»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Wake Up and Smell the Kofi
| The Alley |
|
Wake Up and Smell the Kofi |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
For everyone who stated US actions in Iraq were criminal because they were done without the approval of the UN... For everyone who considered France and other countries honorable by refusing to participate.. For those who hold up the UN as a symbol of what's right and decent in the world... For everyone who applauded Kofi for condemning US actions... For everyone who believes the US should take no action without UN approval... I suggest you fasten your seat belts. This is gonna be fun!  |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I'm not sure where you're getting at exactly, but I can assume it has to surely be Kofi Annan being under fire for the U.N oil-for-food scandal. I've never exactly felt inspired by Kofi Annan in particular. I disagree with him in how he praised Yassar Arafat with a great deal of integrity, so much as to order the U.N flags lowered half a step to commemorate him, as I'm critical of what both Arafat and Sharon have done in diplomacy. So all in all, I wouldn't say I'm thrilled or inspired by this particular man. However, I believe the United Nations all in all has a great significance in reaching diplomatic decisions, non-violent ones. I do believe in international law, for America means much to the world and the world should mean much to us. I don't believe it is right to just flat out say, "America is going to war with this country, either you're with us or against us." Large-scale mobilizations like this affect global communities, and there has to be consensus. Otherwise, it only encourages the abuse of power by other sole nations. Kofi was right about one thing especially. When he sent that letter to Bush and other leaders citing, "The threat or actual use of force not only risks deepening the sense of alienation … but would also reinforce perceptions … of a continued military occupation." The United Nations is not the problem. I think Kofi is more of the problem. Like Kweisi Mfume apart from the NAACP. Many have the thought that these organizations, which have had long histories and great reputations, have had a unilateral edge under these new leaders. As always, it must be a bi-partisan effort. I just think the United Nations, frankly, has become a bit more bureaucratic or being influenced too much by the corporate climate. Some say it is ineffective or usurps sovereignty of nations, but I believe the United Nations is effective, it just isn't realizing its full potential for the better. The United Nations was founded right here in America, on October 24, 1945 in San Francisco. America itself is the mother to this enduring organization, and it needs to go back to its roots. Go back to the sense of that first meeting "The Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy" and use this same common sense in finding non-violent ways to stopping nuclear proliferation, something which I believe hasn't been taken as seriously as it should. Embrace the ethics of human rights in the fullest form, one of the cornerstones since the beginning for the UN. Its creation was largely influenced by World War II atrocities, after all, and I feel we need to once again embrace the "Universal Declration of Human Rights" ideals in assuring scandals like Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib don't repeat themselves. All at once, something must be done as well about the genocide in Sudan as well, etc as that also violates human rights. What the United Nations needs I believe most of all is more individual liberty, because after all, the sharing of diverse individual views joined together makes a more promising pursuit in the truth of new opportunities and solutions. I think this lack of decentralization is what let such controversies erupt, such as the ethnic cleansing campaign in Rwanda, which I believe Kofi overlooked, and the failure to deliver food to the starving in Somalia. I believe the United Nations, like many organizations as of late, have become too attached to the corporate underbelly, and we need to reverse that trend and see to it communication is put back into the community, not solely by intercom. Anyway, I protested against the war on Iraq from the beginning not because our administration didn't get U.N approval, just because I simply believe war is the wrong way in making peace and justice in the world. In my final thought, the United Nations certainly has its flaws, but I do believe it remains one of the most right organizational communities in the world. It just needs to embrace its full potential is all. And I've been skeptical many times of Kofi Annan being this real role model in bringing about the full vision. We'll just have to see where this goes. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
The UN is more than just Kofi, more than just a cup of coffee. I still applaud the UN, and yes, I still say the invasion of Iraq was an illegal act. All this new news proves is that Kofi and other members of the United Nations are human, and subject to gross human misjudgements and misconduct, same as our American political leaders. All the more reason to keep your eyes and minds open, to keep searching for leadership around the globe that treats ALL the people of Earth as Equals, and treats no one country as superior or inferior to all the rest of the Earth's inhabitants. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 I absolutely agree with what Kacy has just said. I believe we must keep ever vigilant in finding the great leaders of tomorrow throughout this world that inspires ALL. I credit the United Nations for doing much in community-building for over half a century, and still believe they are overall a great organization despite those earlier flaws I mentioned. I think their "moral equivalence" has inspired and spawned many other organizations in post-World War II times that do likewise in promoting the need for global community outreach and diplomacy. Anyway, I find it absolutely saddening that Howard Kaloogian and Move America Forward would even think of attempting to ban the United Nations from the United States of America, the nation which so happened to give birth to this organization in the first place. Kaloogian himself writes on the official petition web-page that the United Nation's actions to promoting peace "have made it an accessory to terrorist crimes." He also goes on to say that the "United Nations have positioned the organization so that it is increasingly a body that sides with those who find the use of terrorism against unarmed and innocent civilians tolerable." Just more false information disguised in the form of patriotism. Kaloogian says the United Nations has "veered from its original purpose" yet they've always been for non-violent solutions and human rights...period. Peace as in NOT WAR. We need dependence from one another to seek solutions. Breaking apart these alliances that have stood the tests of time will only lead to further misunderstanding and incite further abuse of power. I basically say just what I told those who voted for Nader on indymedia community boards in that the Democratic party should be brought down. The solution lies not in imploding it from the outside, but fixing it on the inside. We've got to reach a bi-lateral understanding here and fix up the United Nations in that it can hold up these necessary alliances. