12 Comments

Roger:

That was interesting. A lot of facts and good commentary. I liked that little stab at France at the end.

I don’t think the UN will ever really recover from this scandal. I don’t mean it will just go away but this will help marginalize the institution. How can it not?

Thanks for the pointer, Roger. I’ve been trying to make this case to some of my ABB friends for a while. I sent them the link since I agree with you that its the best presentation of the case I’ve seen so far.

Odd that for all the scorn being heaped on the UN oil-for-food program, the U.S. and its appointed interim government have continued to use its food distribution system.

(We announced plans to scrap it, then backed off, fearing a public backlash if the new system wasn’t as effective. Damn the corrupt UN for coming up with a reliable way of feeding millions of people, I guess!)

Meanwhile, an official CPA audit finds $8.8 billion in Iraq oil funds missing during its tenure, and not a peep from the self-appointed watchdog(s) on this blog.

I suppose the rule here is that it’s okay to question the UN, but not to question our own government.

That’s not the rule with me, Swopa. Perhaps you are projecting. If the US government has cooperated with this, they are wrong. This whole mess must be explicated. No doubt the roots of corruption are deep.

Roger,

This passage is particularly well-written and damning (emphasis mine):

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. Certainly there is much in its history and its behavior to support this view.

Jamie Irons

Swopa:

You know I thought when I read this someone like you would say something about the audit.

Point is Swopa we did an audit, had it been left to the UN this food for oil scandal would never have come to light. I think that any graft should be dealt with but if you are going to give the UN a pass why go after anyone else? Works both ways.

BTW I have no real problem with the UN making itself useful considering the amount of money they absorb they should be more useful more often.

It is always amusing to read the constant way that Swopa misrepresents events. In the case of the audit mentioned above, the allegations are that the Iraqi ministries to which the CPA transfered funds cannot account for the expenditures. But Swopa likes to imply that the CPA itself has misappropriated the money.

I thought this was a very informative link. But for some of you I think it proves too much. First, I don’t see any specifics as to whether it was governments profiting by this oil for food biz as opposed to individuals. There have always been arms merchants and war profiteers and always will be. Hell, weren’t people trying to get reparations from Ford and GM for using slave labor in their German plants during WWII? That doesn’t mean their cars today aren’t worth buying (doesn’t mean they are either). Second, I don’t see any mention of Germany. Third, and here’s the main point: OK, the French and Russians have dirty hands in this. That in and of itself doesn’t justify the war. You can’t make that big a leap.

“The questions about Kerry’s character can not be answered by questioning what Bush did or didn’t do in the TANG.”

These are the words of somebody here on another thread, adopted I believe by Charlie (Colorado). The same logic applies here. Just because there’s an oil for food payoff scandal doesn’t mean that questioning whether the war in Iraq was wrongheaded, poorly conceived and managed, the result of neo-con hubris, etc., is wrong. It just means there are some dirty handed folks in France and Russia. Nothing more.

“Just because there’s an oil for food payoff scandal doesn’t mean that questioning whether the war in Iraq was wrongheaded, poorly conceived and managed, the result of neo-con hubris, etc., is wrong. It just means there are some dirty handed folks in France and Russia. Nothing more.”

It would seem to be that the anonymous person who wrote this is thinking in a limited manner and unable to make the most rudimentary connections. Perhaps he/she does not want to (or is afraid to) and thus prefers to remain anonymous. On the most simple level, this entire scandal raises obvious questions about the policies of France and Russia in the UN and if they ever had any intention or desire to remove Saddam Hussein, indeed if they sought his reverse as an economic ally. The implications of that are many that this “hollywood” person, obviously something of an ideologue, is loathe to examine.

These are the words of somebody here on another thread, adopted I believe by Charlie (Colorado). The same logic applies here. Just because there’s an oil for food payoff scandal doesn’t mean that questioning whether the war in Iraq was wrongheaded, poorly conceived and managed, the result of neo-con hubris, etc., is wrong. It just means there are some dirty handed folks in France and Russia. Nothing more.

Hollywood, I think you’re mistaking the argument. The fact that there were crooks in the Oil for Food program does not, as you say, necessarily prove that the Iraq war was justified. Consider, however:

- the fact that a good bit of that money has apparently gone to companies and individuals directly connected with the ruling powers in France, Germany, and Russia makes, at the very least, an awfully interesting co-incidental connection with the countries and ruling parties that we obstructing the UN action. If you want to know more about this, I’d suggest googling “TotalFinaElf” and “Chirac”. While you’re at it, google “Chretien” in that context.

- the fact that the UN itself was profiting mightily from the continuation of the sanctions and OFF program, and that members of Annan’s family were profiting personally, while the illicit kickbacks and “commissions” were depriving the very Iraqis Oil-for-Food was supposed to help, looks awfully suspicious. The UN has no particular reason to want to solve the problem, and about a billion dollars a year of reasons to want to continue the program.

So while questioning whether the Iraq war was in some sense wrong is not addressed by the OFF program’s flaws, suggesting that the French, Germans, and Russians — not to mention such fine pieces of work as George Galloway — were simply interested in World Peace And Understanding in obstructing action against Iraq is pretty ludicrous.

Hollywood:

If you would really like to know more about the allegations check it out with Ms Rosett’s work at WSJ, she really is the reporter that broke this.

As for whether this justifies the war, it is just one more reason that sooner or later something had to give. This is not saying it had to be war but I think the anti war movement is a little disngenious about the future options in regard to Iraq.

J K,

Interesting that you choose the French word “idealogue.” Sometimes they just have le mot juste. By the way, I don’t think I qualify.

Charlie,

Basically, I agree, but I don’t see where the poor Germans fit in this. I thought it was just the French and Russians.

terrye,

If there is an anti-war movement, it’s a shadow of its former self.