Printable View
Could this have had any influence on the pre-war deliberations of the Security Council?
Does this reflect at all poorly on any of the principles?
Should Kofi Annan lose his job?
Can we trust the results of a U.N. internal investigation?
Or, like everything else, is this fiasco somehow the exclusive fault of the United States?
Why hasn't anyone started a thread on this topic before yours truly?
Am I being a bit too sarcastic?
Care to elaborate for some of the more ignorant board members (such as moi )?Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@9 April 2004 - 07:11
Could this have had any influence on the pre-war deliberations of the Security Council?
Does this reflect at all poorly on any of the principles?
Should Kofi Annan lose his job?
Can we trust the results of a U.N. internal investigation?
Or, like everything else, is this fiasco somehow the exclusive fault of the United States?
Why hasn't anyone started a thread on this topic before yours truly?
Am I being a bit too sarcastic?
Whats this Oil-for-food business and what was wrong about it? :huh:
As a result of the embargoes against Iraq, a program was instituted and administered by the U.N. whereby the Iraqi people would be furnished food and medicines in exchange for a managed amount of oil production.
The result was a corrupt activity that enriched Saddam, the U.N., France, Russia, China, and others-but not the Iraqi people.
Lots of stuff to read here if you want:
http://news.google.com/news?q=oil+for+food...F-8&sa=N&tab=nn
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? I bet that it has nothing to do with millions of dollars flowing into their country that was supposed to be going for "aide".
That would sure be my guess, Hank, and that would make you the big winner, too, if you weren't American like me.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@9 April 2004 - 10:19
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? I bet that it has nothing to do with millions of dollars flowing into their country that was supposed to be going for "aide".
We can't make things like this significant to others.
To our critics I'm sure this is small potatoes, and the U.N. will still be considered the paragon of "Global Wisdom" it has always been.
I see we're being flooded with commentary, here, so I'll adjourn for now. ;)
I agree, corruption in all its myrid forms stinks.Quote:
Members of the Senior General Accounting Office and the Department of Defence told the Senate committee that while it was difficult to decipher full details of a system where small amounts of money were skimmed from a myriad of contracts, the sum had clearly been taken. In addition, it was revealed that 87 per cent of the contracts for delivering food had been priced too high.
In the Middle East, it appears to be the norm as a cultural thing.
Much as it is in the US Government perhaps, although in that case it isnt the Civil Service that collects, its the administration.
Tell em to Sue me :)
Sue you? :huh:Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@9 April 2004 - 14:02
Much as it is in the US Government perhaps, although in that case it isnt the Civil Service that collects, its the administration.
Tell em to Sue me :)
Are you a man of means? :lol:
Thank you for your begrudging and qualified view, Rat. :)
Sue you? :huh:Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+9 April 2004 - 21:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 9 April 2004 - 21:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@9 April 2004 - 14:02
Much as it is in the US Government perhaps, although in that case it isnt the Civil Service that collects, its the administration.
Tell em to Sue me :)
Are you a man of means? :lol:
Thank you for your begrudging and qualified view, Rat. :) [/b][/quote]
Dont take that as an attack on the USA.
The only difference i can see in "corruption" is that the "uncivilised" countries have a corrupt public/civil service and in the "civilised" this has transfered to the politicians themselves.
The only difference between the US politician and the "average" Euro-politician is how open the whole process is.
I see it as an advantage to yourselves that the pricetag is usually worn on your politicians lapel, means you know exactly what your getting for your dollar. We, unfortunatly tend to overpay our own and they dont stay bought :P
Ah. ;)
I have wondered, though, what this would do to one's good opinion of the U.N., if, indeed, one held such an opinion?
Also the countries involved.
The effect on the deliberative process in the Security Council is obvious.
Shameless but necessary *BUMP*.
I want to hear from all the fans of the U.N. :D
Ah,
So you're the one who goes *bump* in the night....
Good evening, sir-Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@12 April 2004 - 22:45
Ah,
So you're the one who goes *bump* in the night....
