The Socialist Party: 22 million
Kostunica's Party: 6 million

Canada
Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of Oilexco: 9.5 million

Italy
Father Benjamin, a French Catholic priest who arranged a meeting between the pope and Tariq Aziz: 4.5 million
Roberto Frimigoni: 24.5 million

United States
Samir Vincent: 7 million
Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million

United Kingdom
George Galloway, member of Parliament: 19 million
Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million

South Africa
Tokyo Saxwale: 4 million

Jordan
Shaker bin Zaid: 6.5 million
The Jordanian Ministry of Energy: 5 million
Fawaz Zureikat: 6 million
Toujan Al Faisal, former member of Parliament: 3 million

Lebanon
The son of President Lahoud: 5.5 million

Egypt
Khaled Abdel Nasser: 16.5 million
Emad Al Galda, businessman and Parliament member: 14 million

Palestinian Territories
The Palestinian Liberation Organization: 4 million
Abu Al Abbas: 11.5 million

Qatar
Hamad bin Ali Al Thany: 14 million

Libya
Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem: 1 million

Chad
Foreign minister of Chad: 3 million

Brazil
The October 8th Movement: 4.5 million

Myanmar (Burma)
The minister of the Forests of Myanmar: 5 million

Ukraine
The Social Democratic Party: 8.5 million
The Communist Party: 6 million
The Socialist Party: 2 million
The FTD oil company: 2 million

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This is interesting. Not the article, mind you, but rather Brandon's motivation for posting it. The corruption behind oil-for-food, although not believed to be this bad, has always been understood by many. In fact, this argument used to be used by the Leftist "ZMag" types for lifting the sanctions on Iraq. The argument went that sanctions with small stipulations allows Saddam to get what he needs, while at the same time giving him an excuse to deny his people needed medical and food supplies. As it went, if you lift sanctions, products could potentially flow in, and Saddam loses his excuse.

So, this is less an indictment of Saddam Hussein on Brandon's part, and probably more so an indictment of the United Nations. Brandon of course isn't the only person to exploit this already apparent "scandal." Go read the neo-con mag, weekly standard, and you'll probably see them all over it as well. The reason is simple-- demonize the UN, make them look bad, thus you have an excuse for not internationalizing the occupation (or not being capable of doing so, to be more precise).

So what we're supposed to take away from this is:

1. The UN is innately corrupt, can't be trusted, and rathr than turning to them, we must increase our own presence in Iraq (not popular, but hey, swing for the fences).

2. The reason the UN opposed the Iraq war was because they were all benefiting from Saddam's regime (sounds sort of like the same "no blood for oil" argument that I'm sure Brandon detests, but I digress).

3. The UN can't be trusted to run an interim government in Iraq, or monitor their elections, because they clearly can't run things with a clean conscience (so maybe John Negroponte should do it).

I dunno, maybe Brandon just wanted to make good conversation....? :/

[Brandon]

Was it an attempt to "demonize" (I prefer "expose") the United Nations? You bet your sweet ass it was. It's no different than Max posting every Iraq-related article with the word "Halliburton" located somewhere in the body as "proof" of United States treachery. Turnabout is fair play, Kev.

However, more than being a mere U.N. smear, I think the article better shows that the alternatives to the war were far more deplorable.

[Abcdxxxx]

Whatever the motivations, there are some seriously good reasons to be critical of the UN's activity in Iraq.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

Whatever the motivations, there are some seriously good reasons to be critical of the UN's activity in Iraq.

Heavens no! The United Nations is always saintly and just! The United States, on the other hand, does everything to further its corporate interests and impose its evil, malformed values on the rest of the world! Look at what it did to that misunderstood, enlightened despot in Iraq!

[Dole]

Jesus christ get a fucking grip lad. Do you honestly think anyone here is a huge fan of the UN? Do you honestly think anyone here thinks they are above criticism?

