U.N., MOTHER-OF-ALL-CORRUPTION: How Saddam had the Security Council “over a barrel”

In the Whistleblower Hall of Fame, a new name now stands alongside that of Linda Tripp, Robert Parton. He defected from the U.N. and has been seeking “asylum” from Paul Volcker (who reports and is beholden to the Culprit-in-Chief, Kofi Annan) at Henry Hyde’s Congressional Independent Inquiry Commission. Volcker issued a veiled threat to Parton, warning Hyde’s Committee that “lives of certain witnesses are at stake.” Indeed, the U.N. went to court to retrieve the six boxes of evidence Parton brought to the Committee; yet Volcker claimed Congress could do nothing without his permission. A U.N. counsel, Susan Ringler, even went so far as to claim that the U.N. had jurisdiction over Parton, and that the Congressional subpoena served him should have been sent to the U.N.! From this matter you get a small hint of the way in which our autonomy would be subservient to world government.

The other matter was the war in Iraq, which Annan labeled illegal, because the Security Council had not sanctioned it. But what Henry Hyde, Norm Coleman, and Robert Parton have uncovered is that the Mother-of-All-Corruption resides on the Security Council, because all of its member nations were bribed by billions from Saddam! Imagine the members of the House Un-American Activities Committee all on the “take” from the Communist party, and you have some idea of the enormity of this corruption.

Per Baran-Wallerstein theory, in order to destroy America it is necessary to empower terrorism so that it can be used against us. The U.N. has been complicit in practically every plot against us, and the President knows this, and knows that John Bolton is the man to blow the whistle on the U.N., and take them to task so they are less likely in future to organize double dealings against us. The Marxist Democrats in Congress know this, and therefore are trying to block Bolton with lame criticisms about his abrasive manner.

Indeed, had Kerry won the election, he promised to go abroad to apologize to Security Council nations for the invasion of Iraq. It’s a wonder that DeGaulle didn’t demand an apology from Eisenhower for the “invasion” of France. After all, Vichy France was certainly against it. From the Victorian era to the present, Marxist Democrats have marched in lockstep to the notion that America’s presence on any foreign soil constitutes evil imperialism, whereas whenever Communist armies or Islamist “insurgents” are fighting “wars of liberation,” we should try to empathize with the root causes for wars against democracies.

Therefore, today the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, etc. have a vested interest (per Baran-Wallerstein) in preventing the U.N. Security Council from being exposed as a stooge of Saddam, which would give credibility to Bush’s “unilateral” action in Iraq. So their agenda is to make America beholden to the U.N.; hence, someone like Bolton who is outspoken in regard to the U.N.’s corruption, and will be a strong task master for reform, or else, has to be torpedoed.

But let’s recount the pieces of the Baran-Wallerstein puzzle which had fallen into place vis-a-vis the U.N.’s relation to us since 9/11. First of all, we know that Security Council members France, Germany, Russia, and China had provided Saddam with his stock of weapons, and earlier France provided the reactor to enable him to go nuclear. We also know that these “allies” of ours gave him assurances that they would veto any resolution to remove him by force. When Bush removed Saddam without the U.N.’s approval, this led Kofi to condemn the war in Iraq as “illegal.”

Next we know that Saddam had WMDs, for he used poison gas to kill thousands of Kurds. Colin Powell displayed to the U.N. aerial photos of trucks that manufactured such gases. Saddam allowed some inspections, but declared certain sites off bounds. Then just before the Iraq invasion, our satellites showed large convoys of trucks moving out of Iraq into Syria at the border town al Qaim, the site of military action last week. Then last October, J.B. Shaw, Assistant Secretary of Defense, revealed that convoys of trucks manned by Russians Special Ops had removed WMDs to Syria. Immediately thereafter he was transferred and silenced, evidently to preserve the appearance that Russia was still an ally in the war against terrorism. Events of the last few weeks, including Bush’s visits and speeches in the Baltic states, lead me to conclude that he may be at last dispensing with this charade.

One event that has blown Russia’s cover as an “ally” was the discovery that Putin’s former chief of staff, A. Voloshin, called “the power behind the throne in Moscow,” received a bribe of nearly $3 million from Saddam. Moreover, Zhirinovsky, who has suggested that Russia take back Alaska by force, was secretly given the rights to sell 75.8 million barrels of Iraqi oil from 1997 to 2002, which he re-sold for an estimated $8.6 million. All in all, Russia received about 30% of Saddam’s oil vouchers.