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you for such an in-depth response, Noah. The situation, however, deals with much more than Kofi. Money is currently being tracked to many places, such as millions going to the French president's closest friend, among others. it would appear on the surface that those who screamed the most about the US action against Iraq were the ones who were making fortunes under the table from the food for oil program. Even while they knew tens of thousands were being killed yearly in Iraq, even while they knew thousands of children were dying of starvation, they were allowing Hussein to pocket - the estimate now is 21 billion - as long as some of the money filtered down to them. How despicable is that? Why were they against Bush? He was the man threatening to kill the golden goose - that was their motivation. Kacey, I always find it amazing that, when someone a person doesn't like does something wrong, it is called despicable and yet when someone a person likes does something wrong the answer is "Well, he's only human". I never heard you say "Well, Bush is only human" concerning acts you opposed. I wonder why.... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“All this new news proves is that Kofi and other members of the United Nations are human, and subject to gross human misjudgements and misconduct, same as our American political leaders.” What a wonderful out. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
yet they've always been for non-violent solutions and human rights Noah, I would appreciate any solutions they have come up with over the past years to support your statement. It would appear that their non-violent solution to stop the mass murders in Iraq was to line their pockets with cash from Hussein and do everything possible to see the boat wasn't rocked. The countries supporting the US were obviously the ones not on the take. I'm awaiting your examples of how and when their non-violent solutions have worked... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I haven't made a dime, Mike. And despite efforts to refocus attention, I still haven't seen the WMD found. Everything else, while not unimportant in its own right, is superfluous to whether the war was justified or not. Discrediting Bush's detractors doesn't make a wrong war right. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
September 11th was the work of WMD; nineteen guys with boxcutters, wanting to kill masses and willing to train and kill themselves for the chance. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
"I believe the United Nations is effective, it just isn't realizing its full potential for the better." "Discrediting Bush's detractors doesn't make a wrong war right." That pretty well sums it up. I guess it is how you define effective and detractor. Saddam was a detractor to the Shiite and Kurd. It would appear the U.N. and it Security Council members sanctioning and partaking in billions via bribes to support Saddam must be part of the distraction. Bottom line, I suspect those who do not presently support the U.N. would prefer an idyllic world where all countries were for equality and freedom. Some just desire the U.N. to give a little better indication they believe and are working towards the same goals. Legitimacy is not awarded by words on a paper or spoken from a lecturn, it is earned by action. Interesting picture I saw on line which I feel comfortable will never be seen in the American or World media. After the killing of innocent civilians by the French in the Ivory Coast, (how many different stories can the French concoct to explain the incident?) there was a gentleman holding up a sign, "Help us Bush". It did not say, Help us U.N. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Women and children, the Iraqi version of Mother Theresa… They’ll kill ‘em all until, (as before), they get their way or die… What saddens me is that some can’t accept that, even inadvertently, we may be involved in doing a good thing. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Firstly, Balladeer, the $21 billion you speak of is an early estimate made from Norm Coleman, a Republican Senator from Minnesota, who also credits him receiving all the money because of Annan's lack of oversight. This is quite a bold early estimate, and higher than some others being reported. I think the real question here is to what extent the U.N was oblivious to this. This is becoming a hot topic simply because it could very well become the largest amount of money redirected from a relief program in history, and when many are still shaken over 9/11 and the war in Iraq, it is a voracious mix. I think because Bush and his administration is desperate to defend the war's credibility, which I believe no credibility exists, and it's simply because Kofi Annan announced the war illegal (which I believe it is) that it has threatened the United States and British governments, for traditionally the neo-con right wing has had a definitive positioning on that the United Nations is a threat, and that international law is unacceptable because they feel it infringes on the Constitution, and that is why we have seen rejections from the Kyoto Protocol, the ICC, etc, and now why groups like Move America Forward are determined to remove the U.N headquarters from New York to another nation. I think one major component to the development of this story will be on Benon Seval, a former U.N official who was said to be a recipient of 13 million barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein. Sevan has denied these charges, but I expect many eyes will probably be turning his way. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LOL, Mike, I wrote a thank you poem to Bush for something a couple of years ago, can't remember what it was about now, but apparently you missed that one. And I've offered to send Bush on an extended vacation more than once, since he often looks tired and frazzled. I've often referred to him as a human, and even mentioned his human mistakes. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And that has WHAT to do with this thread, John?  quote: Taking a shotgun to my wife-beating neighbor may be seen, by some, to be a good thing, John. If I did it because I was convinced he was going to set my house on fire, however, it's probably just paranoia (unless I can at least catch him with matches). If stepping on a buttefly in Asia can, as some contend, result in a hurricane in the Midwest, virtually everything can result in inadvertent good. I'm not entirely sure, however, that's how we should judge our world. quote: I suspect everyone, Tim, regardless of U.N. support or not, would like an idyllic world. Some might define it differently, and some won't be holding their breath waiting, but I just can't imagine many who actually prefer chaos and corruption. