McTag
Is your question in code? Or is that a riddle that I am to repeat fast three times?
Oil, Food and a Whole Lot of Questions
By CLAUDIA ROSETT
[]resident Bush's call to lift economic sanctions against Iraq could mean the end of the United Nations oil-for-food program, which has overseen the country's oil sales since 1996. Not only are France and Russia likely to object, but they may well support efforts by Secretary General Kofi Annan to modify the oil-for-food system, which is due to expire on May 12, and give it a large role in rebuilding the country. Whatever Mr. Annan's reasons for wanting to reincarnate the operation, before he makes his case there's something he needs to do: open the books.
The oil-for-food program is no ordinary relief effort. Not only does it involve astronomical amounts of money, it also operates with alarming secrecy. Intended to ease the human cost of economic sanctions by letting Iraq sell oil and use the profits for staples like milk and medicine, the program has morphed into big business. Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined.
It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel — more than $1 billion to date — that is supposed to cover its administrative costs. According to staff members, the program's bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12 billion. With all that money pouring straight from Iraq's oil taps — thus obviating the need to wring donations from member countries — the oil-for-food program has evolved into a bonanza of jobs and commercial clout. Before the war it employed some 1,000 international workers and 3,000 Iraqis. (The Iraqi employees — charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein's imports and distribution of relief goods — of course all had to be approved by the Baath Party.)
Initially, all contracts were to be approved by the Security Council. Nonetheless, the program facilitated a string of business deals tilted heavily toward Saddam Hussein's preferred trading partners, like Russia, France and, to a lesser extent, Syria. About a year ago, in the name of expediency, Mr. Annan was given direct authority to sign off on all goods not itemized on a special watch list. Yet shipments with Mr. Annan's go-ahead have included so-called relief items such as "boats" and boat "accessories" from France and "sport supplies" from Lebanon (sports in Iraq having been the domain of Saddam's Hussein's sadistic elder son, Uday).
On Feb. 7, with war all but inevitable, Mr. Annan approved a request by the regime for TV broadcasting equipment from Russia. Was this material intended to shore up the propaganda machine Saddam Hussein had built in recent years? After all, the United Nations in 2000 and 2001 approved more than a dozen contracts with Jordan and France for Iraq to import equipment for "educational TV."
It is impossible to find out for certain. The quantities of goods involved in shipments are confidential, and almost all descriptions on the contract lists made public by the United Nations are so generic as to be meaningless. For example, a deal with Russia approved last Nov. 19 was described on the contract papers with the enigmatic notation: "goods for resumption of project." Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret.
I was at least able to confirm that the shipment of Russian TV equipment approved in February was not delivered before the war started. A press officer told me that batch didn't actually get to Iraq because United Nations processing is so slow that "it usually takes three to four months" before the purchases start to arrive.
Bureaucratic lags notwithstanding, putting a veil of secrecy over tens of billions of dollars in contracts is an invitation to kickbacks, political back-scratching and smuggling done under cover of relief operations. Of course, with so little paperwork made public, it is impossible to say whether there has been any malfeasance so far — but I found nothing that would seem to contradict Gen. Tommy Franks's comment that the system should have been named the "oil-for-palace program." Why, for example, are companies in Russia and Syria — hardly powerhouses in the automotive industry — listed as suppliers of Japanese vehicles? Why are desert countries like Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia delivering powdered milk?
And then there is this menacing list of countries that supplied "detergent": Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Yemen and Sudan. Maybe all that multisourced soap was just a terrific bargain for doing the laundry. But there is no way for any independent parties — including the citizens of Iraq, whose money was actually spent on the goods — to know.
Mr. Annan's office does share more detailed records with the Security Council members, but none of those countries makes them public. There is no independent, external audit of the program; financial oversight goes to officials from a revolving trio of member states — currently South Africa, the Philippines and, yes, France.
As for the program's vast bank accounts, the public is told only that letters of credit are issued by a French bank, BNP Paribas. Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, entitled to goods funded by 13 percent of the program's revenues, have been trying for some time to find out how much interest they are going to receive on $4 billion in relief they are still owed. The United Nations treasurer told me that that no outside party, not even the Kurds, gets access to those figures.
