Oil-for-food: The United Nations Exposed - Page 2 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 11-03-2004, 10:32 AM

Bumping for YNKYH8R

YNKYH8R · 11-03-2004, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

One of the documents, known as ``the exempt list'' and obtained by AP from congressional investigators at the House International Relations Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., catalogues companies personally approved by Saddam and top lieutenants to circumvent Iraqi regulations to sign deals. The list contains hundreds of names of companies from more than two dozen countries.

No French, Chinese or American companies are on the list, but more than 280 Russian and 100 Saudi companies account for well over half of the list. The investigator who provided the document to AP said Congress might not have the full list.

Earlier this month, the top U.S. arms inspector, Charles Duelfer, published a report that listed foreign companies and individuals who had received vouchers for oil contracts under the U.N. program from the former Iraqi government. The report said Saddam himself approved companies.

Duelfer's report alleged that Saddam's government had used the oil vouchers to both solicit kickbacks and to reward countries and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq's political goals. Companies and individuals from Russia, France and China dominated the list.
A handful of obscure companies from Western countries including Germany, Belgium, Cyprus, Italy and Switzerland appear on the list. Over 250 companies appear on Saddam's blacklist, obtained from an Iraqi Health Ministry official, according to congressional investigators. The document also details reasons the companies lost favor with the Iraqi government. Dozens of the companies are blasted for ``dealing with the Zionist entity,'' apparently referring to Israel.
One contract in English obtained by AP from investigators required companies given deals with the Iraqi government to sign a pledge that says, ``We hereby confirm our commitment and pledge not to deal with Israel.''

American companies Johnson & Johnson, Hewlett-Packard Co., and Eli Lilly and Co., make the list for this reason and Agilent Technologies Inc. - which was spun off from Hewlett-Packard - is accused by Vice President Ramadan of changing its name from Hewlett-Packard to ``enter into Israel,'' according to the document.

So there are some inconsistencies. First they aren't dealing with the French and the Chinesse, then they aren't.

Then we find out the American companies are on the 'black list' because we deal with Israel
This shows two things.
1. Individual companies in countries were subverting the oil-for-food program. This articles fails to show where the UN knew anything about it until later. Therefore it is not the UNs fault if other countries who operate inside the UN are caught doing illegal activities.

2. America was, apparently, the only country adhearing to the oil-for-food rule. Leaving us out of the loop for oil vouchers. I'll bet you that the US Government was pretty pissed they weren't in on the deal also.

So basically every country was in bed with Iraq but us, and we're pissed at the UN?
I'm not surprised we were on their black list after we dealt arms to Iran and Iraq during th Iran/Iraq war.

Jolie Rouge · 11-15-2004, 06:15 PM

Probe: Saddam Made $21B From U.N. Program

WASHINGTON (AP) - Saddam Hussein's regime made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N. oil-for-food program - more than double previous estimates, according to congressional investigators. ``This is like an onion - we just keep uncovering more layers and more layers,'' said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., whose Senate Committee on Government Affairs received the new information at hearing Monday.

New figures on Iraq's alleged surcharges, kickbacks and oil-smuggling are based on troves of new documents obtained by the committee's investigative panel, Coleman told reporters before the hearing. The documents illustrate how Iraqi officials, foreign companies and sometimes politicians allegedly contrived to allow the Iraqi government vast illicit gains. The findings also reflect a growing understanding by investigators of the intricate schemes Saddam used to buy support abroad for a move to lift U.N. sanctions.

Coleman said the probe is just beginning and that officials aim to discover ``how this massive fraud was able to thrive for so long.'' He said he is angry that the United Nations has not provided documents and access to officials that investigators need to move ahead. Officials must get to the bottom of the allegations because, among other things, it will help the international community to better design future sanctions programs, some senators said. ``That humanitarian program was corrupted and exploited ... for the most horrible and aggressive purpose'' of raising money for Saddam's military, said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.

