If you aren't informed about this stuff, you will be made sick. If you are informed, you will be made mad, all over again.
Posted on 08/09/2005 3:12:48 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
An investigation has concluded that the former head of the United Nations’ oil-for-food programme in Iraq took kickbacks to help an oil company win contracts. Another senior UN official is accused of soliciting bribes. The report is a severe blow to the organisation at a crucial time.
FOR over a year, investigators have pored over questions of mismanagement and corruption at the United Nations. On Monday August 8th, they produced their firmest—and most painful—conclusions to date. An independent commission has found that Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN’s oil-for-food programme in Iraq, “corruptly benefited” from kickbacks while he was in charge. Another UN official, from the procurement office, is accused of soliciting bribes. The UN’s biggest-ever humanitarian undertaking seems to have become its biggest-ever scandal.
A harsh light began to shine on Mr Sevan after his name appeared on documents found in Iraq after the American-led invasion of 2003. Under the programme he ran, Iraq, though shackled by trade sanctions, could sell oil to buy food and medicine for its people. But the Iraqis negotiated the right to choose buyers and sellers in the programme. This gave Saddam Hussein’s government the ability to use oil concessions as a way to buy friends and influence. Among those alleged to have been bribed with oil vouchers are several European politicians.
But the charge that corruption may have tainted the top of the UN bureaucracy itself shook the organisation deeply. Mr Sevan denied any wrongdoing when his name hit the headlines. But the UN called for an independent inquiry, headed by Paul Volcker, a former head of America’s Federal Reserve. Mr Volcker’s first report, in February, showed that Mr Sevan had had repeated—and oft-denied—contact with the president of an oil company, AMEP, that received oil vouchers from Saddam. Mr Sevan also had around $160,000 in unusual bank deposits. He insisted that the money had come from an aunt.
This week’s report gives details of repeated meetings not only with AMEP’s president but also with Fred Nadler, a close friend of Mr Sevan’s revealed by the new report to be a director of AMEP as well. Mr Nadler controlled a Swiss bank account in a shell company’s name. Pennies off each barrel of oil sold by AMEP under the oil-for-food scheme went to the Swiss account, says the report, and money was withdrawn from it when Mr Sevan and/or Mr Nadler were in Geneva. Soon after, large sums of cash—mostly $100 bills—were paid into Mr Sevan’s American accounts. The Volcker committee thus claims a “reasonable sufficiency” of evidence that Mr Sevan was on the take. An American criminal investigation may now see if it can indict him. The Volcker committee has asked UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to strip Mr Sevan of his diplomatic immunity, which he has said he will do. Mr Sevan resigned from his UN post on Sunday but continues to protest his innocence, saying that Mr Annan has “sacrificed” him under political pressure.
Another long section of Monday’s report examines the adventures of Alexander Yakovlev, an officer in the UN’s procurement department. The report charges that Mr Yakovlev solicited a bribe from Société Générale de Surveillance, an inspection contractor, in exchange for confidential bidding information. (There is no evidence that SGS paid any such bribe.) The Volcker committee also says it has evidence that Mr Yakovlev took hundreds of thousands of dollars from other UN contractors. He and Mr Sevan are now the first two UN officials to be directly accused of personally benefiting from corrupt activity.
Rotten timing
The report makes only passing references to Mr Annan, but he is personally connected to another affair still under investigation. The Volcker committee is looking into whether Mr Annan’s son Kojo, who worked for a Swiss inspection-services firm called Cotecna, used his UN connections to help Cotecna win a bid.
The committee’s last report, in March, accused Kojo of concealing the length and depth of his involvement with Cotecna. But the committee had no conclusive evidence that Mr Annan senior knew his son was currently being paid by a company bidding for a UN contract. Since then, in an e-mail that has appeared in press reports, a Cotecna vice-president at the time, Michael Wilson, tells of a useful meeting with the secretary-general “and his entourage” shortly before Cotecna won its bid. Mr Wilson denies that the e-mail is genuine. The Volcker committee promises a “definitive” report on the affair in September.
If direct links are drawn between the UN’s head and the oil-for-food scandal, Mr Sevan’s fall would seem comparatively trifling in its consequences for the world body. But even if Mr Annan is cleared of wrongdoing, the Volcker team has already highlighted extensive management failures that let so many things go wrong with oil-for-food on his watch. And all of this comes at a crucial time for the UN, as it begins to consider how to reform itself.
America has just sent John Bolton, a fiery critic of the UN in the past, to be its ambassador there. Those Americans backing the hard-charging Mr Bolton say that he is the ideal man right now, as the UN needs a good shake-up. Only someone not afraid to slaughter sacred cows, they say, can get the job done.