Then there is the program's compensation commission, which is supposed to dole out 25 percent of all oil-for-food proceeds to people and companies harmed by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It has so far dispensed $17.5 billion and approved a further $26.2 billion. Who decides on compensation claims? Commission members are picked from a "register of experts" supplied by Mr. Annan. One staff member told me that that this register cannot be released because it is "not public." The identities of the individual claimants are, of course, "confidential."
Lifting the sanctions would take away the United Nations' remaining leverage in Iraq. If the oil-for-food operation is extended, however, it will have a tremendous influence on shaping the new Iraq. Before that is allowed to happen, let's see the books.
Interesting that those who lobbied to end The Sanctions out of concern for The Iraqi People, and in fact disputed the very legal basis for their continuation, now apparently see their continuation to be now somehow legitimized and in the interest of The Iraqi People. I suppose some will perceive no flaw in the logic. I suspect too their outrage will be noticeable when The US, and, incidently, general Global Economic Reality, moots the point.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2328&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
An old thread of interest to those concerned with breaking developments re: jeopardization of scheduled talks w/DPRK
Worth a look if one cares ... some very pertinent posts there.
Acquiunk,
Regarding your post of Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:04 am from which I quote:
Quote:"But it should be emphasized that it is not only the loss of the artifacts but the destruction of records such as the card catalogue and other documents, to hide the extent of the looting, that is a major loss."
Seems further proof of Saddam's henchmen's handprint on this. Why would thugs destroy records? Why would a professional thief destroy a source of verification that would only increase the object d' art's black market value?
JM
Au -- Could you post a link for the Claudia Rosett piece?
For native speakers of languages other than English - all others kindly disregard - this note:
"Ally" is a country with which a "Treaty of Alliance" has been signed; under the "U.S. Constitution" that means that the "U.S. Senate" has ratified it AND the "President of the U.S." has signed it. France is an ally of the U.S. as are all the N.A.T.O. countries; so is Japan under the another type of treaty known as a "Pact".
Citizens and residents of nations not in the above categories kindly take note - especially if you're hoping to get a cut from selling those looted treasures back to us <G>
Quote:Quote:
Bill
Tartarin, I'm sure that the pillaging of musuems, gold and other artifacts was for the most part carefully controlled and the Bush family got their share, along with the Rumpfelt's, Wolfowitz's, Cheney's, Limpbags and Coulters. The looters on these sites were professionals and they didn't need any prying military eyes on them!
au wrote:Control your emotions. You could not possibly believe what you have written. Or could you?
au, there is facts out there, and yes - I believe what I wrote - I added Limpbag and Coulter only because they are of the same ilk. They are common folks though and Bush would not "share" with them!
BTW, emotions are always in control. Haven't killed anyone in a long time. Can't say same for group above!
timber wrote:Interesting that those who lobbied to end The Sanctions out of concern for The Iraqi People, and in fact disputed the very legal basis for their continuation, now apparently see their continuation to be now somehow legitimized and in the interest of The Iraqi People. I suppose some will perceive no flaw in the logic. I suspect too their outrage will be noticeable when The US, and, incidently, general Global Economic Reality, moots the point.
The converse is also true. If this conquest was not about oil and American corporate greed; then why are all Bush's actions directed toward these facts. Not very sincere!
au1929 wrote:McTag
Is your question in code? Or is that a riddle that I am to repeat fast three times?
Sorry, au. My question was a bit of a non-sequitur as I'm sure you realised.
It's just that I haven't yet got over the spectacle of my country's forces taking part in an unjust and illegal armed action based upon a lie, upon several lies in fact.
I wonder if Tony Blair, the other half of the "coalition" knew that he was helping Pearlman and his cronies steal antiquities. An accessory before the fact, in the legal phrase. Still, who cares about all that old stuff?
Bechtel will now rebuild the infrastructure, paid for by Iraqi oil.
Civilian fatalities are "acceptable, less than we feared"
Shias and Sunnis have begun attacking each other.
The result will be, another fundamentalist islamic state
Just what we need.
Taliban also had scant regard, contempt even, for the cultural legacy of the country they were in. They have this at least in common with Mr Rumsfeld.
McT
jamesmorrison
That a destitute or starving Iraqi needs water or food or electricity more immediately than a cuneiform artifact is obvious enough.
