Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scandal With No Friends (Iraq Oil for Food Program)
NY Times ^ | April 19, 2004 | WILLIAM SAFIRE

Posted on 04/18/2004 11:03:39 PM PDT by neverdem

WASHINGTON — How fares the multination cover-up of the richest rip-off in world history?

Obstruction of justice has never had it so good. Last month, after some badgering in this space and elsewhere, the House International Relations Committee announced it would look into the $5 billion kickback scandal in the United Nations' six-year Iraqi oil-for-food program, the largest humanitarian aid effort ever undertaken.

Our State Department, eager for U.N. help in Iraq, wants no revelations of U.N. ineptitude and corruption. It waltzed the committee staff around.

Senate Foreign Relations, however, not wanting to be upstaged by its House counterpart, called instant publicity hearings to blow off steam. Chairman Dick Lugar asked if some countries turned a blind eye to the rampant theft of aid that should have gone to hungry Iraqis because they "saw a money-making opportunity."

Senator Joe Biden chimed in, demanding that our ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte, release the names of the U.S. companies that State has known for years have been part of the kickback scheme. Negroponte, soon to be our man in Baghdad working with the U.N., said that no such list had been compiled.

Meanwhile, because U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's son was on the payroll of the Swiss company hired to monitor the imports, and because Kofi's right-hand man had been in charge of the program rife with 10 percent kickbacks, the world's foremost diplomat announced he would appoint an independent panel to investigate.

He chose men of integrity: Paul Volcker, former U.S. Fed chairman; Judge Richard Goldstone, the first Balkans war crimes prosecutor; and Mark Pieth, a Swiss lawyer said to be an expert on money laundering.

End of cover-up, right? Wrong. Volcker properly required a Security Council resolution, which would presumably empower his panel to take sworn testimony and gain access to the U.N.'s corrupt contracts that enabled Saddam to build palaces instead of providing food to his people.

But such a U.N. resolution would reveal dealings with companies in Russia, France and China — all Security Council permanent members whose nationals had their hands in the till. As Senator Lugar suggested, some nations had secret profiteering reasons to keep Saddam in power.

To nobody's surprise, Vladimir Putin's government was the first to say nothing doing. Russia's U.N. spokesman said, "We understand the reputation of the secretariat is in question, but we do not think it is possible to adopt a resolution on the basis of mass media reports."

Of the 270 suspected kickbackers and recipients of illegal allocations of oil whose names were revealed by Al Mada, the Iraqi newspaper, one-fourth were Russian, including a member of the Russian Parliament and a former Russian ambassador to Baghdad. No wonder Putin wanted no "regime change," and now resists any serious investigation.

And what of those "mass media reports" about the scope of the corruption, which are backed by the initial findings of Congress's General Accounting Office? Editorialists have dutifully tut-tutted. Reporters have passed along some details of what the G.A.O. estimates is a $5 billion fraud (not counting $5 billion more in smuggled oil). The Financial Times, working with Italy's Sole, recently advanced the story, interviewing a middleman to show how an apologist for Saddam got $400,000 to finance a film.

But outrage that drives coverage is selective, and there is little establishment appetite to pursue this complex scandal. Speaking power to truth, Newsweek headlines "Anti-U.N. Campaign," and reports dark suspicions by U.N. bureaucrats that the scandal was "drummed up" by the doves' Iraqi villain, Ahmad Chalabi.

France's U.S. ambassador writes under "Oil-for-Food Lies" in The Los Angeles Times that "unfounded accusations . . . have been spread by a handful of influential, conservative TV and newspaper journalists in the U.S." He noted that all 15 members of the Security Council approved all the oil-for-food contracts, and "the complete contracts were only circulated to the U.S. and Britain, which had expressly asked to see them. . . ." (And State shut its eyes — and has no list?)

