1
   

The UN's Great Cash Cow

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 04:35 pm
Does anybody think anything is really going to come of all this? Who polices the UN?

Posted whole article from NY TImes - Registration required
_________________________
The Great Cash Cow
By WILLIAM SAFIRE


Published: June 23, 2004

"This was the biggest cash cow in the history of the world," says one of the insiders familiar with the $10 billion U.N. oil-for-food scandal. "Everybody ?- traders, contractors, banks, inspectors ?- was milking it. It was supposed to buy food with the money from oil that the U.N. allowed Saddam to sell, but less than half went for that. Perfume, limos, a shipment of 1,500 Ping-Pong tables, for God's sake."

Another whistle-blower, often on the "graveyard shift" of round-the-clock operations at the U.N.'s New York Office of the Iraq Program, explains the workings of the historic rip-off:

Well-connected international traders ?- called "the usual suspects" by low-level U.N. staff, who knew they often fronted for sellers of luxury products ?- would make their deals, including kickbacks, in Baghdad. Letters of credit, as many as 150 a day, would be issued in New York by the U.N.'s favorite bank, BNP Paribas.

But before the sellers, called "beneficiaries," could be paid (at Saddam's request, in euros, harder to trace than dollars) the bank required a C.O.A., "Confirmation of Arrival," from the U.N.'s contracted inspector, Cotecna of Switzerland.

"The key was Cotecna," says my graveyard source. "Ships were lined up at the port of Umm Qasr, stacks of containers already onshore waiting for inspection. You won't believe the grease being paid. The usual suspects got preferential treatment when the U.N. bosses in New York called the BNP bank to get Cotecna to issue a C.O.A. to release the money."

Last week, Secretary General Kofi Annan claimed that my reporting of what he told me at a luncheon was "a private conversation" (no such ground rule was set) and that "some are jumping to conclusions without facts, without evidence. It is a bit like a lynching, actually."

However, my call for a Congressional subpoena to overcome his attempt to limit investigation to his internal Volcker committee has flushed out a fact not hitherto disclosed. Annan's press aide complained to The Times that a subpoena had already been served secretly on BNP Paribas (the initials once stood for Banque Nationale de Paris) by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Although the U.N. had warned its bank, as well as Cotecna, the oil monitor Saybolt and all its other oil-for-food contractors, not to cooperate with anybody but Paul Volcker ?- and had blown off the House International Relations Committee's requests ?- Annan's advisers knew it would be unseemly and foolhardy to insist that its bank fight the Senate in court.

With his subpoena and investigation thus publicly revealed by the U.N., Chairman Norm Coleman of Minnesota, a Brooklyn-born Republican, felt free to take my call. "This is a major priority for us," he says. "There's a lot of stuff to cover, a big universe of documents, and we're being aggressive about it. Yes, Cotecna, Saybolt, all of them."

He sent out four "chairman's letters," countersigned by the ranking Democrat, Carl Levin, in early June. One was to the U.S. State Department for the minutes of the "661 committee" meetings at the U.N., which reviewed oil-for-food contracts (though not yet for copies of the contracts themselves). Another to the Government Accounting Office, which had first estimated the skimming at $10 billion. Another to Paul Bremer in Baghdad for copies of documents being turned over to the interim government ?- and the Senate still awaits a response; apparently the White House doesn't want to offend the U.N. Finally, a friendly letter to Annan about the subpoena that would require his bank to open its letter-of-credit files.

Now let's review the investigative bidding. The Senate seems serious; though Coleman is a freshman, the subcommittee staff is experienced and nonpartisan. The House is doing what it can. The U.N. allocated $4 million to Volcker, but he hasn't yet submitted a budget or announced a staff. The New York Fed defers to its old boss, and the New York State Banking Department is overdrawn.

But since this involves possible fraud, bribery and larceny on a grand scale, where is law enforcement? Interesting: the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, David Kelley, served subpoenas last week on Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and Valero about Iraqi oil purchases. That deals with the income side of the scandal, the money for Iraq (less kickbacks) supposedly to buy food.

I suspect Kelley was moved to empanel a grand jury by probable competition from the Manhattan district attorney, Robert Morganthau, on the scandal's payoff side. These two offices compete, and Morganthau's office has expertise on global banking.

Without imputing wrongdoing to any individual, I suggest investigators supplement their document search by talking to people who should be in the know. At the U.N., these include Benon Sevan's deputy, Teklay Afeworki, and at the bank, Pierre Veyres and Eva Millas-Russo.

But defenders of U.N. malfeasance can take heart. In a counterattack, our global servants hired an accountant to warn of "fraudulent acts" by the U.S. after it took over the U.N.'s mismanaged Iraqi oil account. Now, that will get media coverage.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/posting.php?mode=newtopic&f=21
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,579 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
Col Man
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 02:19 am
indeed.... who watches the watchers?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 03:54 pm
Okay, anybody have a good answer here? When the UN misbehaves, who has the authority to call them on it? It seems that in the oil for food scandal they are investigating themselves. Is this acceptable? Anybody know?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 04:25 pm
wow this is incredible, next thing you know the pentagon will be investigating the military prison abuse cases or maybe even the white house will investigate it's own release of confidential information about CIA employees. it boggles the mind. perhaps Cheney will investigate Haliburton overcharges in Iraq. Nah, not in america. lets see, 10 billion skimmed, odds are that at least 5 billion was payoffs to US and other companies for "services rendered" (all in the spirit of capitalism)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 04:36 pm
Or the US deciding whether or not it was legal to invade Iraq.

