The UN oil-for-food scandal

[Godless Dave]

Anti-UN Congressmen (as well as others hoping to jump on the anti-UN bandwagon, like my very own Senator Norm Coleman) have made much of a CIA report into alleged corruption in the oil-for-food program that was designed to allow Saddam's regime to sell oil in exchange for food and medical aid. But if you actually read the report, it turns out that there wasn't nearly as much corruption as we have been led to believe, and the entire program was administered by the Security Council, not the Secretary-General, so calls for Kofi Annan to be held responsible are misguided.

piece in the Nation

[Darren]

Yes, and doesn't it strike you as strange that, as the U.N. rebukes the U.S. over Falloujah, and as the U.N. General Assembly use their votes en masse to protest against the domination by the Security Council of the U.N. human rights agenda, this pops up again to discredit and further weaken the U.N.?

Moreover, Dennis Halliday, who oversaw the U.N. humanitarian efforts before resigning in protest at what he denounced as deliberate genocide by the U.S. and U.K. via the Security Council sanctions (his successor, Hans Von Sponeck did the same about a year later) denounced the program years ago as insufficient as it was.
He also rubbished the allegations at the time of the diversion of food from the program to Hussein as falsehoods coming from Clinton, Albright and Blair.
The sanctions were the real scandal, and the U.S. was the major beneficiary from the oil for food program.
Halliday also pointed out that 30% of the funds raised by the oil for food program went to Kuwait and individual Kuwaities as war reparations. 30%! The real scandal was the U.S. and U.K. refusal to allow medical supplies and equipment as well as fertilizers and other materials essential for the well-being of the Iraqis to enter the country.
This, when taken into account with the '91 bombing of sewerage and water infrastructure designed to cause suffering and disease in the Iraqi population, is what the allegations at the time were designed to gloss over. (And the water and sewerage infrastructures destroyed in '91 have still not been replaced).
Halliday assured any who would listen at the time that the food supplies were closely tracked by his group and that there was no scandal in that program. He also reckoned that over a million Iraqi children died as a direct result of the Security Council sanctions. That's why he (and his successor) resigned (although Albright went on record as saying it was worth it to get at Saddam).

And now allegations of food-for-oil scandals rise again, just in time for the U.S.
Apparently, the main allegations come originally from one Fadhil Chalabi, longtime American stooge in the Iraqi oil trade.
It was Chalabi who furnished the forged intelligence documents which the Pentagon used to justify the 2003 invasion, and it was also Chalabi who furnished forged documents to incriminate the British ant-war M.P. George Galloway in a bribery allegation.
So is it third time lucky for Mr. Chalabi? Unfortunately, the original proof has all been lost, according to Chalabi and his associates, but this won't deter our heroes from diverting public attention away from their own, very real, war crimes.
So it's still never-never land in Murdoch media outlets.

[Farren]

As the details emerge the faux outrage coming from certain quarters the US looks more and more like massive spin and political opportunism. The rest of the world isn't buying it, which is why Annan has received widespread support.

If anything, media and political response to this in the US is making that country seem more out of sync with the rest of the world and willing to twist any information to suit its agenda.

I think politicians and right-wing noise-makers in the States are accustomed to US opinions finding near-automatic and widespread accordance, regardless of their relationship and proportion to the truth. GW Bush has been so successful in tarnishing the perceptions that allowed this (largely inherited from the cold-war) that excessive vitriol and spin now has the reverse effect on most of the same audience.

IOW, the more belligerent bellowing goes on, the more damage is done to the USA's reputation.

I'm convinced (from one or two past discussions) there are a few proud Americans here who, notwithstanding their shared disdain for the current leadership, might perceive this post as simply being an anti-American rant. Its fairly obvious that I respect, admire and enjoy the company of the many US citizens that post here. So I have to add the following:

1. Yes, I can't help feeling a certain amount of shadenfruede when I read local opinion pieces in the SA press bearing out what I've written above - but not because of knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Rather, it's because I've appraised the ideology of the ideologues belching this stuff up and by and large it repulses me - the jingoistic nationalism, the blinkered view of the world, the cognitive dissonance and so on. So I would like to see it countered with the kind of disdain I think it deserves.

