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.
My thoughts too - but, the NYSlimes would rather we equate "The United States" with "Bush" and make us think that what Klinton did is Bush's fault.
The New York Times, the official newsletter of the U.N. and the Far Left, not necessarily in that order.
"This was a failure of American diplomacy, not Kofi Annan. "
And when diplomacy fails you kick a$$ cause Kofi sure didn't enforce any sanctions.
First, somebody has to remind the NYT that it is not "Bush's war", it is the USA that went to war with iraq. Their attempt to paint this picture in the minds of people, with their own colors is so transparent, that it does not require great intelligence to see their agenda. The NYT has to be reminded that Bush won the election with 61M popular votes.
These disingenuous, crooked journalists from the NYT are making it sound like kofi is the poor victim here. This man did not just oppose, he and the UN created a 2nd front in the war, by refusing UN personnel for Iraq, as well as the vigorous defence of Saddam and Iraq by his staff. He was the personal errant boy for Chirac and France. And finally and worst of all, he and his staff inserted themselves into the U.S. national elections by making comments and assertions that were meant to hurt Bush at the most opportune times.
So in my opinion, kofi is no poor innocent victim here
It is high time we started actively fighting back at these people, and their patrons - the French, Russians and Chinese. They try to con the American people that they are just against Bush and not anti-american. But we have to tell them that it is the American people who put Bush in that office.
As for the NYT, they are destroying our forests and killing trees, by printing out that huge pile of trash they call a newspaper.
Be optimistic. If the NYT is more shrill than usual, then someone must be hitting paydirt.
"The assault on the United Nations is escalating."
Good news.
"If the NYT is more shrill than usual, then someone must be hitting paydirt."
The hit dog howls.
Annan was in total control of the 'commission' the UN got from the Oil for Food Program as its overseer. He most assuredly didn't want that money flow to quit. Saddam was the golden goose to these people and we (the US) killed it.
We all owe ol' TC a vote of thanks for riling everyone up.
His regular "assaults" on truth have a salutory effect.
The scandal has hit the mainstream media. Since they are like worms and thrive on dirt, and this is the best dirt since Teapot Dome, many careers will be made in journalism on this. Dig, worms, dig.
Thus, according to the NYT, Clinton's Adminstration was Sadam's complicit partner.
<> 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. <> Interesting that the NY Times neglects to mention that this all most all occurred during the Clinton administration.
I hope you're right. However, my expectation is that such investigations will be stifled by MSM leaders/editors because it goes against "the common good" (as they percieve it).
Therefore, I propose that immediate sanctions be placed on ourselves. Should these be circumvented, that our ports be blockaded by the U.S. Navy.
If these policies fail to acheive sufficient results, we should be prepared to execute a 'military' solution.
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.