Thursday, November 03, 2005

Security Council of the Bribed

More evidence Bush was right, from the WaPo's lead editorial:
[F]rom the Iraqi government's point of view, the purposes of the oil-for-food program were twofold: to collect money -- some $1.8 billion -- for Saddam Hussein's regime and to reward regime supporters. The report, presented by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, names for the record several American-run oil companies that it says were apparently involved in the former activity, among them Bayoil, Taurus and Coastal Corp. Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., the former chairman of Coastal, was indicted last month for paying bribes to the Iraqi government. Marc Rich, the oil trader pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2000, is described as a middleman, as is Ben Pollner, the chief executive of Taurus.

But most of those allegedly receiving rewards were not Americans. The preponderance of lucrative contracts went to French and Russian companies, on the grounds that their governments opposed the sanctions regime and favored Iraq in the U.N. Security Council. Individuals who campaigned on behalf of Saddam Hussein in the West are also said to have been rewarded. Prominent among them is George Galloway, the British politician who has made a career out of support for Baathist dictatorship, anti-Americanism and opposition to the war in Iraq. The Senate subcommittee on investigations, which Mr. Galloway treated with mocking disdain earlier this year, separately prepared a report on the British parliamentarian, alleging that both his personal "charity" and his wife apparently received payments from a Jordanian middleman doing business in Iraq on Mr. Galloway's behalf. Among the other pro-Saddam Hussein, anti-sanctions campaigners who allegedly received allocations of oil were a Syrian journalist, a French priest, the Russian communist party and a U.N. official who resigned his post to "protest" the sanctions regime. Despite the pile of documentary evidence, most of the accused deny the charges; the Russian government has dismissed the report, alleging it to be based on false documents. Because the United Nations itself is not able to prosecute or sanction them, their assertions of innocence may not be tested.

The conclusion of this exercise has to be that the United Nations should not, in the future, be allowed to run anything involving large financial transactions without better checks to prevent corruption.
My conclusion is slightly different: the UN couldn't run a one-car funeral, much less a world government.

4 comments:

SC&A said...

Mr Bush has three years to draw this out. It might prove to be the 'death of a thousand cuts' for UN credibility.

NotClauswitz said...

The UN couldn't even run a High-School car-wash with good looking cheerleaders - at least not without trying to get them to turn tricks.

FrauBudgie said...

Security Council of the Bribed? Hits the nail right on the head.

@nooil4pacifists said...

Pedro & Dirt:

They'd never sell, unless you removed the bugs and wiretaps that beam every conversation into Peking, Paris and St. Petersburg. Any cheerleaders likely are on the same countries' payroll.