Translation:
"Annan is a socialist, anit-Israel, anti-American maniac just like us at the New York Times, and we are trying to spin things to prevent Annan from being ousted."
Posted on 12/04/2004 3:01:59 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
The assault on the United Nations is escalating. A Senate subcommittee has raised the estimate of how many illegal billions Saddam Hussein was able to amass under the noses of monitors hired by the United Nations. Several other Congressional committees are exploring the scandal. Norm Coleman, the subcommittee's Republican chairman, has joined a gaggle of conservatives calling for the resignation of Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Mr. Annan, who drew the wrath of Republican Washington for opposing President Bush's war in Iraq, will have to face the judgment of United Nations members on how much responsibility he bears. But before the call for his scalp gains more political momentum, it is important to disentangle the mélange of charges swirling around. The United Nations bureaucracy does not bear the primary responsibility for letting Saddam Hussein amass a secret treasury estimated by official investigators at $10 billion to $21 billion.
There is no doubt that the United Nations oil-for-food program was manipulated by Saddam Hussein to generate substantial sums. The money was then used to buy forbidden goods or otherwise solidify Mr. Hussein's power. The most worrisome charge is that Benon Sevan, head of the program, received oil allotments from Iraq that amounted to a bribe. These charges need to be fully investigated, as they will be by the United Nations' own panel and other inquiries.
But the ever-shriller attacks on oil-for-food and on Mr. Annan play down this fact: Iraq accumulated far more illicit money through trade agreements that the United States and other Security Council members knew about for years but chose to accept.
After the first Persian Gulf war, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq that prohibited imports of military value and banned oil exports to deny Mr. Hussein money to rebuild his army. When it became apparent that Iraq's civilian population was suffering greatly, the sanctions were eased. The so-called oil-for-food program allowed Iraq to export oil under United Nations supervision, with the revenues funneling into a United Nations account to be used for food, medicine and other necessities.
By virtually all expert accounts, the sanctions, backed by United Nations weapons inspectors, and the oil-for-food program achieved their major goals. Iraq's programs to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons disintegrated, its conventional military forces became a hollow shell, and the health of the civilian population improved. But right from the start, Iraq found ways to circumvent the sanctions, often with the tacit approval of the United States.
An analysis by Charles Duelfer, the chief American weapons inspector in Iraq, estimated that Iraq generated some $11 billion in illicit revenue and used the money to buy prohibited items, including military equipment. The main routes for these illicit transactions - $8 billion worth - were trade deals that Iraq negotiated with neighboring countries, notably Jordan, Syria and Turkey. By the Senate subcommittee's higher count, Iraq got almost two-thirds of some $21 billion through the trade deals or smuggling.
But these trade agreements had nothing to do with the oil-for-food program, and were hardly a secret. The United States actually condoned Iraq's trade deals with Jordan and Turkey, two allies whose economies suffered from the sanctions. This was a reasonable price to pay for maintaining their support on the main objective - denying weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein.
American diplomats tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Syria to stop buying Iraqi oil outside of the oil-for-food program, but did little to crack down on that trade. Syria became a major supplier of military goods to Iraq. This was a failure of American diplomacy, not Kofi Annan.
The United Nations bureaucracy had no power to prevent these illicit oil or arms deals outside the oil-for-food program. It was the responsibility of member nations to adhere to sanctions imposed by the Security Council. Those members with the most diplomatic, economic and military power were obliged to help enforce them. Thus the primary blame for allowing Iraq to accumulate illicit billions lies with the United States and other Security Council members that winked at prohibited oil sales, mostly for sensible reasons.
The investigations now under way need to determine to what extent United Nations officials could have detected and stopped Iraq's financial shenanigans in the program they did monitor, oil-for-food. Suspicions were sometimes voiced at meetings of the relevant Security Council committees, but they took a back seat to the main goal of preventing Iraq from getting weapons of mass destruction.