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Oh, I believe the United Nations have done much good since forming over half a century ago. The most recent credit I give to them is the improving of health conditions globally. On November 20, 1989, the United Nations gathered in forming the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" in setting goals and standards for improving the health and education of children in underdeveloped nations worldwide, which was signed by 109 countries and attended by more than 70 world leaders. One major finding during the convention was that 14 million children under the age of five die each year from malnutrition or a variety of diseases, most of them preventable. They planned to reduce child mortality by a third and to reduce malnutrition by as much as half. Sixty countries succeeded in reducing child mortality by one-third. Though they didn't reduce malnutrition by one-third, they still made very significant progress by reducing malnutrition globally for children under five from 177 million in 1990 to 150 million in 2000, where they reported malnutrition levels falling from 23 to 16 percent in East Asia and the Pacific. Access to safe drinking water improved from 77 to 82 percent in that same time-frame. They also had goals to reduce the gender gap in schools worldwide. They split it in half, with huge progress made in South Asia. They said they would work to eradicate polio and guinea-worm infection once and for all. In 1988, polio was endemic in 125 countries, now, it's only endemic in 10 countries, while guinea-worm infections and other diseases have seemingly vanished from many regions of the world. Other than that, the United Nations have done much more. They formed the United Nations Decade for Women in 1975 in Mexico to see to it women are recognized and paid for all the unwaged work they do in every level of the government and at home, and through extensive lobbying in supporting their rights to child benefits, childcare, pensions, etc. the governments decided to measure and value unwaged work for them. The United Nations played a major role in making Indonesia an independent nation by ordering the ceasefire back in 1947. They helped stabilize conditions in the Dominican Republic in the mid-sixties. They've maintained peace in Cyprus since getting involved in 1974. They played a major role in helping Namibia become independent. Because of the UN's call for international pressure, East Timor finally became free after all the atrocities. The success stories are there, and I believe the United Nations has played a significant role in improving standards of living all throughout the world. They've done much good for us all. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I will always support the UN, via UNICEF/UNESCO and other UN funding programs that actively address the needs of children around the globe. It may not be the perfect organization, but it sure as heck beats NO organization at all, and offers an alternative for people who don't want to contribute under any particular religious banner. The UN deserves our support it can get, emotionally, politically, and financially. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Everything else, while not unimportant in its own right, is superfluous to whether the war was justified or not. Discrediting Bush's detractors doesn't make a wrong war right. I won't disagree with that statement, Ron, but I have to say this situation makes me wonder of things. At that time everyone, including the UN, believed in the presence of WMD's. Certainly you will acknowledge that. Had not several members of the UN been getting Hussein payoffs under the table, I wonder if perhaps they would have gone along with Bush's plans to attack - and, having done so, if there would have then been a multi-national force much greater than the one we had and much more world acceptance. As it stands it's easy to see how they handled the situation. They would let Hussein have his way and, when somebody came up with a question of his non-compliance with the inspections, they would issue a warning to appease the complainers and all the while keep cashing in. After a time passed and someone else would come up to question, they would issue another one (how many times - 16?) and begin the cycle all over again. They could have gone on indefinitely as the money kept coming in. No wonder they hate Bush. Here he comes to kill the golden camel. What's worse is - what would happen when Bush ousted Hussein? Who knows what Hussein would say? Who knows what records might be uncovered implicating them in their participation of this crime against the Iraqui people? I have little doubt there was a lot of Maalox passed around ever since Hussein was captured. If there had not been payoffs going on, I believe there would have been a good chance that the UN would have sanctioned Bush's actions, this based on the global belief that Hussein had WMD's and the acceleration of terrorist activities with the advent of 9-11. Then, all of a sudden, the "wrong" war would have been viewed differently by many people. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, “I still haven't seen the WMD found” my response: “September 11th was the work of WMD; nineteen guys with boxcutters, wanting to kill masses and willing to train and kill themselves for the chance.’ translation: we’ve found WMD in Iraq. John |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, John, we've got WMD's, they just used them. But it's very Orwellian of you to stretch the language like that. Currently, with the exception of the US, we have a list of nations that support the current Annan administration. This list includes the EU, the UK, Russia, China, France etc. There is no evidence of kickbacks to UN employees and administrators -- even the Wall Street Journal admits this. The question is whether or not or to what extent the UN and Annan knew about Hussein's diversions of funds. Annan and family (particularly his son) are cooperating with the UN independent investigation team headed by Paul Volcker, an American and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Carter and Reagan. Right now, it looks like America is playing grudge politics. Right now, it looks like innuendo and assumption are more important than evidence and investigative conclusions. After the Republicans ditched the intelligence reform, allowed DeLay to stay in office, and threaten the end of the filibuster in the Senate, it looks like the same old tricks from the same old people. Still, if Kofi Annan, either through negligence, incompetence, and/or fraud, has commited gross errors of responsibility, he should resign. That's not hard to write. It's the same thing I've been writing for four years, just switch from the Kofi plant to the tea Bush.  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