But the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said ``for the most part the U.N. sanctions achieved their intended objective of preventing Saddam from rearming and developing weapons of mass destruction.''

Saddam's military spending plummeted after sanctions were imposed in 1991 to a fraction of what it had been before, he said, adding that the vast majority of illicit income was from publicly disclosed trade agreements that the world well knew about ``but winked at.''

``Saddam Hussein attempted to manipulate the typical oil allocation process in order to gain influence throughout the world,'' Mark L. Greenblatt, a counsel for the Senate panel's permanent subcommittee on investigations, said in prepared testimony obtained by The Associated Press. ``Rather than giving allocations to traditional oil purchasers, Hussein gave oil allocations to foreign officials, journalists, and even terrorist entities, who then sold their allocations to the traditional oil companies in return for a sizable commission.''

The reference to terrorist groups referred to evidence that the regime had allocated oil to such organizations as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Mujahadeen Khalq, a group seeking to overturn the government of Iran, Greenblatt said. Previous estimates - one from the General Accountability Office and the other by the top U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer - concluded that Saddam's government brought in $10 billion illicitly from 1990 to 2003, when sanctions were in place.

But congressional investigators found that vastly more oil - totaling $13.7 billion - was smuggled out of Iraq than previously thought. Investigators also raised the GAO's estimate of $4.4 billion in oil-for-food kickbacks by $200 million, and said the regime made $2.1 billion more through a scheme where foreign companies imported flawed goods at inflated prices.

According to the documents, the Iraqi government signed deals to import rotting food and other damaged goods with the full understanding of the exporting companies, who accepted payments for top quality products while kicking back much of the price difference to the Iraqi regime.

The panel estimated that such substandard goods accounted for 5 percent of all goods imported under the oil-for-food program, which was put in place in 1996 amid concerns that the Iraqi population was suffering from lack of food and medicines under the sanctions. The rough estimate ``is drawn from anecdotal information provide by officials of the former Iraq regime, the United Nations, and U.S. government officials,'' the panel said.

The total estimate of illegal revenue also includes $400 million from interest earned from hiding illicit funds in secret bank accounts. Another $400 million in illicit revenue grew out of pricing irregularities and kickbacks in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.

The Senate panel is conducting one of several congressional probes into alleged illegal profiteering in the oil-for-food program after allegations of corruption came to light earlier this year when Saddam was driven from power during the U.S.-led invasion. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker heads a panel that's conducting an independent investigation.

Associated Press reporter Desmond Butler contributed to this story from New York.

11/15/04 13:08

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...20030205XUN110

LuvBigRip · 11-17-2004, 01:01 PM

Probe: Oil-for-Food Money Went to Palestinian Bombers' Families

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

WASHINGTON — Money from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (search) helped pay the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, the House Committee on International Relations is expected to reveal Wednesday during a hearing on corruption in the Iraqi relief program.

Investigators working for Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the panel, are expected to say they have traced funds from former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's (search)kickback scheme through a Jordanian bank and into the hands of families of bombers who attacked Israeli citizens.

It has long been established that Saddam paid bounties of $15,000 to $25,000 to the Palestinian families of the murderers. Hyde's committee will reveal at the hearing that some of the reward money was deposited from illegal profits Saddam made by demanding 10 percent kickbacks on all the contracts of companies that did business with the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program.

Those funds were then deposited with other Iraqi money, such as Jordanian Oil-for-Food oil payments, into the Central Bank of Iraq account in the Rafidain Bank (search) in Amman, Jordan. The funds were then transferred to another account in the bank controlled by Iraq's ambassador to Jordan Sabah Yaseen (search). It was from Yaseen's account that Saddam's officials would cut and hand out checks to the homicide bombers' families, Hyde's investigators are expected to say.

Corruption Spreads Outward

As congressional inquiries continue into the scandal-ridden Oil-for-Food program, more evidence has come to light revealing how Saddam was able to funnel more than $21 billion away from the food and medicine program into the pockets of criminals.