Whereas the Oil-For-Food (OFF) program arose as a humanitarian effort for the Iraqi people, Saddam managed to subvert it with the full complicity of the U.N., because the U.N. allowed him to pick those to whom he gave vouchers for oil allocations. These allocation holders would then sell their under-priced Iraqi crude on the open market, receiving a commission that ranged from 3 to 30 cents per barrel. By 2000, Saddam changed the rules, in order to evidently build more palaces, by requiring a surcharge from those receiving vouchers.

Specifically, he targeted influential persons in the governments of Security Council nations, which could then use their vetoes to stall any action against Saddam by a process of endless “resolutions.” How often did we hear, “Inspections work!” Moreover, because he literally had these Security Council nations over a barrel, he blackmailed them into supplying him with weapons in violation of the U.N.’s own sanctions, which allowed him to rebuild his military after the Gulf War.

Despite the billions he was getting from his “surcharge,” on vouchers, most of these weapons were obtained on credit, since if these Security Council nations demanded payment, he could threaten to cut off the vouchers. And the more money he owed, the more it was in their interests to see to it that they kept him in power so that the debts would be paid. Too, of course, they were making money on the OFF program’s surreptitious oil sales.

Kofi proclaimed himself exonerated by Volcker’s Keystone Kop “investigation,” so just how did Hyde and Coleman get the goods on the U.N.? In January 2004, long before the courageous Parton defied Volcker and delivered his six boxes of evidence to the House International Relations Committee, Baghdad’s Al Mada newspaper published a list of hundreds of governments, government officials, companies and private individuals, according to records kept by Saddam, who received billions of dollars in bribes by means of which he bought the Security Council’s opposition to American military action.

Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s former Prime Minister, told the Hyde Committee that in the summer of 2002, the threat of a Russian veto blocked an American proposal to tighten Iraqi border controls in order to strengthen sanctions. Saddam’s response was to “show gratitude” by increasing allocations to influential Russians, and to give Russian companies priorities to sell food and goods under the U.N.’s OFF program. From the report issued by Hyde’s Committee, Saddam’s “regime steered a massive portion of its allocations toward Security Council members that were believed by the Hussein regime to support Iraq in its efforts to lift sanctions, namely, Russia, France, and China.” Several of Saddam’s oil ministry charts expressly separate the recipients by whether their country was a member of the Security Council. Even more reprehensible was the fact that Saddam “gave priority to foreign officials, journalists, and even terrorist entities. . . including the PLO, Abu Abbas, and the Mujahedeem-e-Khalq.”

Now let’s name some of the French benefactors of Saddam’s largess. Volcker had cited a conflict of interest involving Benon Sevan, the former head of OFF, but now we know that Charles Pasqua, France’s former Minister of Interior, received 11 million barrels of oil allocations. How much money made its way into the pockets of Jacky Chiraq through money laundering, we shall never know, but since he called Saddam his “good friend,” one would assume Saddam went out of his way to reward Chiraq. Here is a partial list of some of the names of those on the take on Al Mada’s list. You can read the entire list at this link: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/memri_iraq_oil_vouchers.html

Former interior minister Charles Pasqua, (12 million barrels ) denied any involvement and suggested another, unnamed former French interior minister may have been the beneficiary. [18] According to The New York Post Mr. Pasqua, "a close friend and former colleague of Chirac … fought to allow visits by top Iraqi officials to France in 1993." [19]

Jean-Bernard Merimee, (3 million and another 8 million barrels) was the French Ambassador to the United Nations and France's representative in the Security Council.

Fawwaz Zureiqat (6 million barrels) whose name was linked with the British MP George Galloway (see United Kingdom) said that the accusations are silly. He said that he had earned a commission of five cents per barrel, which had not been paid by the Iraqi government.

One surprise on the list was Mr. [Benon] Sevan (11.5 million barrels) who is the Executive Director of the Oil for Food program. A U.N. spokeswoman denied the charges and said that the U.N. secretary-general was completely satisfied with Sevan's integrity. [37] Mr. Sevan denied the allegations and stated that "it was incumbent on those who published these allegations to provide the necessary documents." [38]

There is another reference to George Galloway's receiving 4 million barrels, through Jordanian Fawwaz Zureiqat, of Aredio Petroleum, in an agreement on July 10, 2001.

Similarly, Middle East Advance Semi-Conductor, a Jordanian company, referred to Galloway as receiving 3 million barrels in an agreement on June 8, 2001, also via Mr. Fawwaz Zureiqat.

Thus, George Galloway as beneficiary is cited six times, twice in the name of Finnish and French companies and the rest Jordanian under the name of Fawwaz Zureiqat. All these requests were approved by the minister of oil, with his signature." [45]

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Samir Attallah wrote in 'The Mother of [All] Vouchers:' "[What is really repulsive] is the language of the total purchase [of supporters] or total hatred … [the regime] needed people who hate what it hated and offended what it offended… What interests me about the vouchers and the Oil for Food [program] … are the wailings of the former president displaying pictures of children dying from hunger and disease … and the million and one stories about the poverty and neediness that transformed Iraq from a rich country to a country celebrating the birthday of a president who basks in his presidential palaces amidst poverty, silence, oppression, and the processions of the dead." [54]

Last week there was a confrontation between Norm Coleman on Hyde’s committee and George Galloway, whose name appears on the list above, as having received no less than 20 million barrels of Iraqi oil. His belligerent response to a subpoena to appear was reminiscent of the Communists appearing in the 1950s before the House Un-American Activities Committee. In effect, Galloway, like the fellow-travelers of old, put the Committee on trial. As Limbaugh put it, Galloway was repeating all of the anti-American rhetoric against Bush and the war that the Democrats had been saying, including Carl Levin (D) Michigan on the Committee grilling Galloway. So when Galloway challenged Levin by saying he had voted for the illegal war in Iraq, Levin immediately corrected him by saying that he had not. I well recall Galloway’s leading street protests in London against the bombing of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. He is perhaps the most famous Communist in the UK today and nearly unknown to the American public, but the spectacle of his Congressional appearance is captured brilliantly by Alex Massie in his article for The Scotman, posted by www.nationalreviewonline.com.

Washington, D.C. — While the House of Commons is not what it once was, it is still a bear pit compared to the somnolent rectitude of the United States Senate. That much became clear when the British MP George Galloway appeared at a Senate subcommittee hearing on the abuse of the United Nations Oil-for-Food program on Tuesday. It was hard to know quite what Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin expected from the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow; it was impossible not to suspect they got more than they bargained for. As a rule senators are not, I think, accustomed to being accused by their witnesses of committing “schoolboy howlers.”

“You have nothing on me,” crowed Galloway, who claimed the attention paid to his activities was “mother of all smoke screens” designed to divert attention away from the “crimes” committed by the United States and Britain in Iraq. “You want to talk about illegalities? You launched an illegal war.”

Evidence from senior Iraqi officials — including former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, who have told investigators that Galloway was rewarded on account of “his opinions on Iraq” — was dismissed by Galloway. “Knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners," he ranted, “I’m not sure how much credibility anyone would put on evidence from prisoners in those circumstances.”

For the British journalists present it was a wearily familiar experience. For years they (we) have been trying to trap Galloway; for years, the man known as the MP for “Baghdad Central” has found ways (helped by the libel laws) of slipping away just when he was thought to have been cornered. . . .

His spokesman indicated that he was coming to Washington to give the committee “both barrels — that’s guns, not oil,” and Galloway himself suggested that he was planning to take the “lickspittle” Republicans on the committee out to the woodshed there to administer a mightily merited thrashing. “You won’t want to miss this,” he promised. Indeed we didn’t. This was vintage Galloway. Truculent, bombastic, eloquent, and willfully disingenuous. A performance of some power, hampered only by equal measures of self-importance, self-righteousness, and self-pity.

Galloway thinks himself a victim. He likes to make out that he was expelled from the Labor party for his opposition to the war (a claim repeated today, erroneously, by the New York Times and the Washington Post). In fact he was thrown out for supporting and inciting the jihadists in their work of murdering American and, in particular, British troops.

“Gorgeous George” — the nickname refers to the sharpness of his suits and the shine of his self-regard — was in his element on Tuesday, however. Nothing pleases Galloway so much as the opportunity for demagogic posing. Senator Coleman blundered in letting him appear....