"The question is whether or not or to what extent the UN and Annan knew about Hussein's diversions of funds." Yeah, I agree that this is one of the major questions that should be being asked. As it is, Annan has overwhelming support across the world. More than 3,000 UN members have signed a letter of support to him. China's ambassador has praised him. Leader's of all 54 nations in Africa sent a letter of support to him. And all the European nations which oppose the war in Iraq also support him. So, here, I just believe there's a lot of foulmouthing going on in our media and, other than those like Huan Yi who already believe we've found weapons of mass destruction, because the men are weapons themselves, in knowing no weapons of mass destruction exist and Saddam Hussein wasn't the one who attacked us on 9/11, this U.N food for oil scandal is a deliberate and desperate attempt to stamp this red herring in deep enough so it looks like it was always a stamp on the package in attempting to save any trickle of credibility in this senseless war. I just hope Norm Coleman has thought out everything before acting on this bold accusation. I hope he's aware how this can only damage communities by inexplicable means and further isolate us from the international community. Then, we may be encouraging the bad influential impression that if our government could abuse its power in their minds, why can't they? Global relations are at stake here. I hope critics of Annan and the U.N role in Iraq are also aware that while most nations worldwide support Annan, many also support a U.N reform of some sort. Those like Norm I believe should be lending an ear and working to see just how the desires of both our administration and the United Nations can be applied and co-exist. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
this U.N food for oil scandal is a deliberate and desperate attempt to stamp this red herring in deep enough so it looks like it was always a stamp on the package in attempting to save any trickle of credibility in this senseless war. remember those words, Noah... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"The U.S. State Department gave official approval Wednesday to congressional investigation of corruption in the United Nations-supervised Oil-for-Food program in Iraq. That is certainly justified since the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee reported last week that Saddam Hussein reaped more than $21.3 billion from the program through kickbacks, illegal surcharges, extortion and smuggling. That's more than double the amount estimated when Congress began its investigation earlier this year. The program began in 1996, permitting Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil to buy food and medicine. It was a humanitarian move to ease the burden of U.N. sanctions imposed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Saddam subverted the program in an attempt to buy his way out of the sanctions through bribery and influence-peddling. The program ended with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Iraqis themselves drew attention to alleged corruption in the program. A report by Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. arms inspector, said last month that Saddam issued secret vouchers for oil purchases to officials and politicians in various countries that could be resold at a profit. Duelfer said officials from Russia, France and China received the most vouchers. That helps explain the opposition of those countries to U.S. efforts to get U.N. approval to invade Iraq. Duelfer said Benon Sevon, the U.N. official in charge of the program, was personally approved by Saddam for vouchers worth $700,000 to $2 million. Duelfer also cited illegal oil smuggling to Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Turkey, as well as money laundering through banks in Jordan and Lebanon. A separate report from the House International Relations Committee said last month that Saddam skimmed more than $35 million from the program into secret bank accounts in Jordan. He used the money to pay families of Palestinians killed and wounded in conflicts with Israelis, including the $25,000 "rewards" Saddam gave to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. What a perversion of humanitarian aid. " You're probably right, Brad....grudge politic s. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Update: U.N. Oil for Food Investigation Hampered As details of the scandal involving the U.N.’s Iraq Oil for Food program continue to dribble from inside and outside the world body (See: Oil for Osama, Scandal Continues to Grow, and U.N.-Inspections), U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has pledged a complete investigation and promised that those found guilty of corruption or improper behavior will be punished. To that end, Annan recruited former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to lead a U.N.-sponsored probe. Unfortunately, the apparent intransigence of the U.N. is making Volcker’s investigation a sham. Among the roadblocks Volcker has encountered are: Volcker and his team have no subpoena power and no authority to require statements under oath. Thus, Volcker is deprived of an essential tool necessary for compelling material witnesses to talk and the U.N.’s bureaucracy to give up its secrets. He is forced to rely on the U.N. for significant portions of his staff and office space, thus putting him at the mercy of the U.N. bureaucracy’s whims. This compelled dependence and other limitations have hampered Volcker’s efforts to hire his own staff of experts and made it impossible for him to move the investigation forward. Most importantly, for Volcker’s probe to be effective, he must complete a thorough examination of complex financial records, audits, contracts, and other documentation while at the same time questioning U.N. staff, contractors, and other parties scattered across the globe. This requires a substantial budget. But recently, Bill Safire, writing in the New York Times, reported that Volcker’s budget is inadequate. So, three months after Volcker’s panel was appointed, Volcker has hired no staff, has little money, and has made no progress in the U.N.’s investigation. Meanwhile, truly independent investigations are being blocked by the U.N.’s refusal to disclose or release any information. And a dispute between U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer and the Iraqi interim government has halted progress on an investigation by international accounting firm KPMG." - CFIF.org |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You may be right, Mike. IMO, that would just mean more people were wrong. A lynch mob, no matter how large it becomes, is still a lynch mob. quote: That doesn't even deserve a response, John. Iraq played absolutely no role at all in the events of September 11. I only wish I could say the reverse were true. quote: Noah, that's just one more way of saying we should do what's expedient instead of what's right. If there are misdeeds, there needs to be repercussions. If damage ensues from that, blame it not on the repercussions but on the misdeeds. There will always be a cost to doing the right thing. It's just never as high, in the long run, as the cost of NOT doing the right thing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
