Focus Weapons of Mass Corruption

The CIA says Saddam abused the UN's oil for food scheme to buy influence. Robert Winnett reports Father Benjamin has served the Vatican well.

Travelling the world for the past 20 years on holy missions aimed at easing poverty and spreading the word of God, he arrived in Iraq for the first time in 1998.

So shocked was he by the suffering he witnessed there that he dedicated the next five years to getting the international sanctions that were then throttling the country's economy overthrown.

Addressing British MPs in the House of Commons on the evils of sanctions four years ago, he talked movingly of the plight of the Iraqi people and the thousands of children who were dying there for want of medication.

Even today Benjamin's campaign continues: "This is not a war against Saddam, but for oil," he has said. "The Iraqi regime is no worse than others in the region and George W Bush has no right to impose on other people the leaders of his choice."

A dedicated priest simply doing his job? A man of God who put politics aside to tend to the poor and the weak? That is how Benjamin says it is, but last week his name appeared, on one of "13 secret lists" of companies and individuals who are alleged to have illicitly profited from the sale of Iraqi oil. According to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report, the priest received an "allocation" of 2m barrels of oil from Saddam in 2002 which was sold by a Swiss company, Verya Management, on his behalf. The profit from the deal is estimated to be $900,000. Benjamin was unavailable for comment last week but has previously strenuously denied the allegation. He says he was offered oil by Tariq Aziz, Saddam's right-hand man, but did not take it up and repeatedly told Aziz he was not interested. His work and campaigning on behalf of Iraq was purely humanitarian, he added.

The priest is not the only friend of Iraq to find their motives placed under scrutiny. The ISG published all 13 "secret lists" in an annexe to its report on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq last week. The names of more than 300 companies and individuals who received special allocations of oil from Saddam under the oil-for-food programme are included.

The clear implication, says the CIA, is that they got the oil in return for doing favours for Saddam. People and organisations in France, Russia and China are massively over-represented, it points out.

Last week, as the CIA lists were published, newspaper headlines around the world heralded the uncovering of Saddam's "weapons of mass corruption". It was an effective means of briefly distracting attention from the fact that the same report had found no evidence that Saddam had weapons, but was it true? The humanitarian scheme, the biggest in history, was established in 1995. It was designed as a means of preventing the Iraqi people starving while keeping the lid on Saddam's industrial and military ambitions.

In return for selling a little of its huge oil reserves to the developed world, Iraq would be allowed to buy essential food and medical reserves for its people. Over the eight years that it was in existence, more than $40 billion (£22.3 billion) passed through the programme.

The scheme was regulated by the UN from the outset but, say US investigators, it contained a fundamental flaw: Saddam was allowed to choose the people to whom he sold the oil and also the people from whom the food and other humanitarian aid was bought.

All the money involved in these transactions was held by the UN but the arrangement nevertheless gave Saddam room to reward people outside Iraq. It provided a "splendid opportunity to develop influence", said the report.

Saddam's trump cards were the oil allocations or "vouchers" that he was allowed to distribute. These pieces of paper entitled the holder to a certain amount of Iraqi oil at a fixed price. By selling them on the international oil market, the voucher-holders could make a quick and virtually invisible profit. In effect, the vouchers were as good as cash, enriching anyone who could get hold of them.

According to the ISG report last week: "The UN (oil-for-food) voucher programme provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organisations and individuals willing to co-operate with Iraq to subvert UN sanctions."

Father Benjamin, a "devout" follower of the vatican ...a humanatarian? or a lowlife creep?

Something seems to be missing from this piece, unless I overlooked it....like the names of the three French officials caught in the scandal, as well as others in the EU and Russia......as well as UN officials also fingered in the crime.

OMG!! Now a priest and the Vatican are involved. I thought this was going to be a really juicy article with many new details of the crooks involved with the OFF program but I see it is in actuality another attempt to discredit our President.

Guess these people don't want to believe what they're reading is true. How long before they try to discredit the reports authored by Mr. Duelfer? How many people are working feverishly right now trying to dig up some dirt on him?

Just a coincidence all those vehemently against the invasion and the United States were involved in this scandal? I think not.

"Creepy" is the right word! As I was reading the article, it was the first word that crossed my mind in regards to kindly Father Benjamin.

This article does name the priest as being on the Iraqi survey list as well as other nations involved..it's not an anti Bush report...but one that is exposing the lowlife scum involved in the oil for food scams...Priest is implicated.

I respectfully disagree there isn't an attempt to bash Bush.

If it weren't for the last three paragraphs on page two I would agree it is not an attempt to question the President. However for them to even print the question "But did the scheme work, as the Americans claim, allowing Saddam to alter world opinion with the aim of getting sanctions lifted altogether" implies to me they are leaving open the absurd possibility that all those involved in this scandal just happened to strongly oppose the U. S. on principle and the bribes and greed had nothing to do with it.

That is probably the way many on the left will perceive it...however, I do see a clear right and wrong...and they are wrong period.
Although, I do understand your reasoning...lol...just like Rather and the "substance" is true ...even if the docs are forged type defense and the Clinton...depends on what your definition of "sex" is or whatever ....lol

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.