UN: Oil for food program funded the UN

It just keeps getting worse

Published on April 25, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Saw this at www.instapundit.com regarding an article in Today's Telegraph (UK), hardly a bastion of right-wing propaganda.

At least $1.1 billion was paid directly into UN coffers, supposedly to cover the cost of administering the $67 billion scheme, while Saddam Hussein diverted funds intended for the poor and sick of Iraq to bribe foreign governments and prominent overseas supporters of his regime. . . .

Although the UN Security Council approved the plan to levy a 2.2 per cent commission on each oil-for-food transaction, the huge sums this reaped for the UN have never been fully accounted for.

A senior UN official who is closely involved in uncovering evidence of the scandal admitted: "The UN was not doing this work just for the good of Iraq. Cash from Saddam's government was keeping the UN going for a few years.

"No one knows exactly what sums were involved because an audit has never been done. That is why they are wriggling and squirming now in New York."

Comments

greywar

on Apr 25, 2004

I for one welcome our new UN overlords.....

That being said, I think that the entire Oil-for-food program and it's attendant corruption illustrates the complete lack of legitimacy of the UN as a whole. This organization has let itself devolve into a toothless tiger, a tiger who takes bribes as well. The idea that the UN could wave a magic wand and suddenly become a shining paragon of virtue that would "right the ship" in Iraq is laughable. Much like many of the member nations themselves. Internationalization nothing. Not while we want to pretend that nations who have long since faded from global importance will do anything other than act to line their pockets.

Draginol

on Apr 25, 2004

I think it pretty safe to say that the UN had a vested interest in the status quo -- i.e. leaving Saddam in power.

Anthony R

on Apr 25, 2004

Kerry has built his Iraq policy around the UN; he argues that Bush failed to internationalize the Iraq war. Bush failed to get all of our “allies” on board, therefore, John Kerry could right the wrong. Kerry, upon inauguration, would re-enter the international community of our “allies,” who wouldn’t lift a finger to save us if we needed them. The oil for food program may just turn out to be the biggest economic crime in the history of the world, it will be no surprise if documented proof becomes available that the people who objected to Hussein’s removal like Kofi Anon, along with France, Germany, and Russia were all up to their elbows in kickbacks.

messybuu

on Apr 25, 2004

Nobody will ever be able to say that the United Nations has the people's interests at heart anymore. There's something satisfying about supporting the United States of America, the lesser of two evils, over the United Nations.

voodoostation

on Apr 25, 2004

I can't believe it took this long for someone to address this fact. I found out about this program and the subsequent list of peoplem, companies and countries involved about a month and a half ago. Heads will roll in due time, once all the evidence has been gathered and analyzed.

Gerry Atrick

on Apr 25, 2004

I lived for 3 years in the UK and the Telegraph is one of the most conservative papers in the UK. It still is considered as the Tory parties in-house journal. The current owner (at least for the moment) is Conrad Black of whom the Financial Times of London said that 'Black was a more effective as a conservative political advocate than a businessman.' Granted, that by US standards the Telegraph would not be particularly right wing, but by the rest of the worlds standards it is.
At present these are only allegations and should be treated as such. They have been around since January and the UN itself has set up a completely independent inquiry headed by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. Volcker would not accept the post until the UN adopted a resolution calling for all countries to cooperate with the investigation, this was passed unanimously on Wednesday.
To me, this does not sound like the actions a body that has anything to hide. Certainly there may have been corruption, and it will be found out if there was, but if so it will be at an individual level and those individuals will be dealt with.
Of course nothing less than the disbanding of the UN will satisfy US conservatives. But the UN is highly regarded throughout the rest of the world.

messybuu

on Apr 25, 2004

I apologize for straying offtopic, but didn't Bush appoint an independent committee to investigate the intelligence that lead to the war in Iraq or 9/11 or something? If so, I guess that means that he's innocent of all wrongdoing and if any wrongdoing is found, it's on the individual level of somebody insignificant.

Solitair

on Apr 26, 2004

Nice to see how quickly people use this accusation to justify their anti UN opinions. You really make yourselves look foolish.

Also nice to see how far behind people are on this issue. There have been accusations of irregularities on the oil for food programme for years. The UN side of this scheme gets auditted yearly and to date has turned up no major corruption issues (on the UN administration side only). There is however a major concern that up to 30 companies from the US, Japan, Russia, France, Germany and the UK may have been heavily involved in corruption, with bribes being paid by Iraq to ensure that a large fraction of the money was going to Saddam's coffers. There is also concern that some UN administrators must have been away of this. An independant enquiry has been set-up to look into these accusations. The UN has given complete access to Paul Volcker, and obtained a non legally binding resolutino on other countries to do likewise.

So before people look foolish for pointing fingers and saying 'I told you so' and accusing potentially innoncent people of corruption, I think you should look into the situation further and await the preliminary results in 3 months time. Amazing how people are willing to let the US have years to find WMD but for the UN to have an independant enquiry? No! Let's just accuse them!

In reality there are indeed likely to be corrupt companies which have profitted from this scheme and possibly even some UN administrators. But this is not the organisation. It's individuals. The UN has already stated that any of it's people who are found to be involved with corruption will stand trial.

Paul.

Larry Kuperman

on Apr 27, 2004

Read several versions and make up your own minds:

UN page on the oil-for -food programme: http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/ A good place to start, as it chronicles the successes of the program.

The Economist.com reports the Program as "Oil-For-Fraud." http://www.economist.co.uk/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2618260

The National Review reports that Kofi Annan's son has ties to a Swiss firm that was involved in the efforts and potentially the corruption as well: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200403101819.asp

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!