Lawyers and accountants hired by Iraq's Governing Council will appear before Chairman Christopher Shays' national security subcommittee on Wednesday. The Connecticut congressman offers journalists a useful briefing memo, but expect little coverage; this scandal has no friends.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Russia; US: District of Columbia; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ahmadchalabi; almada; bias; biden; chalabi; china; christophershays; dicklugar; financialtimes; france; gao; gasoline; goldstone; governingcouncil; iraq; joebiden; johnnegroponte; kickback; kickbacks; kickbackscheme; kofiannan; latimes; losangelestimes; lugar; markpieth; media; negroponte; oil; oil4food; oil4foodscandal; oilforfood; oilforfoodlies; oilforfoodscandal; paulvolcker; permanentmembers; petroleum; pieth; press; putin; richardgoldstone; russia; safire; securitycouncil; shays; sole; state; statedepartment; statedept; un; unitednations; unsc; unsecuritycouncil; vladimirputin; volcker; williamsafire

1 posted on 04/18/2004 11:03:40 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Oh, I see another White House briar patch strategeric episode startin' up....;-D

2 posted on 04/18/2004 11:08:08 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
How about the Iraqi Council? They could declare billions in debt voidable for illegality of the contracts which accrued it. Seems like a good move to us and it might actually send a signal to the likes of the French and Russians. English common law principles rule. You don't have to pay illegal contractual obligations. It could doom Eurosocialism.
3 posted on 04/18/2004 11:13:32 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Looks like the NYTimes editors got to Safire's column before he could mentions Marc Rich and thereby a Clinton pardon connection. Hmmmm
4 posted on 04/18/2004 11:15:48 PM PDT by Diver Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diver Dave
Was Marc Rich involved in the Oil for Food scam? I'm not sure of what you're describing.
5 posted on 04/19/2004 12:05:12 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
I see you don't do a final and complete search before posting. Oh the humanity!
6 posted on 04/19/2004 12:19:41 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Cindy
MARCH 17, 1999 : (VOA REPORTS THAT CLINTON ADMINSITRATION SAYS IRAQ CAN BE ALLOWED TO SELL MORE OIL THROUGH 'OIL FOR FOOD PRORAM' WITHOUT DEPRESSING OIL PRICES OR HURTING US INTERESTS; CONGRESS OPPOSES THIS) THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IS TELLING CONGRESS IRAQ CAN BE ALLOWED TO SELL MORE OIL FOR FOOD WITHOUT DEPRESSING OIL PRICES OR HURTING U-S INTERESTS. BUT THE IDEA HAS ENCOUNTERED SHARP OPPOSITION FROM LAWMAKERS WHO SAY IT ONLY PROPS UP AN OUTLAW STATE. SENATE-IRAQ OIL Voice of America 17 March 1999
7 posted on 04/19/2004 12:39:56 AM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I searched for the article. I guess you were just about to post it, so I missed it .

Bump!

8 posted on 04/19/2004 3:15:37 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
MASTER LIST OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL
9 posted on 04/19/2004 4:23:52 AM PDT by GailA (Kerry I'm for the death penalty for terrorist, but I'll declare a moratorium on the death penalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Please expand on your "strategery" comment.
What exactly do you see as Bush's strategy regarding this investigation?
I've noticed an emergence of activity and attention on a lot of fronts lately.
The UN scandal, serious questions of a middle east connection to the
OKC bombing, WMD's in Jordan, via Syria, Hillary's illegal fundraising
investigation(that also involves Pardongate figure Denise Rich),
Jamie Gorelick being outed by Ashcroft, and the hysterical,
almost desperate attempts to deflect attention
from CLINTON's failures on 911.
There is a common thread in all of this, that reaches
directly back to the corrupt Clinton White House.
The "perfect storm", gathering strength until it rips through Washington?
We can hope. :)
10 posted on 04/19/2004 9:32:59 AM PDT by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
I've noticed the same things you have. I'm going to reply to you in FReepmail.
11 posted on 04/19/2004 10:09:58 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
fyi
12 posted on 04/19/2004 11:08:53 AM PDT by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson