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

[MisterMike]

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."

"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."

U.N. tries to block information to US investigators: (What pals...)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48225-2004Nov13.html?nav=rss_world

Whoa, looky looky...

China, France, Russia, Syria and other governments, which represented companies competing for billions of dollars' worth of business, stalled measures aimed at ending corruption, U.S. Ambassador Patrick F. Kennedy, who tracked the program for more than three years, told a House subcommittee last month

This starts to bear credence to the fact that France , Russia et. al. didn't want us going in there because they were getting too good of a deal on oil - which was money to help Saddam rebuild his army, not feed his people.

So much for hopes of a "coalition."

 

[michaeledward]

Michael,

I agree, it is unfortunate that corruption exists. Look at all the extra burden Massachusetts taxpayers are going to deal with from Bechtel's handling of the Central Artery Project.

Question for you, though, how would you have handled the humanitarian crisis that began manifesting itself in Iraq in 1995 from Resolution 661?

I think it is also important to note that much of the oil for food program (UN Resolution 986) did actually benefit the citizens of Iraq.

• As of 20 March 2003, the Programme had helped to improve the overall socio-economic conditions of the Iraqi people countrywide. It prevented the further degradation of public services and infrastructure and in several areas, stabilised and improved access to such services.

• In the food sector, the nutritional value of the monthly food basket distributed countrywide almost doubled between 1996 and 2002, from about 1,200 to about 2,200 kilocalories per person per day.

• There were notable achievements in the health sector. Between 1997 and 2002, the capacity to undertake major surgeries increased by 40% and laboratory investigations by 25% in the centre and south of Iraq. Communicable diseases, including cholera, malaria, measles, mumps, meningitis and tuberculosis were reduced in the centre/south during this period. As of 29 May 2003 there had been no cases of polio in Iraq for more than three years. In the three northern governorates, cholera was eradicated and the incidence of malaria reduced to the 1991 level. Vaccinations reduced measles morbidity considerably.

• In nutrition, malnutrition rates in 2002 in the centre/south were half those of 1996 among children under the age of five. Preliminary findings indicated that between 1996 and 2002 there was a reduction in the number of underweight children from 23% to 10% ; chronic malnutrition from 32% to 24% and acute malnutrition from 11% to 5.4%. During the same period, in the three northern governorates, there was a 56% reduction in chronic malnutrition and a 44% reduction in the incidence of underweight children in the under-five age group. On 29 May 2003, UNICEF reported however that child malnutrition in Iraq almost doubled from four per cent to 7.7 percent between the onset of war - 20 March 2003 and 29 May 2003. The decline was attributed to broken public services and the lack of proper access to food, clean water, sanitation, and hygiene.

• Transportation: In the period to 20 March 2003, private and public road transport was rehabilitated to varying degrees, and safe, reliable inter-city public passenger transportation services were restored.

• Water and sanitation: In the period to 20 March 2003, the deterioration of water facilities was halted. Oil-for-Food Programme supplies and equipment improved access to potable water, and helped to reduce the incidence of water-borne illnesses, including diarrhoeah.

• Agriculture: In the period to 20 March 2003, agricultural improvements enabled large segments of the population to purchase produce at affordable prices. In the centre/south, poultry and egg production doubled. In the three northern governorates, Programme supplies contributed to a substantial increase in agricultural production.

• Electricity: In the period to 20 March 2003, access to electricity was extended and supply became more reliable. During the summer of 2002, there were no planned power cuts in Baghdad City.

• Telecommunication: In the period to 20 March 2003, improved infrastructure in the centre/south was reflected in the increased number of telephone calls placed successfully.

• Education: In the period to 20 March 2003, the distribution of 1.2 million school desks met 60% of the needs at primary and secondary schools in the centre/south. This was a great improvement on the situation in 1996, when students at those schools were forced to sit on bare floors. In the three northern governorates, the Programme helped to increase primary school attendance by 32% between 1996 and 2002 and secondary school attendance by over 74% during the same period. Most schools operated in two rather than three shifts, as a result of the greater availability of educational facilities.

• Residential construction: In late 2002, housing construction in the centre/south was expected to reach 14,432,896 square metres, compared with 13,930,490 square metres in 1990 and 347,892 square metres in 1996. New construction also created jobs for skilled and unskilled workers. As part of the assistance provided to internally displaced persons (IDPs) and most vulnerable groups in the three northern governorates, 19,051 dwelling units were constructed between 1996 and early 2003 to house some 114,300 persons. Over the same period, new construction or repair affected some 685 schools and other educational facilities benefiting 190,000 students; 127 health centres for more than 120 communities and villages; 99 agricultural and veterinary facilities; 49 social and civic buildings; 853 kilometres of water systems and 2,800 kilometres of roads and bridges.

• Demining activities: Between 1998 and 2002, the UNOPS Mine Action Programme cleared some 76,500 mines from 9.1 million square metres of land, of which 3.95 million square metres were returned to the local population for productive use. The programme also worked with some 2,000 mine accident and war victims, providing surgery, prosthetics and other rehabilitation services. Tens of thousands of women and children received Mine Risk education. Mined areas yet to be cleared were marked with warning signs.

• Despite its achievements however, the Oil-for-Food Programme was never intended to be a substitute for normal economic activity, and as of 20 March 2003, much remained to be done to improve humanitarian conditions for the Iraqi people.

 

[TwistofFat]

Below from the Wall Street Journal. The issue is not that UN is evil and has indeed done good work. The issue is who stole what? They should be punsihed and removed.

"Who at the U.N. took illicit money from Saddam--if, indeed, anyone did--is an important question, and worth pursuing. But so is the matter of who covered up for Saddam; who pushed to continue and expand a program so derelict that it failed to nab more than $17 billion in illicit deals, and so secretive that investigators have spent much of the past year trying simply to get their hands on information the U.N. should have made public at the time. It is worth asking whose welfare was enhanced, whose domain was expanded, whose coffers filled with $1.4 billion delivered as a percentage cut of Saddam's oil revenues--and who has failed to this day to take on board the thumping lessons about the need for transparency at the U.N.
That would be Mr. Annan. He is not protecting the U.N. At great cost to whatever noble aspirations the U.N. once had, and to all societies that value integrity over Potemkin institutions, he is protecting himself.

 

[Flatlander]

Below from the Wall Street Journal. The issue is not that UN is evil and has indeed done good work. The issue is who stole what? They should be punsihed and removed.

"Who at the U.N. took illicit money from Saddam--<snip> Kofi Annan <snip> he is protecting himself.

Glenn, this appears to be out of an editorial. The question I have is, what evidence do we have to support that Annan is the ONE who should be held responsible? Did he personally steal money? Did he get paid for this? What are the facts?

 

[Cruentus]

This has been an ongoing problem that we have when dealing with oppressive regimes, especially in the 3rd world (not that Iraq was nessicarily 3rd world). You go to help them out with money and aid, and the leadership uses some or all of it (some, in this case) to further their agenda.

And yes, Russia and France were getting a good deal on oil from Iraq, which is a major contributing reason as to why they are totally pissed that we are there, and a major contributing reason why they wouldn't support us going in (besides the other insignificant factors of lies, shaky evidence, and false intelligence ).

However, the question remains: what gives us the right to unilaterally go in and run the monopoly on Iraqi oil in the first place?

I'll be waiting to here some interesting arguements regarding the above question; it is questions like the one above that one needs to ask before one even can begin to understand foriegn affairs, IMHO.

 

[TwistofFat]

Glenn, this appears to be out of an editorial. The question I have is, what evidence do we have to support that Annan is the ONE who should be held responsible? Did he personally steal money? Did he get paid for this? What are the facts?

Flatlander - your are 100% correct and here is the link.(http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005904). I do not have any information and offer no indictment. The issue is the lack of transparency and the missing $21B!!!! dollars and the UN executive management's blocking the UN internal investigators.

Tulisan - the decision was a UN decision based upon the resolutions post Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The US involvement was not unilaterial and by UN decision was multilaterial between many of the countries accused of theft (I do not know of anyone or firm in the US that was named in this investigation but I could be wrong and welcome any additional info.

 

[Flatlander]

On April 29th 2004 The Washington Times published this story.

excerpt:

Michael Soussan was a manager for the oil-for-food program for three years before resigning in December 2000, citing the program's need to reform itself.
He said feuding and mistrust among the Security Council powers hampered the program from the start.
But he also faulted U.N. administrators for failing to condemn publicly a growing number of management and operational problems, from intimidation of U.N. staffers by the Iraqi government to the import of luxury goods that had no relation to Iraq's humanitarian crisis.
"We should have spoken out on a range of issues, but we did not," Mr. Soussan said.

 

[michaeledward]

When I saw this headline ..

Medicare overpaid nearly $20 billion last year
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6710328/

I couldn't help but think of this thread.... So, who should we hold accountable for this misplaced/misdirected 20 billion dollars?