"In essence, the Hussein regime created a system of kickbacks, as we have heard today, skimming schemes and smuggling operations to bilk the international sanctions regime of all its potential value and profits," Juan Carlos Zarate, an assistant secretary at the Treasury Department, told lawmakers on Monday.

"He used the implements of the state, the Central Bank, commercial enterprises and his diplomatic and intelligence assets to help skirt international restrictions. In some cases, he used this system to attempt to procure weapons and other banned goods, all in an effort to fortify his regime," Zarate said.

According to U.S. officials, the former Iraqi leader spread billions of dollars around the globe, particularly targeting France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (search).

While diplomats from those three nations deny they were bought off, and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search) says he doesn't believe they were, Saddam's oil voucher scheme was aimed at ending sanctions, and a CIA report revealed that Saddam was very generous to his friends and supporters.

According to U.S. investigators, Saddam was able to set up a system of rewarding sympathizers and supporters with pieces of paper that entitled them to sell allocations of Iraqi oil to real oil companies at an instant profit, sometimes earning in the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars. Saddam allegedly even personally picked the lucky recipients as a reward for their support.

Witnesses at the Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (search) told lawmakers Monday that Saddam got away with the scam because the Security Council made the mistake of letting him pick the buyers and sellers of Iraq's oil, which in effect let Saddam nearly completely control the relief program.

Subcommittee chairman Norm Coleman of Minnesota suggested that a lot of businesspeople wanted to play ball with Saddam, and cited the case of a well-known multinational corporation, Weir Group (search), which sells oil equipment. That company did $80 million worth of business under the Oil-for-Food program but Coleman said the company inflated one big contract by 30 percent and admitted it knew the extra money was going to Saddam.

In another example, the Al Bashier Trading Company (search) was apparently run directly by Saddam's regime, say officials. In that situation, Saddam made money by selling items to himself. Al Bashier allegedly secretly took the Oil-for-Food money to buy weapons.

In a different situation, Saddam also ran Corsin Financial Ltd. (search), a front company whose money is now missing. Saddam presumably grabbed the money and used it to pay for his palaces, bolster his corrupt regime and go on a weapons-buying spree.

United Nations Keeps a Tight Lip

In essence, say investigators, Saddam relied on a sophisticated worldwide financial network of both legitimate and shell companies to earn billions in illegal profits. One official who allegedly received such a voucher was the Oil-for-Food program's former director, Benon Sevan (search). He has denied the allegation, but the Senate panel wants to pull him in to discuss the accusations.

At the hearing, Charles Duelfer (search), who now heads the weapons inspections team in Iraq, told Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the investigations subcommittee, that he believes Sevan likely did get the vouchers.

"The Iraqis firmly believe that," Duelfer said. "I would conclude with high confidence from the data that the Iraqis provided, from all we saw, that that happened."

Annan has promised Sevan will cooperate with the U.N.'s own investigation, but it's not clear what Sevan would do if subpoenaed by the Senate, and he could claim diplomatic immunity to avoid testifying or even meeting with senators.

Coleman's subcommittee has also wanted to meet with U.N. officials to discuss their Oil-for-Food audits. But the U.N.'s chief in-house investigator, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker (search), has refused to disclose information to any Senate panels, saying that to do so now would hurt his investigative efforts.

Volcker claims that "partial and premature disclosures of sensitive internal documents or demands for congressional appearances of U.N. employees will be damaging to the pursuit of investigative leads, chill participation of those called upon to cooperate, and risk misleading, prejudicial and unfair impressions on institutional, personal and member-state behavior."

YNKYH8R · 11-17-2004, 02:18 PM

Quick question for anyone...are Palestinian's muslims? And if they are how do they differ from the Sunni and Sh-ite?