The 'culture' referred to was not Iraqi, but to American culture, that is, to those aspects of it which are anti-intellectual, overly prideful and militaristic, as represented most particularly by the present administration.
And I'd like to thank you for validating my passion.
blatham, responding to JM, wrote:And I'd like to thank you for validating my passion.
Yeah, life is pretty empty without passion. May we all have our passions ... they're pretty much what makes it all worthwhile, aren't they?
timber
Well, my tongue was far enough to the side I nearly fell in that direction.
Who did the thieving (Sadaam's cousin, sneaky agents for French antiquities collectors, James ex-wife) is irrelevant to the point. That Iraqis need medicines and facilities yesterday is irrelevant to the point. I'll not argue that, given an A or B choice, a hospital ought to have been left unattended while the museum was protected. But I'll kick Rumsfeld in the nuts if I ever see him for protecting the Ministry of Oil before either of the others. I'd like to say I think your notion correct that such a decision was policy-free, but I do not believe it.
timberlandko wrote:I'm not at all fond of war,but I know it, and I appreciate the masterful execution of CENTCOM's battleplan. .
You sure about that? You sure have come off as someone who loves the smell of napalm.
Timber - passion is fine, but as you know military / political / diplomatic calculations leading to action have to be based on cold hard facts, so if I may proceed with those >>>>
>>>> Blatham - many a revolution has started by people made desperate by hunger and abuse. The Potemkin uprising (Crimea) is a case which even the blackmailer who keeps editing his posts will recognise:
_______________________________________________________
Posted: 2003-04-18, 16:34 Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JamesMorrison wrote:
Does the UN really feel it necessary to extort the coalition, at the expense of the Iraqi people, in order to feign relevance?
Well, maybe it is not a fault of the UN. Russia and France are making vigorous attempt to minimize damage to their specific interests in Iraq that are endangered by the control that the Coalition forces enjoy over Iraq. So, they try to abuse their position in the Security Council once more, just as they abused it prior to onset of the war.
It seems to me more and more that the war in Iraq is in fact a war between the USA and France (and her allies) on the third party's territory... French have lost it, and now they try to steal the victory from the winners with help of dirty quasi-legal tricks.
Last edited by steissd on 2003-04-18, 16:37, edited 2 times in total
_______________________________________________________
Note to James Morrison - wouldn't bother addressing extortionist ex-KGB blackmarketeers if I were you; have a Happy Easter - wish which applies to all here <G>
P.S. to Snood - no person of sound mind likes the smell of napalm. Certainly Timber doesn't. Happy Easter to you, too <G>
What HofT said about napalm. The stuff should be in the class as mustard and nerve agents.
Why does this have to be stated as either/or? Are we such a small nation that we can't "afford" to protect both the museum and human life? We didn't have to make a choice. We were able to do both. We didn't. We didn't even do the human life thing all that well, now did we?!
I don't think the decision was policy-free either. McTag's link to the Spectator article was also a link to people I've known personally, and so I went off in a rush to collect what information be out there, to date, and put it together with McTag's link [see my next post]. There are some interconnections among the people mentioned as possible co-conspirators in the looting -- personal and social connections. At first glance, the Spectator story of this being a set-up seemed crazy. As I looked around, it began to develop a dreadful inner logic. Nothing that has come out of this administration has been unintended, so far. It's highly likely the swift, well-tooled, and uninterrupted looting was also part of the deal.
snood, I'm no fan of war. To the agitation of many, I deal with it dispassionately, and in pragmatic fashion. Not that it is relevant, but it is not wise to fight when reason is clouded by passion ... that's the sort of thing that leads lightly armed, indifferently trained and led infantry to engage well equipped, trained, and led Mechanized Infantry by means of suicidally futile human wave tactics. That simply is not cost-efficient nor mission-effective. It is murder.
timber,
Thanks for that link regarding DPRK. It gave me some good background.
I had been terribly worried about this situation before the Iraq war.
Recent events seem hopeful. Both North Korea's uncharacteristic backing away from its original demand on negotiations and China's decision to participate rather than just "host" the talks seems telling. I BM'd it just in case it gets started up again. This might be a nice anticipated side effect of the recent military success in Iraq, not so much the victory but the willingness to deploy these forces seems causal.
JM