Even detractors, such as Christopher Hitchens, were compelled to admit that Galloway’s performance had a certain something, even a kind of style about it. It was preposterous of course, but strangely compelling. Hitchens in fact, had a cameo role in the whole ghastly circus. As Galloway made his way forward, he passed Hitchens and could be heard to mutter “booze-addled Trotskyite.” Later, Hitchens reminded Galloway that “you lied under oath Mr. Galloway. You lied when you said never supported Saddam Hussein. We have your quotes.” And so we do. Galloway, a man for whom the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest catastrophe” of his lifetime, famously kissed up to Saddam when he met the dictator in 1994. “Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem].” Galloway claimed his remarks were aimed at the Iraqi people, a reading unsupported by any fair-minded interpretation of his words. . . .

It’s perhaps too easy to think of Galloway as a bug-eyed buffoon, an eccentric on the fringes of political debate. But his striking election victory in London for his anti-war Respect party, in which he overturned a safe Labor majority, demonstrated that, in the right hands and in the right places, populist demagoguery of the kind once favored in the East End of London by another moustache-sporting former Labor MP, Oswald Moseley, can have an impact.

Since it is all but impossible to imagine Galloway or his fellow-travelers supporting any military action led by the U.S. and U.K., it should be clear that Iraq is but one element and one front in this long struggle to hamstring Washington and London....

This is, it is becoming clear, Galloway’s real importance. Galloway and his ilk in this country [America] are slowly corrupting the Democratic party just as much as the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food program was eaten away by kickbacks and bribery. That may be useful for Republicans in electoral terms but it is an unhealthy development for a country still burdened with great responsibilities (and opportunities) by virtue of its time and place in history.

Which brings us full circle to why the American Left is opposed to John Bolton becoming our ambassador to the U.N. The Left’s way of dealing with tyrants, from Gladstone to Carter and Clinton, has been appeasement. When someone suggested to Bolton that he follow this carrot-and-stick strategy by offering North Korea inducements to forsake nuclear weapons, he replied, “I don’t do carrots.” The fellow-travelers of the Left stood by in the past while hundreds of millions were murdered by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. In this article, I only address the U.N. corruption with regard to OFF, whereas the rape of thousands of children at the hands of U.N. peacekeepers is just as heinous. Should we be paying to prop up such an evil empire as the U.N.; yet the Left is asking us once again to be fellow travelers of evil? Barbara Boxer declared that Bolton needs “anger management lessons.” How compliant should our ambassador be to such a magnitude of corruption?

Paul Greenberg, the Arkansas Gazette writer who took the measure of Clinton long before the rest of the nation copped to his socio-pathology, has the answer in The Washington Times: April 18-24, 2005:

During the confirmation hearings, John Bolton will be attacked, not just by the usual, totalitarian suspects, but by every appeaser in the West, because he tells the truth, with the bark off, as we say in these parts.

But we can’t have that if pretenses are to be kept up, dictators appeased, and the U.N.’s holy aura preserved inviolate. Some truths must never be spoken. It would be. . . undiplomatic.

C.S. Lewis said it even before there was a U.N.: “The greatest evil,” he observed in The Screwtape Letters, is not done “in concentration and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”

C.S. Lewis could have been describing every diplomat who stood by quietly while evil was done, massacres allowed to proceed unchecked, money funneled to terrorist regimes....

Lewis could have been describing the U.N.’s ironically named Commission on Human Rights. Its membership roll reads in large part like a Who’s Who of homicidal tyrannies....

A LOT of great information in this article. And this, I think, says it all with regard to the left's opposition to Bolton:

The U.N. has been complicit in practically every plot against us, and the President knows this, and knows that John Bolton is the man to blow the whistle on the U.N., and take them to task so they are less likely in future to organize double dealings against us.

"Galloway and his ilk in this country [America] are slowly corrupting the Democratic party just as much as the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food program was eaten away by kickbacks and bribery. That may be useful for Republicans in electoral terms but it is an unhealthy development for a country still burdened with great responsibilities (and opportunities) by virtue of its time and place in history."

This is a very important point, missed by many in conservative circles. Not having a viable Democrat party to play against the Republicans lessens the leverage the electorate has against the Republican leadership.

I support Bush in all things foreign policy and economic freedom, but his track record on illegal immigration is horrible. I'd prefer to be able to threaten him with Democratic alternatives, but there are none that I can stomach and he knows it.

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.