LuvBigRip · 11-17-2004, 02:29 PM

Palestinians are mostly Muslim. But like with any nationality, they have Christians and so on within the race. Shi-ite and Sunni are tribes within the Arab clans. They are also mostly Muslim, with Christian faiths intermixed. The difference, if I am not mistaken is the type of Islam they subscribe to. There are hardliners and more mainstream muslims, as with any faith. But the predominant faith within the Arab world, is Islam. Sunni, Shi-ite, Palestinians, Saudi's, Kuwaiti's and many many more fall into that category.

Jolie Rouge · 11-17-2004, 03:30 PM

Oil-For-Food - Much Worse Than We Thought
by Gary D. Halbert
November 16, 2004

last wrote about the “Oil-for-Food”program in Iraq in May shortly after the United Nations (UN) engaged former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to conduct an internal investigation of the scandal. Only limited attention was focused on the scandal at the time, as the media was busy trying to get John Kerry elected president.

When I wrote my E-Letter on the subject in May, we were told that Saddam Hussein and his cronies in Iraq and elsewhere had skimmed $10-$11 billion from the Oil-For-Food program, which was supposed to be a humanitarian effort to get food and medical supplies to the beleaguered Iraqi people. At that time, I said this was the largest financial scandal in history.

The United States Senate, to its credit, figured out that the Volcker investigation into the scandal was not going to get very far, since Volcker has only limited powers and no subpoena authority to go after the bad guys in the UN. So the Senate launched its own investigation, which has received little attention due to the election. But now, the facts are starting to leak out.

On Monday, we learned that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations now believes that Hussein and his cronies pocketed in excess of $21 billion, more than twice the $10 billion reported earlier, from the Oil-For-Food program. And it will probably get even larger.

We also learned that the Senate has requested over 50 Oil-For-Food documents and registers from the United Nations, and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is stonewalling. So far, he has refused to turn over the documents. The good news is, this will likely lead to the resignation of Annan before this is over.

The trouble is, much of the billions that Hussein skimmed from the program is unaccounted for. The fear is that some of that money may now be in the hands of terrorists and insurgents that are battling our troops in Iraq. Given the scope of this unfolding scandal, we revisit the topic this week, including excerpts from my May 25 issue in which I explained how the scandal worked.

The Oil-For-Food Scandal Widens

Until this week, we had been told that the Oil-For-Food scandal allowed Saddam Hussein to pocket some $10 billion in illegal profits that he used to build palaces and purchase military arms and equipment. Senator Norm Coleman who is heading the Senate investigation said on Monday that the hearings to be conducted this week and beyond will reveal that Hussein illegally pocketed over $21 billion from the program.

About all we have learned from the Volcker investigation is that the scandal involved some 248 companies that bought Iraqi oil since the program began. Volcker also released a list of 3,545 firms that sold humanitarian goods to Saddam Hussein’s regime during the seven-year Oil-For-Food program.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is demanding a full and complete independent audit of the UN’s Oil-For-Food records, and has requested over 50 specific documents. So far, Kofi Annan is stonewalling. That has led to increasing pressure for Annan to resign his post as the head of the UN. There is a very good chance that will occur shortly.

As I will discuss below, the largest benefactors from the Oil-For-Food – other than Saddam Hussein and his cronies – were Russia, France and a host of other players. This explains why France and Russia were so opposed to the war in Iraq. We can only hope that all the facts are revealed in the weeks and months just ahead, and that the UN and the other major players are properly discredited! And we will hopefully learn, finally, if Saddam used his Oil-For-Food billions to fund terrorists.

Doomed From The Very Beginning

The UN Oil-For-Food program was established after the Gulf War in 1991 and was designed to allow Iraq to sell enough oil to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, such as food, medical supplies, essential services, etc. The program was never intended to line the pockets of Saddam or benefit his cronies around the world, which sadly is exactly what it did for many years.

