The U.n., Oil-for-food, And Saddam...

[clocker]

Ah,
So you're the one who goes *bump* in the night....

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@12 April 2004 - 22:45
Ah,
So you're the one who goes *bump* in the night....

Good evening, sir-

Yes, it was gratuitous, but I have this felt need to disseminate the truth...

BTW-"Cake, please..."

[Rat Faced]

I dont know any organisation, anywhere, that i would claim to be "Corruption Free".

Most of the corruption occured, as i said earlier, in Iraq...which we know has corruption as part of the culture.... including now; with the corruption being shown quite often with the US companies there at the moment...

I have no doubt that corruption would still be endemnic if the UN was in control there now, so please do not look at the last paragraph as an attack on the US

[Biggles]

J2

Although I have no particularly strong views on this one I thought I would add a comment or two to maintain this topic's bump up the topic list.

There has undoubtedly been some underhand dealing with regards the oil for food programme.

Firstly, this is Saddam we are talking about (not someone who is likely to become a consumer watchdog following his retirement from public office)

Secondly, the UN is not an open all hours shop. Consequently, there were businesses involved in buying and selling the oil and the food and medicines. Neither was this a charity, but rather controlled selling, there was profit involved and where there is profit there is often the temptation of corruption.

Although there has been some attempt to implicate Kofi Annan in parts of the media I am unclear as to whether this credible. It certainly seems to have died a death.

The oil for food programme was set up in 1995, two years before Annan became SG of the UN. It has transferred huge sums of money to the post war Iraq rebuilding programme ($7.6 billion) and large quantities of food and medicine did get to Iraq.

The programme was worth about $65 billion over its 8 year life of which the UN took 3% to pay for administration and the cost of the weapons inspection programme. In addition, over $1.6 billion of the money was spent on maintaining the oil equipment infra-structure and a number of oil businesses were heavily involved in the programme.

It is perfectly feasible that some within the UN did make money out of the programme, but if they did they were gnats on the back of an ox. Huge amounts of food and oil changed hands in those 8 years, supporting a country of 25 million. If anyone in that extended chain of events, be it UN, commercial or governmental, was guilty of corruption then hopefully they will be discovered and held to account.

It has been suggested that the food never got to Iraq but I believe that the Coalition forces found ample evidence of both the storage and distribution systems. The programme was the difference between life and death for the poor of Iraq and for all his psychopathic tendancies (and love of gold taps) Saddam also enjoyed playing the "Father of the Nation" role. As one Iraqi said, he could be very generous and did much to improve public health, it is just a pity that once healthy he sent them all to war.

Saddam was an awful man but he was also a more complex individual than the rag top hurrahs would have us believe.

The trail of who got what from whom will undoubtedly be revealed in due course and one or two surprises may yet be sprung (and it may not be Kofi who is embarrassed ).

On a last note, some mention has been made of the French and Russians. It is true that they both had large economic interests in Iraq but these were on long standing commercial contracts with little to do with the UN administered programme and the two should not be confused.

[fred devliegher]

J2 do you think that this may have something to do with the French tying to undermined our efforts to recruit people to become our allies when we were preparing to go to war?

Of course, France undermind the Coalition, since it is a ridiculous thought the other countries who refused to blindly follow the US chose to do so out of free will

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@13 April 2004 - 14:50
It is perfectly feasible that some within the UN did make money out of the programme, but if they did they were gnats on the back of an ox. Huge amounts of food and oil changed hands in those 8 years, supporting a country of 25 million. If anyone in that extended chain of events, be it UN, commercial or governmental, was guilty of corruption then hopefully they will be discovered and held to account.

Biggles-

I must say figures I have seen don't quite jibe with yours, but that is beside the point I was trying to make:

This is, to my way of thinking, a very big story, one I have been aware of for over a month, and I posted about it, in a "details to come" fashion, when I first heard it.

It garnered no attention whatsoever at the time, and, given the overall favorable opinion of the U.N. held by the majority of board members, I didn't waste any time wondering why.

Now that it is clear the issue is not going to die (as it evidently is legitimate enough it cannot be overlooked), I still expect it will be downplayed to whatever extent possible, as per your "gnats on the back of an ox" distillation.

I still feel that there will be a few surprises, and hope, as you do, that the chips will be allowed to fall unimpeded.

[Rat Faced]

I think you will find very few members of this Community that are in favour of the UN "as is".

The majority may well believe in the idea of the UN.....however I doubt many people wish to see it continue forever with its present makeup...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 April 2004 - 13:54
I think you will find very few members of this Community that are in favour of the UN "as is".

The majority may well believe in the idea of the UN.....however I doubt many people wish to see it continue forever with its present makeup...

I would not have expected you to say that, Rat.

It is good to know you feel that way.

How, then, to expurgate the political aspect, with it's attendant corruption?

I don't know if this is possible without a total re-do.

How to police the ultimate global authority...

I don't think it is possible; I really don't.

I think the question begs a thread of it's own.

[Rat Faced]

We tried this last year, im sure.

As far as im concerned, the UN Security Council cannot work properly as long as there are "Permanent Members" in the current format, any of which can block anything thats put forward. That is not "Democracy"...

The rest of the UN is similar; anything can be blocked by anyone...its daft.


If it was 1 country, 1 vote...with the mahority decision being carried out....there would still be bad things done, but at least it would be "Democratic"...




And no matter what the failings of the UN, i would much rather put my trust in that institution than the "US Government knows best" formula thats being followed at the moment.... especially if lead by a President that only gives a crap about his Corporate Friends, and not even his own people.

[ilw]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 April 2004 - 17:25
As far as im concerned, the UN Security Council cannot work properly as long as there are "Permanent Members" in the current format, any of which can block anything thats put forward. That is not "Democracy"...

The rest of the UN is similar; anything can be blocked by anyone...its daft.

And no matter what the failings of the UN, i would much rather put my trust in that institution than the "US Government knows best" formula thats being followed at the moment

I basically agree, I think as it stands the UN is useless in many ways, but its better than the alternative of not having it. It also suffers from the petty machinations of its member states' politicians who sometimes use it as a pawn in their domestic political struggles.

This is, to my way of thinking, a very big story, one I have been aware of for over a month, and I posted about it, in a "details to come" fashion, when I first heard it.

It garnered no attention whatsoever at the time, and, given the overall favorable opinion of the U.N. held by the majority of board members, I didn't waste any time wondering why.

I think we have different ways of thinking, clearly this situation casts aspersions on the work of the UN, but it seems to me to have been an almost non-story in England and this may be part of the reason you haven't heard from us UN fanboys as much as you'd like. I think if you wanted to demonstrate that the UN is no good then i think you could have picked a better scandal to run it under, there are quite a few of them eg Rwanda and Kosovo.