perception,
The mods do their best and each side seems to think that all the untoward behavior is on the other side. My above comment was an attempt to prevent the "who is bad" discussion from ruining this thread.
It's a matter that neither side will ever agree on so it is kinda futile.
perception wrote:Surely you remember Walter----it all came out before the war started. The Un has taken in about $12 Billion as their cut for administering the "Food for oil" program.
You mean, they've got that 12 billion (American billion, I suppose) more - more than shown on their homepage?
Does that mean the UN is a for profit organization - like, say for instance, Halliburton or Bechtel (two other government organizations)?
How many do you want? Google shows 24,000 references--- here is one.
End the Oil-for-Food Program
by Dr. Nile Gardiner, and James A. Phillips
Executive Memorandum #879
May 16, 2003| |
The United States, United Kingdom, and Spain have jointly put forward a draft United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq and the phasing out of the oil-for-food program. France and Russia have opposed the move, arguing that sanctions should be lifted and oil for food ended only after Iraq has been declared free of weapons of mass destruction by U.N. inspectors and the United Nations has been given a lead role in shaping the future of Iraq.
The Bush Administration must resist the temptation to enter into a quid pro quo agreement with other members of the Security Council who are seeking a bigger role for the United Nations in post-war Iraq in exchange for supporting the U.S. resolution. A U.N.-controlled post-war administration would merely serve as a Trojan horse for European nations opposed to regime change, enabling them to stake their economic and strategic claims in Iraq.
Oil for food has become a cash cow for the U.N. and a lucrative source of contracts for Russian and French companies. The revenues from the past sales of Iraqi oil, now controlled by the U.N., are the sovereign property of the Iraqi people and should be turned over as soon as possible to the new Iraqi Assistance Fund, to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq.
Historical Background of Oil for Food
The oil-for-food program was established by the United Nations Security Council in 1995 "as a temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people" while economic sanctions remained in place. Of Iraq's population of 24 million, 60 percent are dependent on food shipments administered through oil for food. The program was briefly suspended on the eve of the Iraq War but has been resumed and extended until June 3.
According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1996 and 2003, the program generated over $63 billion in revenues for the Iraqi regime. The New York Times estimates that $13 billion is currently held in trust by the United Nations.
With little oversight from the U.N., the Iraqi dictatorship was able both to circumvent and to exploit the oil-for-food program. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), the Iraqi regime generated $6.6 billion in illicit earnings through surcharges and oil smuggling in the period between 1997 and 2001. Official United Kingdom estimates put the figure as high as $9 billion.
General Tommy Franks has aptly described oil for food as the "oil for palace" program. The U.S. government believes that the Iraqi regime used $2 billion of funds provided by the program to build nine presidential palaces. The British government's report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, published in October 2002, concluded that the Iraqi regime also used illicit oil revenues to develop its chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs.
Who Benefits from Oil for Food
European powers, including France and Russia, have called for the preservation of the oil-for-food program, largely out of economic self-interest. Although the program was established to benefit the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated it to reward countries that helped advance its diplomatic interests, particularly France and Russia. French and Russian companies stand to lose substantial business if the program is ended. The Washington Times reports that, according to U.N. records, Russian firms won about 21 percent of all oil-for-food deals in a recent six-month period. French firms pocketed 6 percent of contracts during the same period. The Times of London has calculated that over the last seven years, Russian companies received $7.3 billion of business through oil for food; French firms earned $3.7 billion.
Oil for food is the world's largest United Nations program. As Claudia Rosett pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, the U.N. oversees "a flow of funds averaging at least $15 billion a year, more than five times the UN's core annual budget." Oil for food is 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. has collected a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil sold, and this has generated 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 is now kept by several unnamed international banks, all approved by Saddam's regime. The program is shrouded in a veil of secrecy, with little transparency or public accountability. There is no system of external auditing or publishing of accounts. The identity of the banks holding the Iraqi funds is still kept secret.
Key Recommendations
Dealing with this problem effectively will require several actions. Specifically:
* U.N. sanctions against Iraq should be lifted immediately, not simply suspended. Washington must resist making concessions to Moscow and Paris on this issue.
* The Bush Administration should reject calls to link the lifting of economic sanctions and the ending of oil for food to the readmittance of U.N. inspectors to Iraq or the U.N.'s being given a central role in running post-war Iraq.
* All money held in escrow accounts by the United Nations should be handed over as soon as possible to the new Iraqi Assistance Fund.
* U.N. oil-for-food accounts should be opened to full public scrutiny by private-sector auditors in order to uncover possible financial and other irregularities. Measures should be taken against individuals and businesses that profited illegally from the oil-for-food program.
Conclusion
The spectacle of countries that bitterly opposed the policy of sanctions against Saddam's dictatorship attempting to preserve the sanctions regime and the oil-for-food program is utterly abhorrent. Iraq's oil revenues must be returned to the Iraqi people. Governments that tried to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein from power must not be permitted to blackmail the international community and hold the Iraqi nation hostage.
Dr. Nile Gardiner, is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, and James A. Phillips is Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs, in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
And this proves that the Un has taken in about $12 Billion as their cut ???
Nope, just that they are administrating a fund and that some dislike that.
The Oil-for-Food Programme was established by the Security Council on 14 April 1995. Some 3.4 billion barrels of Iraqi oil valued at about $65 billion were exported under the Programme between December 1996 and 20 March 2003. Of this amount, 72 per cent of the total was allocated towards humanitarian needs nationwide after December 2000. The balance went to: Gulf War reparations through a Compensation Fund (25 per cent since December 2000); UN administrative and operational costs for the programme (2.2 per cent) and costs for the weapons inspection programme (0.8 per cent).