As with many UN programs, Oil-For-Food was poorly structured, thus allowing for massive abuses. The nature and scope of these abuses were so grievous and so widespread that the Oil-For-Food program is proving to be the greatest financial scandal in history. This incredibly huge scam crosses borders, religions and political ideologies, uniting those involved in plain and simple greed.

What’s most stunning are recent revelations exposing those at the UN and elsewhere who were primarily responsible for the abuses, and who participated in this massive fraud. In short, many in the UN administrative infrastructure and many of its members have been blatantly corrupt, as have some of our so-called “allies” around the world.

While many in the UN loudly criticized our efforts in the War on Terror as inhumane, at the same time they were skimming millions from the Oil-for-Food program and thereby depriving the Iraqi people of needed food and medicine. Is it any wonder there was such opposition to the US invasion of Iraq? No, it was simply bad for business!

There is a massive cover-up underway at the UN, and the media is cooperating as always. Despite the latest revelations from Volcker and what is emerging from the Senate investigation, we hear only scant soundbites in the media about this enormous scandal. If all the facts in this scandal actually see the light of day, the UN will emerge discredited, weakened, and very possibly, broken. Maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

Jolie Rouge · 11-17-2004, 03:45 PM

The United Nations Exposed As Corrupt

A Rasmussen survey earlier this year showed that only 38% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the UN, while 44% have an unfavorable opinion. These favorable/unfavorable numbers were quite surprising to the media, but probably not to most of you reading this E-Letter. The unfavorable numbers are almost certain to rise in the near future as the scathing details of the Oil-For-Food scandal are finally exposed.

If you are surprised by the recent revelations about Oil-For-Food, you really shouldn’t be. After all, the UN is comprised in large part of representatives of small, poor Third World nations, many of which are inherently corrupt and anti-American. The fact that corruption would be found in the UN really shouldn’t surprise anyone. Nor should it surprise us that the UN has had a history of anti-American activity.

In 2001, for example, the United States was removed from the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR) for the first time since 1947 in favor of Sudan, one of the world’s absolute worst human rights violators. (You can check out Sudan’s human rights record by clicking here.) By the way, Sudan was recently granted another term on that commission! This is only one of many such examples, so it’s not a stretch to see how a UN organization could be so corrupt.

When it was conceived, the Oil-For-Food program was intended to be a humanitarian mechanism. Prior to its full implementation, Iraq was subject to extremely stiff trade sanctions resulting from Saddam’s defiance of UN weapons inspectors. The Oil-For-Food program provided basic relief in the form of limited crude sales with the proceeds to be used for humanitarian purposes. In the beginning, the program was well intentioned, seeking to bring relief in the form of food and medical supplies to the Iraqi people. After all, it didn’t seem fair to punish the citizens of Iraq for the crimes of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.

Unfortunately, this program rapidly turned into a complicated kickback scam that allowed Saddam to bribe political figures and institutions around the world, as well as fuel his notoriously evil rule and his military. The tangled web of deceit extended beyond the UN and the governing body of the Oil-For-Food program itself, and also includes several of our so-called “allies,” as you will read below.

How This Information Came to Light

The corruption in the Oil-For-Food program had long been suspected. A June 20, 2003 article by Marc Perelman on The Forward Internet website discussed doubts about the Oil-For-Food program and suggested that some of the money was being used to fund terrorism (more about this later). In part, Perelman said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Perelman

“The now-defunct program allowed Iraq to buy food and medicine with its oil proceeds under U.N. supervision. Although the oil sales in question were legal and approved by the U.N., several observers say the system involved kickbacks and was used by Saddam to buy political support and to finance intelligence activities and even terrorist groups.”

Concrete evidence came to light in December of 2003. While advising the Iraqi Governing Council, Claude Hankes-Drielsma, the UK Chairman of Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, sent an urgent fax to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UK Chairman of Roland Berger Strategy Consultants

“As a result of my findings here, combined with earlier information, I most strongly urge the UN to consider appointing an independent commission to review and investigate the Oil-For-Food Programme. Failure to do so might bring into question the UN’s credibility and the public’s perception of it… My belief is that serious transgressions have taken place and may still be taking place.”