For those basically not familiar with the Food for Oil program... History of the Oil-for-Food Program The Security Council established the Oil-for-Food program in 1995 "as a temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people" while economic sanctions remained in place.2 Of Iraq's population of 24 million, 60 percent were dependent on food shipments administered through Oil-for-Food. Oil-for-Food was the United Nations' biggest program anywhere in the world. As Claudia Rosett pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, the U.N. oversaw "a flow of funds averaging at least $15 billion a year, more than five times the U.N.'s core annual budget."3 Oil-for-Food was administered by 10 U.N. agencies employing over 1,000 staff internationally and in New York, as well as 3,000 Iraqi nationals. The U.N. collected a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil sold, generating more than $1 billion in revenue. Until 2001, all Iraqi oil revenues were held in an escrow account run solely by Banque Nationale de Paris. The money was later kept by several unnamed international banks, all approved by Saddam's regime. The program was shrouded in secrecy, with little transparency or public accountability. There was no system of external auditing or publishing of accounts. The identity of the banks holding the Iraqi funds was kept secret. Oil-for-Food became a cash cow for the U.N. and a lucrative source of contracts for Russian and French companies. The Times of London calculated that from 1996 to 2003, Russian companies received $7.3 billion of business through Oil-for-Food, and French firms earned $3.7 billion.4 Oil for Corruption In the 12 months since the fall of the Iraqi dictatorship, a clear picture has emerged of how Saddam Hussein abused the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program. The Iraqi Governing Council has begun to release critical information detailing how, in the words of The New York Times, "Saddam Hussein's government systematically extracted billions of dollars in kickbacks from companies doing business with Iraq, funneling most of the illicit funds through a network of foreign bank accounts in violation of United Nations sanctions." In effect the program was little more than "an open bazaar of payoffs, favoritism and kickbacks."5 Between 1997 and 2002, the Oil-for-Food program generated over $67 billion in revenues for the Iraqi regime. With little U.N. oversight, the Iraqi dictatorship was able to circumvent and exploit the program. It is suspected of selling Iraqi oil at bargain basement prices that benefited numerous middlemen while overpaying for various imports, which rewarded suppliers. The Iraqis then demanded kickbacks from both groups. The program was officially ended in November 2003. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that the Saddam Hussein regime generated $10.1 billion in illegal revenues by exploiting the Oil-for-Food program, including $5.7 billion from oil smuggling and $4.4 billion in "illicit surcharges on oil sales and after-sales charges on suppliers."6 The scale of the fraud was far more extensive than the GAO had previously estimated. According to the GAO, the oil was smuggled by pipeline into Syria, by ship through the Persian Gulf, and by truck across the borders of Turkey and Jordan. Oil purchasers were charged a surcharge of up to 50 cents per oil barrel, with an added commission of 5 percent to 10 percent of the commodity contract. A U.S. Department of Defense study cited by the GAO evaluated 759 contracts administered through the Oil-for-Food program and found that nearly half had been overpriced by an average of 21 percent.7 An International Network of Beneficiaries Emerging from the evidence is a mosaic of international corruption involving a patchwork of politicians and businesses across the world that benefited from the Oil-for-Food program and helped to keep Hussein in power. The Iraqi Oil Ministry recently released a partial list of beneficiaries: 270 names of individuals, political entities, and companies from across the world who received oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein's regime, allegedly at below-market prices.8 The list includes former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, the "director of the Russian President's office," the Russian Communist Party, the Ukraine Communist Party, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the son of Lebanese President Emile Lahud, the son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass, and George Galloway, a British Member of Parliament. Ominously, the list also implicates U.N. Assistant Secretary General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the Oil-for-Food program, who has stringently denied any wrongdoing. Sevan, a longtime U.N. bureaucrat with close ties to Kofi Annan, has taken an extended vacation, pending retirement later this month. Kofi Annan's son Kojo may also be implicated in the mushrooming scandal. Kojo Annan had ties to Cotecna Inspection SA, a Swiss-based company that received a contract for inspecting goods shipped to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food program. The younger Annan worked for Cotecna in the mid-1990s and became a consultant to the company until shortly before it won the Oil-for-Food contract.9 Cotecna, reportedly implicated in earlier bribery scandals, did not disclose this potential conflict of interest, and neither did the United Nations. France, Russia, and Saddam No fewer than 46 Russian and 11 French names appear on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list.10 The Russian government is alleged to have received an astonishing $1.36 billion in oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein. The close ties between French and Russian politicians and the Iraqi regime may have been an important factor in influencing their governments' decision to oppose Hussein's removal from power. They also highlight the close working relationships between Moscow and Baghdad and between Paris and Baghdad, and the huge French and Russian financial interests in pre-liberation Iraq. Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country's oil wealth. French oil giant Total Fina Elf had won contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq, which contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil (25 percent of Iraq's oil reserves). Russian company Lukoil had won the contract to develop the West Qurna field, also in southern Iraq, which has an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil.11 Political and military ties between Moscow and Baghdad were extensive. Documents found in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi intelligence service under Hussein) reveal the full extent of intelligence cooperation between the Russian and Iraqi governments. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