By the same token, dont get faux offended when people criticise the US government for the huge fucking mess it is responsible for over there.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Dole

Jesus christ get a fucking grip lad. Do you honestly think anyone here is a huge fan of the UN? Do you honestly think anyone here thinks they are above criticism?

Yes.

By the same token, dont get faux offended when people criticise the US government for the huge fucking mess it is responsible for over there.

I think the "huge fucking mess" is overblown. Considering how long previous wars in the 20th century were fought, the situation in Iraq is mild. You people seriously can't wait to attach the "quagmire" label!

[Dole]

Um....seen the news today?

[mburbank]

"It's no different than Max posting every Iraq-related article with the word "Halliburton"
AB
-While I delight in doing that, I think there's almost no paralell here at all. The oil for food program was corrupt almost from the get go. Kevin points out correctly that the far left objected to it on these very grounds and pointed out that sanctions weren't really sanctions when every state involved including the US (see your list) was exploiting them for financial gain. At no time did Republican or Democratic administrations see this as investigation worthy until now. You are being hoodwinked if you think this issue is in any way new, and you can prove it to yourself with Google, or you can go to your library and used more dvanced search technology and get really depressed.

Halliburton's corruption doesn't have as long a history, and it's corruption that I point out is directly connected to a war a little over a year old.

If out of the blue a decade from now, I suddenly started posting Halliburton/ Iraq articles with great shock as evidence of why it is suddenly clear that Neocon Oil Barrons, who are being portrayed as saintly and incoruptable, should not in fact be trusted; THEN you'd have a paralell.

It is not news that the UN has serious problems with corruption. Every member state has problems with corruption to one degree or another, and the UN is made up of it's member states. NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM PRO CORRUPTION!

Here's the thing, though. The UN is an international organization. Corrupt, problemtic, disfunctional and international. The US? Not as corrupt, but not even the tiniest bit international. If the UN ran Iraqs transition to sovreignighty, it would be difficult to argue that the US was hand picking puppets. If the US runs the transition to... you know, the folks W said we'd here about real soon during his press conference? It might look that way. Hell, call me cynical, it might even BE that way.

What's your time limmit on Iraq before it's officially a quagmire? Wht's the body count? Just ours, we don't do civillian death tolls. Does the fact that this war had nothing to do with 9/11 and was sold to us on false pretenses have nothing to do with it? Even if you think this war is totally unquagmire like and completely justified, do you think the administration planned well? Are you not troubled by a deadline two months from now that has no strategy in place? Would YOUR boss let you get away with that?



I'm thinking of making a signature with the following lines. I, A LIBERAL, DIDN'T LIKE CLINTON. I LIKE HILLARY BETTER THAN BILL, BUT I DON'T WANT HER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. I THINK THE UN HAS SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND I WISH THERE WERE A BETTER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. I'M AGAINST TERRORISM. I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. I THINK DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN CORRUPT AND DONE BAD THINGS. I BET KERRY HAS SOME SKELETONS IN HIS CLOSET AND IS LYING ABOUT SOME THINGS.

[davinxtk]

Don't forget you're a red, too.

[Brandon]

What's your time limmit on Iraq before it's officially a quagmire? Wht's the body count? Just ours, we don't do civillian death tolls. Does the fact that this war had nothing to do with 9/11 and was sold to us on false pretenses have nothing to do with it? Even if you think this war is totally unquagmire like and completely justified, do you think the administration planned well? Are you not troubled by a deadline two months from now that has no strategy in place? Would YOUR boss let you get away with that?

I've said numerous times that reconstruction efforts were poorly planned. No one's disputing that. I don't think this war is morally wrong. Sorry Max. It was sold on false pretenses, but it wasn't morally wrong in and of itself.

A war lasting little over a year with this low of a body count is not a "quagmire." By your definition, World War II could be classified as a quagmire.

[davinxtk]

Except WWII wasn't four years of an occupied rebellion.


(Edited because I'm not a hypocrite.
I swear.)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Was it an attempt to "demonize" (I prefer "expose") the United Nations? You bet your sweet ass it was. It's no different than Max posting every Iraq-related article with the word "Halliburton" located somewhere in the body as "proof" of United States treachery.