2. Notwithstanding my desire to see the unwholesome ideologues currently getting prime time airplay in the States countered, I long ago learned the dangers of seeing the world through the filters of desire. If I didn't think that the political consensus outside of the US was generally countering all the aggressive anti-UN postering, I would express regret rather than make up misconceptions. But from where I'm standing, it really does look like anti-UN sentiments from the States are having the reverse of the desired effect outside of its borders. Perhaps isolationists in the US don't care. Perhaps all they care about is convincing the local population to further isolate itself from global consensus?

[Edited to add]
Darren, we must stop meeting like this I hit post then saw you'd also pounced on it.

[Dingfod]

You won't find accusations of anti-Americanism coming from me. Nothing the U.S. government does or has done surprises me any more. However, I don't want to think about this right now. I've got more important things to think about, like Xmas gifts and bubble lights. I'll think about this tomorrow.[/Scarlett O'Hara]

[Shaguar]

Maybe Kofi is in the clear over this, somehow I doubt it though, however his non intervention in the Rwanda genocide is enough to taint him forever in my eyes, he knew and he stood by whilst 2 million plus were hacked to death

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by Shaguar

Maybe Kofi is in the clear over this, somehow I doubt it though, however his non intervention in the Rwanda genocide is enough to taint him forever in my eyes, he knew and he stood by whilst 2 million plus were hacked to death

The U.N. is impotent, in my view.

I've lost all respect that I once held for that organization...along with the notion of "pacifism" at all cost.

That may displace me with many people here (many people that I hold dear, I'll add), but that is the way it is.

Fwiw...I also refute the mismanagement and corruption of the US policy if that makes anyone feel better.

The world has never been black and white.

Take care.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Ronin

The U.N. is impotent, in my view.

Not entirely, but if it is impotent it's because powerful people in the US have made it so. It's one of their goals.

Originally Posted by Ronin

I've lost all respect that I once held for that organization...along with the notion of "pacifism" at all cost.

That may displace me with many people here (many people that I hold dear, I'll add), but that is the way it is.

I'm not sure there's anyone on this board that holds, or even respects, the notion of pacifism at all cost. I sure as hell don't. The UN certainly wasn't founded on that notion. It was founded on the idea that modern warfare is so destructive and horrific that strict limitations should be placed on when states should engage in it - mostly to protect themselves or others from the warlike.

[Ronin]

Not entirely, but if it is impotent it's because powerful people in the US have made it so. It's one of their goals.

I call bullshit on this one, GD.

The U.N. has had plenty of opportunity to act on behalf of humanitarian need and simply has not. Preferring more to wring hands and only offer more and more "stop or we'll say stop again" directives.

Please present direct evidence that "powerful people in the US have made it so. It's one of their goals" or retract such an empty (conspiratorial) assertion.

Not that I don't agree that the US is an influential force, but come one, I simply don't buy that it is so influential as to direct "all" UN matters so as to completely castrate it.

I'm not sure there's anyone on this board that holds, or even respects, the notion of pacifism at all cost.

I have not seen much evidence to the contrary by way of written view.

I sure as hell don't. The UN certainly wasn't founded on that notion. It was founded on the idea that modern warfare is so destructive and horrific that strict limitations should be placed on when states should engage in it - mostly to protect themselves or others from the warlike.

And when the "warlike" promote genocide, the U.N. has not done much to prevent it militarily (RE: Shaguar's post).

AI and HRW have been bemoaning the human rights violations in assorted regions around the world for years (including the Middle East) and, yet, no direct military action has been promoted and pro-actively sought by the U.N.

No one can really assert that the U.N. is much of a force for humanitarian aid if it does not find "some time to act" with military directive especially in light of such overwhelming current need.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I call bullshit on this one, GD.

Please present direct evidence that "powerful people in the US have made it so. It's one of their goals" or retract such an empty (conspiratorial) assertion.