This sure is a lively thread.....Just as the subjects warrant...I will add my two cents and then go back and read what was said since this morning, when I first opened the forum.. Statement #1. "For everyone who stated US actions in Iraq were criminal because they were done without the approval of the UN..." It is a fact that the US actions are illegal, but only a trial could determine them as criminal..And as everyone knows the US does not recognize the world court as a viable entity, so a trial by it, or by a Geneva type tribunal/accord is most likely out of the question....see analysis of statement #4 Statement #2. "For everyone who considered France and other countries honorable by refusing to participate." France chose to resist joining the "allies" for several reasons..Some of them may have been dishonorable. New information about the oil for food program and kickbacks by a few French businessmen, and politicians may have helped a little in their refusal to join in the fight..But.. The vast majority of the French population was against the invasion...A poll taken in March of 2003 showed that 87% of the population was against their country joining in on the invasion. I seems, for the most part that the French government followed the wishes of the citizens of its countrymen Statement #3 "For those who hold up the UN as a symbol of what's right and decent in the world... I have read most of the charter...and feel that if it is followed as written, that it is "a symbol of what's right and decent in the world" The problem with creeds and bylaws is that they are carried out by human leadership, and that makes them fallible...as is our own constitution and bill of rights, when those great documents are interpreted by people who manipulate the words of them to further their own personal agendas. Statement #4. "For everyone who applauded Kofi for condemning US actions" Annan was asked by an interviewer (BBC World Service 9/16/04), if he thought the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal....he said "I've indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal" Note that he said "our". To me that says that at least some or most of the other members stand in agreement, and it is not only his opinion. That seems to me, not a condemnation, but a statement of opinion based on the Signature of the representative of the United States that signed the original charter document..that signature (in the eyes of the UN and also mine) is a promise to uphold and obey the rules and laws of the organization.. Perhaps it should be considered as a breach of contract? Statement #5 "For everyone who believes the US should take no action without UN approval." I have not heard this stated by anyone on the left or anywhere else in those terms...If there is some documented evidence that shows this was stated, please post the website here, or e-mail me with the information...Implications or statements made and taken out of context, will not be considered evidence by me..I desire only the facts ...I want names and dates, and exact dialog. In my mind, (The idea of taking no action without approval of the U.N.) is a deceptive statement made by the wars promoters, with the hope that it might strike up further hate for the U.N. and block the progress of that organization...Kudos to Rove and his Madison Avenue think tank/advertising, spin doctors for thinking up another way to sell their war as they do other commodities. Back to facts, and away from opinion.. The U.N. Charter does not state that memeber/states must ask permission to defend themselves, in any manner feasible to protect its citizens and property, on its own sovereign land.. What it states is that for a member/state to make a strike (against a threat) it must be brought before the UNSC to be to be voted on and found acceptable or legal by the results of that vote...If a consensus is not reached, then the UN rule is that the proposed invasion is to be deemed illegal (if acted out by the proposer.) The language is clear, that no sworn member can position itself in a combat situation (on foreign soil) without a consensus of the members of the UNSC, and not break the spirit of the charter. Peace_________ice |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you for your participation, Ice.. "For everyone who believes the US should take no action without UN approval." I have not heard this stated by anyone on the left or anywhere else in those terms...If there is some documented evidence that shows this was stated, please post the website here, or e-mail me with the information...Implications or statements made and taken out of context, will not be considered evidence by me..I desire only the facts ...I want names and dates, and exact dialog. That comment was directed at members here who have expressed that exact view in several of the many threads we have had in the Alley dealing with either Bush or the Iraq war. You can believe me they exist.... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ron, Brad understood my point: WMD = guys…, wanting to kill masses and willing to train and kill themselves for the chance. John |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I will certainly defer to facts and also readily admit I am not an expert on the U.N. "The U.N. Charter does not state that memeber/states must ask permission to defend themselves, in any manner feasible to protect its citizens and property, on its own sovereign land.." The way I was taught some years ago was the U.N. was not supposed to be able to intervene in the domestic policies of a country. If a country is attacked, they can defend "until the Security Council is notified" without seeking permission, but must immediately notify the Security Council. The country is then obligated to cede to the Security Council's authority. Since we are dealing strictly with facts. If one defends their own country contrary to the dictates of the Security Council the country will be breaking the spirit of the U.N. Charter. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Chapter 7, article 51 of the UN Charter: quote: That's a peculiar reading of this article, but maybe a few clarifications are in order: until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. This means when the attack is stopped. shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. That is, your complaint that they started it won't hinder the ability of the SC to stop the war. Nope, nothing in here arguing that you can't defend your country if you're attacked, nothing in here saying that the UN has any authority to tell you what to do if you are attacked. The idea, amazingly enough, is a fairly well understood doctrine both domestically and internationally. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/opinion/05sun1.html?oref=login quote: quote: Gee, you mean the illicit money were actually diplomatic moves in order to keep WMD's out of Hussein's hands. Gee, you mean the UN had nothing to do with it. And you know what, they worked! quote: So we're back to his son again. The editorial speaks of nepotism -- maybe, maybe not. But nobody cares about that,right? At least, not in the last four years or so. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
hmmm...that's two "last four years" digs in this thread. Mighty big burr under your saddle there, Brad  |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