Kofi Annan's role will also have to be laid out fully. He has, unfortunately, issued inconsistent statements about the role of his son, Kojo Annan, in working abroad for a Swiss company that won a contract to monitor imports under the oil-for-food program. The whiff of nepotism has set the hounds baying, and may bring grief to Mr. Annan, but what all that has to do with Saddam Hussein's illicit billions remains murky. It seems wildly premature to call for Mr. Annan's resignation.
Assault? Isn't that what the NYT did to the national elections this year?
Translation:
"Annan is a socialist, anit-Israel, anti-American maniac just like us at the New York Times, and we are trying to spin things to prevent Annan from being ousted."
I just love it that the NY Slimes is being forced to report on this scandal. You just know it pains them to write ill of the UN.
Gee, I thought November was a great month for the Bush administration and Republicans everywhere. Looks like December will be just as good, with the way this story is progressing, among other developments!
"unfortunately?"
I say it is fortunate for justice that Annan wasn't able to squirm his way out of a scandal of his own making. The corruption, nepotism, and ill-gotten gains of billions upon billions of dollars (at the expense of the Iraqi people) make Watergate seem like a convenience store robbery.
Yeah, but a prisoner of a Navy SEAL got a bloody nose, so that cancels out all the Greatest Scandal in History.
This is classic NYT spin without stating facts.
If this was a Rat issue, the word Liberal would be no where to be found.
Just a thought.
Pravda on the Hudson sounds off with one-size-fits-all the party line.
As far as this article is concerned, it is Bush's fault. The liberals and their friends have no shame.
Ah, the NYSlimes is following up a BBC piece from two weeks ago.
This, along with the other tortuous framing of the issue stances taken here is just the latest clintonista talking points. They wish to say this is "payback" for Annan's support of Kerry, thus draw attention away from the scandal itself.
Disgusting.
Let us not forget that it was THE CLLINTON ADMINISTRATION that was complicit in this - if the US was complicit at all.
Just amazing. A story about the UN complicity in Saddam's money scam is labeled an assault on the UN. For liberals, any hint of criticism against their beloved UN, no matter how true, is an assault. And the author of the piece even pretzel twists a way to blame the US for the mess.
Silly NYTs haha...
The Times proof of U.S. complicity is that some of these illicit "trade deals {were} with Jordan and Turkey, two allies whose economies suffered from the sanctions". So with no further evidence they conclude the U.S. "condoned Iraq's trade deals", and pronounce the U.S. guilty of complicity.
Pravda on the Hudson no doubt is applying the same legal principles they have previously esteemed in the show trails of Castro, Stalin and other of their Commie Heroes,
I don't thing the Old Bag Lady is accepting what the real problem with the scandal is. This isn't about Iraq getting money they shouldn't have had.
The Hussein government was buying influence in the UN all the way up to its top officer.
This suggests the debate in the UN was 'colored' by those with direct personal financial interest in keeping Saddam in power.
You will note that the writer is trying to lay the Oil for Food scandal at Bush's feet, indirectly. The general thrust of it is that we have no right to complain about corruption now, because we knew about it then.
This is a rather dishonest sleight of hand, which ignores the fact that it was Bush who looked at the sanctions regime and determined that it had failed in its purpose, and it was the US under Bush that ended the charade. It was Annan, the UN, the Security Council, the DNC and the New York Times which were determined to leave the UN sanctions regime in place.
"The [Clinton Administration] actually condoned Iraq's trade deals with Jordan and Turkey, two allies whose economies suffered from the sanctions. This was a reasonable price to pay for maintaining their support on the main objective - denying weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein.
[Clinton Adminsitration] diplomats tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Syria to stop buying Iraqi oil outside of the oil-for-food program, but did little to crack down on that trade. Syria became a major supplier of military goods to Iraq. This was a failure of [Clinton Administration] diplomacy, not Kofi Annan."
That reads a bit more accurately.
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.