But, indeed, it is hard a to find independent investigators.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 04:38 pm
Bump

(duplicate post)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 04:41 pm
Only in America does the presented issue receive no attention, but serves as a trigger to bring up a half dozen or so other issues. And I'm not picking on you specifically Dys. The 'other side' does it as well and its just as frustrating.

I don't mind when comparisons are made in order to illustrate a point. I do mind when an issue is completely deflected and/or dismissed by the 'you/they do it too' or 'you/they do worse' defense.

In the issues Dys raised, however, we are policing our own resources, not those entrusted to us by others...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 04:47 pm
whew, Exxon Mobil Corp. and ChevronTexaco Corp. confirmed that they are among companies receiving a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York investigating alleged improprieties in the United Nations' oil-for-food program in Iraq, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 04:57 pm
I can't understand the inability or refusal to discuss the UN. Halliburton et al are given ample treatment on other threads.

Why do people refuse to discuss the UN?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 04:59 pm
I'm perfectly willing to discuss the UN. I do so all the time.

Perhaps you want more people to bash it (as opposed to merely discuss it)?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 05:18 pm
lets bash the UN and Bush on the same thread, It will be fun and we won't mention Clinton (he gets all the liberal press anyway)
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 05:27 pm
Craven--

Do you think the money funnelled through the OFF program colored the votes of those who received it?

Do you think members should continue to pay into funds administrated by the UN during the investigation?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 05:29 pm
sofia, any decent lawyer could tell you "never ask a question you don't want to hear the answer to"
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 06:19 pm
decent lawyer?

I did think there may be some of the un-conservative persuasion, who may have some criticism/opinion of the UN re the OFF program.

Its been verrry quiet on that front.

Guess the UN is above criticism here.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 06:30 pm
Sofia wrote:
Do you think the money funnelled through the OFF program colored the votes of those who received it?


What votes? Are you trying to allege that individuals who might have profited from the arrangement had Security Council votes?

Quote:
Do you think members should continue to pay into funds administrated by the UN during the investigation?


Of course. This has nothing to do with UN dues, and the corruption alleged has to do with purchases of oil that are wholly unrelated to UN dues.

So perhaps your question should be whether people should continue to purchase oil from Saddam Hussein.

That is currently not possible.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 06:34 pm
Sofia wrote:
decent lawyer?

I did think there may be some of the un-conservative persuasion, who may have some criticism/opinion of the UN re the OFF program.

Its been verrry quiet on that front.

Guess the UN is above criticism here.


This is silly. Many lefties criticize the UN, you are simply complaining that we do not share your opinon on this particular issue.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 06:45 pm
haven't seen anyone of the leftie persuasion criticise the UN handling of the OFF program.

I have only seen them change the subject.

You still don't address your opinion of the UN handling of OFF funds, or if the UN delegates of countries recieving funds voted for Saddam to remain in power due to the millions they, or associated entities, received...

How can I complain that opinions don't coincide with mine, if I haven't even seen opinions?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 06:50 pm
Sofia wrote:
haven't seen anyone of the leftie persuasion criticise the UN handling of the OFF program.


So? That's in line with what I said. Lefties have in fact criticized the UN and have in fact discussed the OFF program.

Your complaint is simply that people do not agree with you on this particular subject and join you in bashing the UN.

Quote:
You still don't address your opinion of the UN handling of OFF funds, or if the UN delegates of countries recieving funds voted for Saddam to remain in power due to the millions they, or associated entities, received...


Actually I have, or at least what I understand from this sentence.

No, I do not think the OFF played a part in any "vote for Saddam to remain in power".

But then again, there was no such "vote for Saddam to remain in power" and this is another deceitful fabrication.

Quote:
How can I complain that opinions don't coincide with mine, if I haven't even seen opinions?


Well, for starters you could whine about how you haven't seen enough opinions that correlate with yours.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 07:09 pm
I forgot one thing:

The USA was part of the sanctions committee that approved all the contracts.

Using Sofia's reasoning this should be a tremendous indictment of the USA and all of our motives and decisions in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2004 07:41 pm
Except the U.S. hasn't been included (for once) in the allegations that funds were misappropriated. Why is that, I wonder?

I don't know if there's anything to this at all, but there is an awfully lot of smoke. Usually a tiny wisp is all that is necessary to get a raging debate, discussion, diatribe, something going on many other subjects. Why not on OFF? I agree it has been mentioned here and there. But why so little passion? So little apparent interest on this?

For that matter, Craven, why are you thinking that this particular issue would not have einfluenced the votes on Iraq? What is your rationale for thinking that?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The UN's Great Cash Cow
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 08:01:38