"A report released in September by the Congressional Research Service said the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton, as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses, "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest." It seems to me, that some people are attempting to hang a guilty sign on the UN because of Kofi's son Kojo's actions, all because he profited from business dealings in the ME. And yet, some of those same people choose to downplay the monies Cheney and others continue to make from Halliburton and various oil related subsidiaries. Seems to me, it's another case of "your's stinks, mine doesn't" mind game. I have this feeling there will be many many other people whose names will show up on the dirty money trail, and many of the uncovered profiteers will be from this country. ~guilt by association, guilt by parenting~ Cheney/Haliburton=Kojo/Oil-for-food? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Uhhh, John? "WMD = guys…, wanting to kill masses and willing to train and kill themselves for the chance." Um, by these standards, shouldn't we have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
aha...the old "best defense is a good offense" ploy. Hey, Midnite, what does it matter? They are all just human |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
LOL, maybe I've been taking a few strategy lessons from you, Mike. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
one person's peculiar is another's plain reading and vice versa. If you do a little checking, it is not hard to find any number of folks who take the literal interpretation which is why I stated the "spirit" of the Charter. "Article 51 gives Member States the narrow power to defend themselves against a continuing armed assault until such time as the Security Council intervenes to maintain and restore peace and security." "Self-defence, therefore, naturally and primarily is a unilateral measure undertaken on a state's own behalf as an interim means of protection until those " collective measures" ensure the same protection of the individual state's right." Those happen to be legal interpretations, but heck fire, what would a lawyer know? (joke) In reality, does article 51 mean that any nation would not protect itself even if the U.N. said otherwise? Of course not. They are either going to ignore article 51 or give it the interpretation they desire. History is replete with examples of countries ignoring the U.N. when they feel it is in their interests and in some cases, with just cause. Heck, as I recall the International Court just opined that Isreal can't defend itself against terrorists under the U.N. Charter as the terrorists aren't a country. I think I even recall some argument under the U.N. Charter that going into Afghanistan was illegal under the U.N. Charter. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
A slightly different slant than the NY Times http://www.commentarymagazine.com/SpecialArticle.asp?article=A11705017_1 |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Thanks Tim, The Oil-for-Food Scam “Based on the facts as I know them at the present time, the UN failed in its responsibility to the Iraqi people and the international community at large. The UN should not be surprised that the Iraqi people question the UN’s credibility at this time and any future role for the UN in Iraq. It will not come as a surprise if the Oil-for-Food program turns out to be one of the world’s most disgraceful scams and an example of inadequate control, responsibility, and transparency, providing an opportune vehicle for Saddam Hussein to operate under the UN aegis to continue his reign of terror and oppression. “ Claude Hankes-Drielsma Iraqi Governing Council “Already known, for example, is that two firms doing business with Saddam through Oil-for-Food were linked to financier Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, now on the UN’s own watchlist of individuals "belonging to or associated with" al Qaeda.” “The final perfidy, though, is not personal but political. The UN, in the name of its own lofty principles, and to its rich emolument, actively helped sustain and protect a tyrant whose brutality and repression were the cause of Iraqi deprivation in the first place. What can this mean? The answer may be simply that, along with its secrecy, its massed cadres of bureaucrats beholden to the favor of the man at the top, its almost complete lack of accountability, external oversight, or the most elementary checks and balances, the UN suffers from an endemic affinity with anti-Western despots, and will turn a blind eye to the devil himself in order to keep them in power.” |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-09-un-annan_x.htm quote: Hmmm, what to make of this? 1. Bush has his head in the sand? 2. Bush will deny it? 3. Kofi didn't do anything horribly wrong and is widely respectable and still maintains a kind of credibility. 4. Bush is finally starting to play politics. If it's three or four, I applaud the Bush administration. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I still have to wonder. Out of 190 other UN nations, why is it that the U.S. pays roughly 1/4 of all UN funding, not to mention the majority of people in the UN peacekeeping force? And then the funny thing: if the U.S. tows the UN party line, everything is copasectic. If the U.S. enforces party line, it's illegal. If the U.S. investigates UN corruption, it's a right-wing conspiracy. How many, of those 190 countries, have UN security forces patrolling the DMZ in South Korea? After all, the UN considers the Korean War (i.e. The Forgotten War) as a 'police action'. There have been many times that I wanted the U.S. to do what other countries wanted. Basically, yanqui go home. I know they mean any and all military presence, but I'm an all-or-nothing guy. So I've been for our military pulling out of countries. And our corporations, aid packages, economic incentive packages, favored nation packages...just completely pull up stakes and bring it all home. Let those other 190 countries foot the bill for once, instead of the oft-villianized U.S. Yeah, I know some will see this as 'take my toys and go home' mentality, but there have been so many times that the World Body [sic] has totally pissed me off. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