Almost $28 billion worth of humanitarian supplies and equipment were delivered to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food Programme between 20 March 1997 and 20 March 2003, including $1.6 billion worth of oil industry spare parts and equipment. An additional $10 billion worth of supplies are currently in the humanitarian pipeline and are being delivered on a priority basis in consultation with the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraqi representatives and UN agencies and programmes.
Office of the Iraq Programme - Oil-for-Food
My mistake---$ one Billion , which represented 2.2 % of every barrel sold by Iraq-----There was $13 Billion held in trust to be disbursed by the UN. I draw your attention to this paragraph:
Until 2001, all Iraqi oil revenues were held in an escrow account run solely by Banque Nationale de Paris. The money is now kept by several unnamed international banks, all approved by Saddam's regime. The program is shrouded in a veil of secrecy, with little transparency or public accountability. There is no system of external auditing or publishing of accounts. The identity of the banks holding the Iraqi funds is still kept secret.
I don't think that administration of the fund at the UN end (sorry, couldn't help it
) was the problem. The problem was that the supplies were diverted once they reached Iraq. This was not a unique feture of Iraq. When we lived in Karachi, my mother often bought flour , powdered milk, cheese, etc.. at the Empress Market that was stamped with the UN logo. It had been purloined by corrupt government officials and re-distributed into the commercial arena.
Ask the UN to open it's books----is that unreasonable?
good idea perception and while doing that ask Bush to open his books. lots of people are interesting in lots of things like Cheney and his energy policy, like Iraq contracts to his buddies. the list is endless.
Coalition - the very word may be part of the problem. Coalition was used in order to get across the idea that it was not the U.S. alone - that there was world recognition behind it, to give it legitamacy. But what is the coalition? There's the British, the Australians, the Poles (to the tune of 2,000 troops (if they've sent them yet - and whom the Pentagon is funding), Spain, Mongolia, Latvia, Estonia,Romania,Hungary,Slovakia,Colombia, El Salvador,Bulgaria,Azerbaijan - more that I can't remember. Although Powell did his best to present them as the new power elite, nobody was fooled. These are not the countries that can supply troops and money.
Almost everybody recognizes the fact that using the word "coalition" is like saying Afghanistan has been brought peace and democracy.
The thing is, that through the machinations of the Bush administration, we have lost credibility and respect. Tere is no reason why the countries who can best help us should come on board without some kind of guarantee of return. They have stayed consistent; they were against this to start with, and their reasons were as valid as those of the U.S. for going in. More, as it is turning out.
So where do we go? Hat in hand to ask for help. But it won't happen. To do that, in the minds of this administration, would be showing weakness, in admitting they were wrong. And nothing at all in the make-up, decisions, or actions of these men in power indicate they would do that. Saving face is universal. Unfortunately for us, it looks like none care. I think the only way out is to get some new blood, some new thinking.
What is it with this administration? They have carried this macho image to the limit, and we are on the edge of explosion. Or implosion.
perception
You quoted the last paragraph from the UN-website?
To get-rich-quick capitalists, that is the only way of the world, and those who disagree are wrong.
dyslexia wrote:good idea perception and while doing that ask Bush to open his books. lots of people are interesting in lots of things like Cheney and his energy policy, like Iraq contracts to his buddies. the list is endless.
Actually, it's not only the USA, who are memebr in the Security Council.
But I do think, it's a good idea that every government should open all books etc to the public!
No Walter I quoted the last paragraph in the article that I presented.
Look it seems pretty obvious there was no accountability at the UN so who knows what went into who's pocket. I don't know about the accountability now.
William D. Hartung, a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute, writes in his article "Insiders Profit From Iraq":
Quote:[...]
The Bush administration has personal and financial links to companies that have profited from the war in Iraq. These firms include Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Alliant Techsystems, Halliburton, Bechtel and Dyncorp.
Given the clear and present conflicts-of-interest evident in the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq and the subsequent rebuilding effort, congressional action should be taken in a number of key areas:
Transparency and accountability
There should be a Senate investigation on war profiteering comparable to the one that Harry Truman conducted at the height of U.S. involvement in World War II, and legislation should be passed requiring all rebuilding contracts for Iraq to be subject to an open bidding process, unless the President can provide persuasive evidence of an emergency that precludes going through normal competitive processes.
Curbs on profiteering
The report calls for all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq to be on a limited profit basis, not the open-ended, cost-plus deals that Halliburton and other key U.S. contractors have received thus far.
Preserve Iraq's resources for the Iraqi people
Rebuilding contracts should be short-term, so as not to pre-empt the ability of a future democratic government in Iraq to make its own choices about how the country's resources should be developed.
Put the political money/favor machine on hold
To avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, President Bush and all of his challengers should take a pledge that they will not accept campaign contributions from companies that have profited from the war in Iraq, or the subsequent rebuilding effort.
[...]
Insider Profits From Iraq
Sigh...Mammaj, how many times must you be reminded...we can all rest easily because Iceland and Palau are on our side!
Do others recall that Slovenia, who opposed our effrots, still ended up receiving the "coalition geld" becasue the administration had them confused with the Republic of Slovakia?
Can you cite that? It sounds like a funny story.
Quote:I don't know about the accountability now.
But you consider yourself sufficiently well-informed to suggest that the UN profited to the tune of $12,000,000,000 from the oil-for-food program. Actually, your article suggests that France and Russia profited from selling foodstuffs, and someone had to do that for the Iraqis to obtain food for the oil sold. It also suggests that there was a lot of chicanery, but it was at the Iraqi end. That the program may have been mal-administered, and on a huge scale is one matter--to suggest that "the UN" (whomever that is supposed to represent) profited from this is quite another. Please note that this document comes from the folks at the Heritage Foundation--a truly "fair and balanced" source, n'est pas?