Mr. Hankes-Drielsma was shown various documents at the Iraqi Oil Ministry that strongly indicated major abuses in the Oil-For-Food program. These documents reflected both individuals and institutions that Saddam rewarded with allocations of Iraqi oil.

[b]How The Scam Worked [//b]

From its inception, the Oil-for-Food program was riddled with flaws and loopholes, opening the door for the grievous abuses that followed. One of the major flaws was that Saddam Hussein was given the right to:
1) select the parties who would buy the Iraqi oil;
and
2) select the suppliers of the humanitarian aid.
Hussein was also allowed to set the price at which Iraqi oil would be sold.

All the seeds for a giant scandal were put into place. Hussein had the ability to determine with whom to deal and set the official price of Iraqi oil. Furthermore, the rules did not force Hussein to deal directly with the end-users; instead, he was allowed to sell oil through middlemen. For political purposes, Hussein would sell the oil at a discount to his chosen middlemen and they, in turn, sold it to the end-users at market prices, thus pocketing huge profits. Nice work if you can get it!

Hussein then pocketed billions from the oil sales and built palaces and purchased military equipment and arms. It is also suspected that he used some of the money to fund terrorists. Much of the money is still unaccounted for.

Another flaw in the program was that all deals were confidential between Hussein and the UN. Under this arrangement, the UN was not to examine the contracts for Iraqi oil except between the Iraqi Oil Ministry and the first purchaser. Until recently, the UN maintained that it had no idea that the oil was being sold at significant discounts in many cases, or that the middlemen were adding surcharges to the contracts awarded them by Saddam. Therefore they went totally unnoticed by the UN. Yeah, right!

In one alleged example, UN Oil-For-Food administrator Benon Sevan was granted an allocation of 7.3 million barrels of Iraqi oil, on which he could expect to make a [b]$3.5 million profit. Not a bad take for an international bureaucrat! For a graphic representation of how the scam worked, click here.

The US General Accounting Office initially estimated that Hussein skimmed as much as $10 billion from the money that flowed through the program. As noted earlier, the ongoing Senate investigation reveals that Hussein pocketed over twice that much – over $21 billion. It all went either directly to Hussein personally or to supporters of the regime.

By bribing UN officials and foreign dignitaries, Hussein also guaranteed their silence as he used money for purposes other than the humanitarian aid for which it was designed. The UN also looked the other way when Hussein sold oil to other countries in excess of the amounts allowed by the Oil-For-Food program.

Who’s On The List?

The names and institutions on this list – that benefited greatly from the Oil-For-Food program - are so numerous and shocking that when they are all confirmed, this will prove to be the greatest financial scandal in history . According to Paul Volcker, as noted above, the list includes at least 248 companies that purchased Iraqi oil through the program.

From that list, three obvious favorites emerge. At the top of the list is RUSSIA, which is not really a surprise. The Russians have had a vested interest in Iraqi oil production for nearly 15 years. In documents released earlier this year, there are four pages of entries detailing voucher recipients in Russia that total over one BILLION barrels of crude . On the Russian side, the notable recipients include the “Director” of the Russian President’s office, other prominent Russian politicians and even the Russian Orthodox Church (why, how?).

Admittedly, Hussein owed the Russians tens of billions of dollars in loans, so it is not hard to see why the Russians would try to get some of their money back, even if through questionable or illegal means. Yet as the scandal is sorted out, it looks like much of the Oil-For-Food money may have simply lined the pockets of key Russian politicos to a great degree. This, of course, explains why the Russians opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning.

Finishing strong in second place behind the Russians in the Oil-For-Food scandal is none other than our long-time “ally” FRANCE! In documents released earlier this year, France’s oil vouchers account for 150.8 million barrels of crude and notable recipients include French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Patrick Maughien, who is a close friend of Jacques Chirac and head of Soco International oil company, and former French Ambassador to the UN, Jean-Bernard Merimee. This clearly played heavily into France’s opposition to the War.