Watch C-SPAN sometime and listen to the anti-UN rhetoric from Republican politicians. Remember all the crap they were saying about the UN and UNSCOM in the lead-up to the Iraq war?

Originally Posted by Ronin

Not that I don't agree that the US is an influential force, but come one, I simply don't buy that it is so influential as to direct "all" UN matters so as to completely castrate it.

We are as influential as Russia, China, the UK, and France in that we have a permanent seat and veto power in the Security Council. We are also influential as regards funding, as we have not paid our dues - dues we agreed to when we helped found the UN - in many years.

Originally Posted by Ronin

I have not seen much evidence to the contrary by way of written view.

Have you seen any evidence to the positive, ie that anyone here holds the notion of pacifism at all cost? Certainly not in my posts, and with the exception of lunachick I haven't seen anything like that view expressed here.

Originally Posted by Ronin

And when the "warlike" promote genocide, the U.N. has not done much to prevent it militarily (RE: Shaguar's post).

True. And this is partly the fault of the Secretary-General for not doing more to advocate action. But remember, the Secretary-General doesn't set policy, he administers. The Security Council makes all real decisions. The Security Council is made up of member nations, it is not an entity unto itself. And the most powerful nations on the Security Council are the five permanent members.

It seems to me you are blaming the Secretary-General for the failings of the Security Council.

I agree that the UN is limited in what it can do in many situations because of it's structure, not its personnel. It does not have a military force of its own. It cannot order or direct military intervention. This is because member nations do not want to give other entities control over their military forces or commit their people to a standing UN force, which is completely understandable. This is one of the difficulties in trying to form a cooperative entity out of sovereign nation-states, and I don't think it has a solution. Such an entity will always be limited in its power. But what alternative do you suggest? Going back to the way we did things in the 19th Century, only with vastly more powerful weapons?

[Farren]

I've heard the refrain "the UN is impotent" many, many times. Most times, the context seems to be purely military. I think its important to keep in mind that the UN houses, feeds, provides water, provides medical care and advice to and advocates on behalf of millions and millions of people.

I've worked with a couple of UN agencies and affiliates (NGO's receiving funding from the UN). For millions of people worldwide, the face of the UN isn't a blue beret. It's a plumber fixing a tap, a doctor, someone supplying food or the like.

[Darren]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I call bullshit on this one, GD.

Please present direct evidence that "powerful people in the US have made it so. It's one of their goals" or retract such an empty (conspiratorial) assertion.

Ronin,
Dick Cheney, in a filmed interview and speaking for the chickenhawks, said clearly that the American project was to establish itself unilaterally as the leading world power and to implement its (the U.S. admin's) agenda on a global scale "despite (the opinions of) any global consensus. It's perfectly clear that the global consensus he was referring to is the U.N. and in particular the General Assembly.
Moreover, the attack on Iraq was in defiance of the U.N. and was carried out under the administration Cheney was speaking for.
Otherwise, what GD says.
What more proof do you need?

[Zoot]

What's good for the many is good for the one. What's best for the one is bad for the many. Law always favours the weak. That's why the US doesn't want law.

[wade-w]

Originally Posted by Zoot

What's good for the many is good for the one. What's best for the one is bad for the many. Law always favours the weak. That's why the US doesn't want law.

This seems to contradict your arguments in your thread on "good."

[Zoot]

This seems to contradict your arguments in your thread on "good."

Not really. I don't mean "morally good" in this context. I mean, generally, in the sense of health and power.

What benefits the health and power of the many benefits the health and power of the one. What most benefits the health and power of the one is detrimental to the health and power of the many. Law favours those lacking health and power. That is why the US doesn't want law.

[flufeemunk]

...Yet at the same time, law favors those in entrenched power who control it.

I would have to say that my one beef with the UN is the reliance on sanctions, which are just plain cruel, and against the ideals which they were chartered on (see also the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights). The xenophobic climate in America these days outright sickens me, anyway. Even after the tsunami disaster, Bush is trying to sneakily undermine the UN by creating a coalition of asslickers so he can please multilateral elements and bypass those who aren't for Pax Americana.

Yech.