 

[Tgace]

While I can accept people not liking the fact that we are in Iraq, why is it that whenever somebody points out a "bad" point about Iraq, Saddam, etc..it must be redirected to some other point? Saddam was/is evil, bad stuff did happen in Iraq, there was corruption. Granted that alone as reasons for war is debatable, but there seems to be a drive to divert any evil traits of Saddam to some case of US corruption.

Theres always something wrong with somebody elses point, but never ones own....

 

[rmcrobertson]

One suspects that it's partly the fact that these sources are used without question or thought. The "Washington Times," for example, is wholly owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who has, a) boasted that his paper is a tool for his plan to bring the Kingdom of Christ to Earth; b) been strongly tied to the Korean CIA; c) had himself crowned King of the World at a ceremony attended by many prominent Republicans...and on and on and on.

 

[MisterMike]

:idunno: I dunno T, I find it hard to participate any more other than solely for the amusement factor.

Politics is fun, but apparently if imerged too deeply, it has drastic affects on the ability to perform rational cohesive thought processes.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Fine. So here're my questions about, "rational thought processes:"

1. In what sense is it rational to repeat unquestioned the claims of media outlets that are owned by extreme right-wing, wacko religious kooks who boast that they use the newspaper to further their agenda?

2. In what sense is it rational to continually claim that anybody who disagrees with you is hopelessly biased, and unaware of the issues? Some of us, after all, have been hearing these claims about the UN since 1961--and suspecting tht some of them are true, and some just nonsense.

3. In what sense is it rational--or even good research practice--to rest all claims on a single source, and to refuse to consider other sources? Some of us regularly flip through "National Review," and "US News and World Report," as well as "The Nation," and, "The New York Times," to cite only brief examples. Does everybody else, or do they confine themselves to Hannity?

4. The, "liberal media," has foregrounded these UN stories for some time now. In what sense is it rational to keep insisting that the liberal media would never foreground these stories, and that liberals would never hear them?

IBM just sold their PC division to Communist China. Perhaps capitalism--the economic system so often insisted upon--doesn't really care which country is which.

 

[MisterMike]

IBM just sold their PC division to Communist China. Perhaps capitalism--the economic system so often insisted upon--doesn't really care which country is which

Were they sold, or was it a majority shareholder aquisition? I'd say there is a difference.

--Ahh well...no matter...sold or not, you're right, and the point is???

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sold sold. The point is that before we re-hash the excuses about Germany and France's greed, we might wish to at least peek at the many home-grown examples of selling this country's technology and expertise to enemies and competitors.

 

[MisterMike]

Well, I'm not sure how harmful an IBM laptop is in the hands of the Chinese, unless it was "lost" or "sold" under the Clinton administration.

Those are the ones I worry about.

 

[Tgace]

Well, I'm not sure how harmful an IBM laptop is in the hands of the Chinese, unless it was "lost" or "sold" under the Clinton administration.

Those are the ones I worry about.

:rofl::rofl:

 

[PeachMonkey]

Well, I'm not sure how harmful an IBM laptop is in the hands of the Chinese, unless it was "lost" or "sold" under the Clinton administration.

Well you're happily focusing on the trees rather than the forest, and gleefully rehashing the Clinton Administration's fundraising pecadillos, you're missing Robert's point:

While we freak out about those dern Europeans and their ugly greed, we're quietly selling our entire intellectual and manufacturing advantage to such human-rights stalwarts and capitalist allies as the People's Republic of China.

 

[Rynocerous]

Well you're happily focusing on the trees rather than the forest, and gleefully rehashing the Clinton Administration's fundraising pecadillos, you're missing Robert's point:

While we freak out about those dern Europeans and their ugly greed, we're quietly selling our entire intellectual and manufacturing advantage to such human-rights stalwarts and capitalist allies as the People's Republic of China.

YES! I absolutley agree, greed is everywhere. No matter where you go or who you talk to there will always be greed. So while we are here bickering, another couple billion dollars traded hands, and someone did something they shouldn't have. What I'm getting at is the fact that no matter what you do you can never get away from this. We should just come to grasps with this and stop pointing the finger at whomever the opposition is. The really sad thing is that there are people out there that will sell their own Country down the river for a quick buck. That is what scares me.

Cheers,

Ryan

 

[Tgace]

Gee, think thats a recent development???

 

[Rynocerous]

No, I was trying to make a point that instead of pointing the finger, we should evaluate what we are doing.


Ryan