More recent information indicates that Russia purchased $19.2 billion in Iraqi oil while Russian vendors received $3.3 billion in humanitarian contracts. French firms purchased more than $4 billion in oil and received $2.9 billion in humanitarian aid sales.

SYRIAcomes in third in the voucher sweepstakes, again not a surprise, as they have long been allied with the Hussein regime. There are 14 names in the Syrian column accounting for 116.9 million barrels of crude. Syria’s motivations are obvious, having been a hotbed of terror and anti-Americanism for years.

Jolie Rouge · 11-17-2004, 03:49 PM

Outraged yet? Wait, it gets better. Yet even more notable is Kojo Annan, the son of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Kojo Annan worked for a Swiss company, Cotecna, as a “consultant.” Cotecna was awarded a $4.8 million contract for the Oil-for-Food program.

The names go on and on: the President of Indonesia, the PLO, a member of the British Parliament, and even rogue American ex-patriot financier Marc Rich (who was pardoned by Bill Clinton). Needless to say this is a powder keg with global ramifications. The internal audit conducted by the UN revealed that tens of millions of dollars are unaccounted for.

Oil For Food For Terrorism?

There has been, thus far, modest media attention on this scandal, with the exception of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. That’s not unusual at all considering that the media in general adore the UN and will be hesitant to report any negative news until the evidence becomes overwhelming.

Earlier this year, Claudia Rosett of the Wall Street Journal quoted financial investigators as saying there are possible “terrorist connections” in the list of companies that did business under the Oil-for-Food program. She wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claudia Rosett

“Included are a remnant of the defunct global criminal bank, BCCI, while another was close to the Taliban while bin Laden was on the rise in Afghanistan, and a third was linked to a bank in the Bahamas involved in Al Qaeda’s financial network; a fourth had a close connection to one of Saddam’s would-be nuclear bomb makers.”

Fred Gedrich, a Senior UN and Foreign Policy Analyst at Freedom Alliance, believes that “the UN created an environment where Saddam could funnel large sums of money to terrorists and terrorist organizations to the detriment of humanity and civilization…”

The connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are still not completely clear. Hopefully, the Senate investigations will reveal these connections in the weeks and months ahead.

Conclusions

There was only token UN opposition to US military action in Afghanistan. But as we set our sights on Iraq, the protests began in earnest, even though Iraq had been openly defying UN resolutions for over a decade. Afghanistan was not bad for business, but Iraq was. The UN and allies like Russia and France wanted the Oil-For-Food sham to continue, as did Saddam Hussein.

It is outrageous that a world organization whose supposed mandate is one of peace and humanitarian assistance had, through the actions of some of its members and key administrators: 1) propped up a tyrant; 2) oppressed an already poor people; 3) defrauded the world; and 4) in the process, lined their own pockets, while directly or indirectly promoting anti-Americanism and possibly terrorism across the globe.

The UN has had anti-American tendencies for decades, but this blatant display is alarming. The United Nations has become a misguided echo chamber of bitter and corrupt Third World countries whose only chance at global influence is through the UN. It will hopefully be discovered that the UN is largely a criminal entity whose petty agendas are at odds on a global basis with freedom and democracy, and are certainly anti-American.

With the latest Senate investigations, we can hope that this scandal grows in intensity and visibility, and the UN is exposed as a corrupt, anti-American institution. As you can read below in Special Articles, it will clearly take more than Volcker’s investigation, which has no subpoena power, to get the truth out and expose all the culprits.

Maybe the US can use this as an impetus to finally remove itself from the UN, and maybe even insist the UN relocate to somewhere else beyond our shores. But maybe that is just wishful thinking on my part and that of other conservatives. In lieu of that, it would be nice to see a suspension of US payments to the UN and at least an indefinite US ‘abstention’ from UN sponsored programs and activities. Maybe that, too, is just wishful thinking.