But the UN, rightly, turns some of the criticism over oil-for-food back to America (and its ally, Britain). First, while quite a bit of money went missing in the kickbacks and bribes detailed in Mr Volcker’s reports, much more misdirected cash went elsewhere. Saddam supported himself by selling oil illegally to neighbours including Jordan and Turkey. UN defenders say America turned a blind eye to this, since these two countries were its allies. And UN backers remind America that the UN Security Council, through its sanctions committee, approved every contract awarded under oil-for-food. That means that America and Britain could have vetoed any of the dodgy deals involving Mr Sevan and the others accused. But they appear to have been more concerned with potentially weapons-related “dual use” Iraqi imports than they were about corruption. A later Volcker committee report will look into the Security Council’s oversight failures.
So Mr Bolton’s arrival and the mutual acrimony over oil-for-food mean tense times between the UN and its most powerful member—all the more so given that this comes just before the world body is set to consider proposals to keep it relevant after the war in Iraq. These include adding new permanent members to the Security Council, defining terrorism more clearly, helping the UN to react more robustly to humanitarian disasters, and more. A high-level summit in September is meant to tackle these questions.
The big reforms require a two-thirds majority in the UN’s general assembly, and no veto by any of the five permanent members of the Security Council (America, Britain, China, France and Russia). But not even the claimants to new Security Council seats—including Japan, Brazil and India—can agree among themselves who, exactly, should get a place at the table. They now seem unlikely to convince America, grouchier than ever about the UN, to take their side. Some of the other worthy goals of September’s reform conference could also be caught in the crossfire. The exploits of Messrs Sevan, Yakovlev and others may have done more than just a terrible disservice to the wretched people of Iraq they were paid to help.
The UN is an anti-American lynch mob collection of 3rd world dictatorships
No way! Are you serious?!?!?
Another "water is wet" headline.
LOL. Same time post.
> Another "water is wet" headline.
More like a Legacy Media outlet finally admitting:
"Darn, I guess we have to report on this"
Unlike the Air Enron scandal.
Always jealous of us, seeking to override us, well funded by us, conspiring against us and invited by us to do all of this on our soil, while we try to appease them and apologize for past successes.
I wonder if there's a mechanism to override the veto from the permanent members. For instance, 2/3 members vote to override the veto, just like in same states the house/senante can override a governor's veto...
Yes, but all is not lost for America-bashers and UN defenders (who are one and the same):
"...UN defenders say America turned a blind eye to this, since these two countries were its allies."
The usual UN defense: it's all America's fault!
...being funded by US. It's insane of the USA to fund this hive of parasites who hate us as they suck our blood.
I don't know, good point. But if not, it's not the kind of thing likely to be approved. They won't shoot themselves in the foot. It would be nice. Bolton will be a dose of medicine for them. Where else can one go into another country and be so openly contemptuous of it? Our lefties and their self-loathing and guilt over our 'riches' just feed the frenzy and appease the permanent members.
I think it's hilarious that France has a seat on the 'Security' council. They have not been able to defend themselves once in history. And Civil Wars do not count.
Not only that, but the UN feeds the anti-American attitudes in the US and rest of the world. The hate-America crowd always starts off with complaints about how the Iraq war is "illegal". Why is it illegal? Because not all of the UN stooge dictators approved, that's why.
It is hilarious. France and 'security'. Sheesh. They know they can't defend themselves, they're just there for the perks and to form alliances with other non-US countries. Jealous. If they can't be safe, why should we?
If you aren't informed about this stuff, you will be made sick. If you are informed, you will be made mad, all over again.
Only $160K ? His salary is likely higher than that, there must be more accounts to check.
Overall I think it's the tip of a large UN iceberg.
Yep. The DUmmies think the UN matters and they actually respect kofi.
This is true. Its also meaningless, they say in effect that UN corruption is less of an issue because Middle Eastern countries are also corrupt.
Turkey may have been a US "ally", but we were in no position to say anything about Turkish corruption, since we were completely dependent on them to patrol Northern Iraq.
Jordan is also an "ally", but one that regularly plays a double game. You can like it or lump it. Remember that they effectivly sided with Saddam during the first Gulf War. So the price of any alliance with them is to look the other way.
And UN backers remind America that the UN Security Council, through its sanctions committee, approved every contract awarded under oil-for-food.
First, which administration was it? Which administration tolerated UN corruption? Which administration ended the scheme? I thought so.
Secondly, did the US audit these contracts? Did the US have people on the ground in Iraq monitoring the performance of these contracts? Does the writer mean to suggest that because we did not denounce them earlier, and because we did not investigate them until the Bush administration took power, they are therefore blameless?
It was the Bush administration that recognized Oil For Food for the corrupt money machine it was. It was the Bush administration that recognized UN management for the corrupt den of thieves it is.
Saddam, Annan, and Sevan were stripping Iraq of its wealth. Bush put an end to it. Does the writer mean to say that because Clinton let them get by with it, they must be held blameless?
I'll help haul them to the airport in the back of a dump truck, a ride befitting their status as human fill dirt.
I want Joe Wilson to prove that he received none of the oil for food money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.