As Max already pointed out, the two hardly connect. Furthermore, with a mixture of international pressure, the UN has already established a committee to investigate these hearings and crack down on those who are guilty. They brought in an expert on international money laundering, and one of the judges who tried Milosevich. They have been open to objective criticism, and made few efforts to block this investigation. Annan supposedly called the current/past/whatever head of oil-for-food, encouraging him to capitulate.

Our president, following 9/11, fought the establishment of this committee tooth and nail. He used flawed and erronious intelligence data, exaggerated numbers, and flat out lies to justify a war. He has yet to apologize for this. He has appointed a traitor as the first ambassador to Iraq.

Please, give me this "corrupt" UN any day.

However, more than being a mere U.N. smear, I think the article better shows that the alternatives to the war were far more deplorable.

How?

[Brandon]

How?

A fading regime clinging to power with whatever means they could muster; sanctions that were starving people, destroying Iraqi society and lining the pockets of corrupt UN officials; a possible lift on the sanctions, increasing the likelihood of WMD development.

Yeah. I think it's better this way.

Millions of Iraqis liberated from an oppressive dictatorship. Iran opening up for inspection. Libya relinquishing its WMDs. North Korea intimidated into considering negotiations. Syria becoming more reasonable. Pakistan giving up its nuclear secrets dealer. Sounds pretty good to me.

[Dole]

15, 000 dead Iraqi civilians. Great for all concerned.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Dole

15, 000 dead Iraqi civilians. Great for all concerned.

So clearly that outweighs any positive changes, right?

[Abcdxxxx]

The UN already has a history fucking up the lives of Iraqi's, and they've done about as much as the US has to provoke the attacks against them. I don't see any reason to excuse the UN or minimize their flawed activities in the region. It's back to this juvenile partisant shit of "I hate that guy soooo much, that I don't care that these other idiots are total incompatent fuck ups". You want to talk about a quagmire? Well the UN just tosses fuel to that fire every day.

[Dole]

"So clearly that outweighs any positive changes, right?"

-so it counts for nothing? Nice.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Dole

"So clearly that outweighs any positive changes, right?"

-so it counts for nothing? Nice.

So the positive changes count for nothing? Also nice.

[Dole]

I didnt say it counts for nothing, but you cant discount all that death. Exactly what number does it have to reach before you see it as a problem? Where is your cut off point?

[AChimp]

I think the UN would do a lot better if countries like the US and the UK stopped thumbing their noses at it, then whining for help when they really need it.

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by Dole

15, 000 dead Iraqi civilians. Great for all concerned.

Yes, because if Iraq was still under Saddam, we sure as hell know that 15,000 Iraqi (yeah, right) civilians wouldn't have died.

Can you be anymore uninformed and useless?

Also, Iraq isn't even close to becoming a quagmire. The death tolls in Vietnam per day were about the amount suffered in Iraq so far.

[mburbank]

Vinth, are you okay? OMG, we were all so worried about you. Thank God you're all right.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Also, Iraq isn't even close to becoming a quagmire. The death tolls in Vietnam per day were about the amount suffered in Iraq so far.

Actually, no. By the end of 1965, the American death toll was actually smaller than the first 12 months of this war/occupation (comparably).

After that, when LBJ heavily increased soldier involvement, yes, the numbers aren't even close. But we've only completed one year of what may turn out to be a very long "occupation." Many are already advocating sending more troops. The commanders in Iraq need more troops. Chuck Hagel wants the draft reinstated. Draft boards just had fresh staff hired across the country.

No, I don't believe the draft will return, and no, I don't believe this is necessarily going to be like Vietnam or whatever. But to completely rule out the startling potential for it to happen is the kind of naive shit I expect from you, Vince.

[Ant10708]

The same people who said Bradon's comparison didn't make sense better not compare Iraq with Vietnam or then your just a hypocrite.