At the very least, there should be a massive shake-up at the UN with indictments, arrests, convictions, increased scrutiny and a great deal of public shame. It’s definitely time for Kofi Annan to go!

On that note, did you hear that Bill Clinton said he might be interested in becoming the next UN Secretary General? Wouldn’t that be special! Maybe I’ll tackle that one in a future E-Letter.

Very best regards,
Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

The Senate versus the United Nations.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak15.html

Kofi Annan continues to stonewall investigators.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...3940-6516r.htm

How the Oil-For-Food Scandal worked.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133484,00.html

Is the Volcker Oil-For-Food Commission credible?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Int...ions/wm569.cfm

janelle · 11-17-2004, 04:07 PM

I heard about this on Rush Limbaugh today. You guys are GOOD. I come here and you already have all the info about it. And Kerry was going to have the UN tell us what to do in the war.

LuvBigRip · 11-18-2004, 12:40 PM

U.N. Response to Probe Troubles Senators

Friday, November 12, 2004

NEW YORK — Two U.S. senators investigating the U.N. Oil-for-Food (search) program have told U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (search) in a letter that they were "troubled" by his decision to withhold documents or witness testimony from lawmakers.

Sens. Norm Coleman (search) of Minnesota and Carl Levin (search) of Michigan sent a letter to Annan Tuesday in which they blasted Annan for "affirmatively preventing" their congressional panel from getting requested information.

"They are not providing access to U.N. personnel, not providing access to U.N. internal audits," Coleman told FOX News.

Coleman and Levin — respectively, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Governmental Affairs investigations subcommittee — want to know how Saddam Hussein was able to pocket an estimated $11 billion through payoffs and oil smuggling.

Click here to read the senators' letter as well as other related correspondence (pdf).

The lawmakers are asking Annan to hand over documents outlining why the consulting firm Lloyd's Register, a London-based company, was dropped in favor of a firm his son, Kojo Annan (search), once worked for. A Lloyd's official asked for U.N. permission to cooperate with the panel but was denied.

"The organization has no objections to a contractor responding to authorized subpoenas for records, documents, tapes or other materials, subject to certain conditions. I note, however, that in the present case, the requested cooperation would be entirely on a voluntary basis … Under the circumstances, the U.N. does not authorize the provision of materials or information relating to its contract with Lloyd’s Register," Bruce C. Rashkow (search), director of the U.N. general legal division, wrote to a Lloyd’s official on Aug. 31.

Both Annan and his son's company, Swiss-based Cotecna Inspection SA, have denied any wrongdoing, but Annan has also not yet made available audits that could detail who exactly was getting money. The Oil-for-Food program was started in late 1996 as a way to let Iraq sell some oil to allow humanitarian goods reach Iraqis but investigators now believe the program was a multi-billion dollar corruption scheme.

Asked about the senators’ letter, Annan’s communications director said he would look into the claims that his boss is not cooperating. The spokesman said the situation was "very awkward" and he called the senators’ communication "a troubling letter."

The Senate panel also wants to talk to Benon Sevan (search), the former head of the Oil-for-Food program. Sevan has been accused of receiving bribes from Saddam but he denies the charges.

"We have a number of questions we want to ask the individual in charge of the program and the most serious question that has been reported: ‘Why did you get these vouchers? What was the reason you got them in the first place?'"

Sevan has promised to cooperate with investigators and has denied any wrongdoing. But he has yet to agree to testify before congressional panels.

Coleman told FOX News he's angry that the United Nations has so far tried to block his investigation. Senate hearings start Monday.

The CIA and others say Saddam rigged a global network of bribes, payoffs and kickbacks, including hundreds of fake front companies, to earn his billions. The United Nations is conducting its own investigation, but that report is not due until next year.