The United Nations is basically a political feel good fiction. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ali, Do your homework. America is the de facto leader of the world (When the UN began, we accounted for 50% of world GNP. Last time I checked we were still about 20% -- anybody want to check that for me ), its military is larger, or will soon be larger, than all other nations combined. The defense of the Korean peninsula was instigated by Truman. John, It's a deliberating body. The only political fiction comes from those who complain that it doesn't do what it can't do anyway. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Brad, "its military is larger, or will soon be larger, than all other nations combined." What is your source for this statement? Larger than India, China, North Korea? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I meant financially. We spend more money than all other nations combined. Source: Slate magazine Sorry, should have been clearer. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Brad, I just state what I feel and think, and I'll be the first to admit that often my facts don't line up like ducks in a row. What I was trying to get across, and obviously failing at, was the changing times. Yes, after WWII, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were THE main players. After the collapses starting in the late 80's, the U.S. became THE main player. Currently, China and India have enormous populations, large militaries (especially China), and are the largest purchasers of crude oil. Their economies are growing briskly. That's why I asked why it is that the U.S. continues to pay 1/4 of all U.N. funding, quite aside from the assumed political pull. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Fair enough. If you want to argue that we pay too much (when we actually do pay), I just think we need to understand how payment works. The UN, perhaps, fosters the illusion that all nations are equal. They aren't. Yet, it does offer one avenue for nations to discuss things. I get the feeling, listening to the complaints against the UN, that many believe the illusion more than the reality. I see the UN as a tool to further our national interest for, ultimately, what is in the world's interest is in our interest. I do wish that our government would use it more effectively. We used to be able to do that. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Yeah, and I was working under that illusion having forgotten about the Security Council. Now, if those five (England, France, U.S., Russia, China...I think those are it) were to foot the UN bill equally, then I'd have a bit less grievance, since currently, if one of those countries doesn't pay in full, they still have veto power. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
http://www.nationalreview.com/bayefsky/bayefsky200412130835.asp |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And the UN did nothing in E. Timor? You know, twenty years ago, replace "Arab and Islamic states" with "communists" and it would be the same complaint. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I put “UN did nothing in East Timor” in the search engine and the first on the list was: http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/archive/timor/interfet.htm “The UN’s own record when it comes to East Timor speaks volumes. When Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, the UN did not act. Despite a fine sounding resolution opposing Indonesia’s annexation and the deaths of 200,000 East Timorese, it did nothing for the next 24 years. It was only when independence looked like a real possibility as a result of the fall of Suharto and the massive struggles of the East Timorese themselves that the UN became involved. Then it brokered an agreement on East Timor’s future without a single East Timorese representative at the table. A deal was stitched up between the former colonial power Portugal and Indonesia which did not reflect the wishes of the people. The Indonesian government was given responsibility to maintain "security" for the referendum. The UN did nothing to disarm the militias. Why did the UN not intervene while the worst of the massacres and the destruction of Dili took place after the ballot? Because it was not in the US’s "strategic interests". "East Timor by itself?", said chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton to a US congressional committee last week. "I cannot see any national interest there that would be overwhelming ...that would call for us to deploy or place US forces on the ground in that area." The UN is part of the world imperialist set-up. Its history is one of either treachery or inaction. It cannot be relied on in East Timor or anywhere else. “ Somehow the US is held at fault because it did not want to commit US forces. Damned if we do, damned if we . . . [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (12-14-2004 12:23 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
So the Marxists are against the UN? Gee, I believe in the UN, or at least the idea. I guess I'm not a Marxist or a socialist. Do you think the UN should do more? I do too. We agree again. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer NEW YORK - A sweeping investigation of the U.N. oil-for-food program accused program chief Benon Sevan of a conflict of interest, saying Thursday his conduct in soliciting oil deals was "ethically improper and seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations. Although Sevan said he never recommended any oil companies, the investigation led by former U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Paul Volcker concluded that he repeatedly solicited allocations of oil from Iraq (news - web sites) under the program and "created a grave and continuing conflict of interest." Volcker also said there was "convincing and uncontested evidence" that the selection of the three U.N. contractors for the oil-for-food program — Banque Nationale de Paris, Saybolt Eastern Hemisphere BV and Lloyd's Register Inspection Limited — did not conform to established financial and competitive bidding rules. The committee concluded that Sevan solicited and received several million barrels of allocations on behalf of AMEP in 1998-2001. Those allocations generated $1.5 million in revenues, the report said. The saga continues..... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) ordered disciplinary action against the head of the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq (news - web sites) on Thursday, after a report sharply criticized Benon Sevan for "undermining the integrity" of the United Nations (news - web sites) through a "grave conflict of interest." The investigation report said Sevan solicited oil allocations from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime on behalf of a trading company between 1998 and 2001, and it raised concerns he may have received kickbacks for the help. Based on the report, Annan has decided to discipline Sevan and another U.N. official, Joseph Stephanides, who was chief of the U.N. Sanctions Branch, said Mark Malloch Brown, Annan's new chief of staff. Malloch Brown said the type of disciplinary action would be announced early next week but gave no details. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“The Iraqi Survey Group also found that supposed "humanitarian" imports under Oil-for-Food gave Saddam the ability to restart his biological and chemical warfare programs at a moment's notice. Spertzel said what scared him the most in Iraq was the discovery of secret labs to make deadly weapons like the nerve agent, sarin, and the biological poison, ricin, in spray form. "If that were released in a closed [area], such as Madison Square Garden or, even some, some of your smaller closed malls, shopping malls, it would have a devastating effect … killing hundreds or thousands," Spertzel said.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147046,00.html |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Sorry |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