Yes, it was gratuitous, but I have this felt need to disseminate the truth... :D
BTW-"Cake, please..."
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 ;)
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.
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 <_<Quote:
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?
Biggles-Quote:
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.
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. ;)
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.Quote:
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...
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.
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"... :P
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. ;)
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
Quote:ilw:
...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.
How is a "useless" U.N. better than none at all?
A U.N. which presumes to speak as the voice of reason, spewing platitudes from a mouth with no teeth?
The U.N. needs to be freed of politics.
This cannot be done, absent a scratch start.
QUOTE
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.
True enough, but Rwanda and Kosovo weren't problems created, fomented, or complicated by countries which were taking kickback money from backdoor deals; countries which would deny even the appearance of impropriety given their Security Council votes and their heretofore unknown actions.
See the difference?
Shameless bump as Kofi Annan has just set the wheels of an inquiry in motion.
It would seem in addition to kickbacks to some UN officials, the tentacles of corruption reach into a number of regular political circles too. It will be interesting to see how it all falls out.
'Tis getting a bit frothy, eh? ;)
Let the games begin.
Hmmmmm very interesting <_<
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/...2616268968.html
Hi, Doc! :)Quote:
Originally posted by sara5564@22 April 2004 - 16:44
Hmmmmm very interesting <_<
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/...2616268968.html
Sounds like what I've been waiting for.
Now, let's see if they really mean it; I would hate to come away with the cynical conclusion the results of an investigation were "sold" for future U.N. votes to avoid the diplomatic difficulty of embarrassing certain members of, say, the Security Council, or the Human Rights Council, or.... ;)
What should be the punishment of the ambassadors found guilty? Should they be thrown out of the security council?
This is of course if any wrong doings are uncovered.
Therein lies the quandary:Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@22 April 2004 - 20:42
What should be the punishment of the ambassadors found guilty? Should they be thrown out of the security council?
This is of course if any wrong doings are uncovered.
What to do?
I doubt this will end with an disciplinary action against a nation proper, but sanctions (severe ones) against individuals should certainly be forthcoming.
None of it will address the real problems at the U.N., however.
From a recent discussion I saw on the topic, it would appear that there are some interesting questions regarding how much the Security Council knew and for how long.
The layers of this onion will take a bit of peeling, but I suspect it will not just be the UN that is embarrassed by this one (assuming the trail is not effectively blocked by interested parties.)
With regards penalties, UN officials if proved implicated will undoubtedly lose careers and may face criminal charges - what will happen to individual Government and Business interests is anyone's guess (probably little or nothing.)
Let us await the former with interest, and bemoan (LOUDLY) the first sign of the latter.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@25 April 2004 - 12:11
The layers of this onion will take a bit of peeling, but I suspect it will not just be the UN that is embarrassed by this one (assuming the trail is not effectively blocked by interested parties.)
Biggles-
I'd be terribly pleased to wait with you, I think there are still a few seats left in the front row? :)
I'll make the popcorn. :D
An update:
Fugitive financier Marc Rich has been implicated in the scandal.
Rich made headlines in 2000 by gaining a pardon from Bill Clinton as Clinton was leaving office, prompting expressions of outrage from every corner of the known universe.
For those who don't remember who Bill Clinton is.... <_<
So the USA is implicated too?Quote:
For those who don't remember who Bill Clinton is..
I believe he was head of the USA during most of the Oil for Aid years?
Personally, i believe individuals are guilty of corruption and, sometimes, organisations.
However, as you started the topic with nations...i'll go along with you ;)
Good.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@28 April 2004 - 11:37
So the USA is implicated too?Quote:
For those who don't remember who Bill Clinton is..
I believe he was head of the USA during most of the Oil for Aid years?
Personally, i believe individuals are guilty of corruption and, sometimes, organisations.
However, as you started the topic with nations...i'll go along with you ;)
I must say, however, that as VP Cheney and Halliburton have long been touted here as being at the root of all sins stemming from the worship of oil, I am astounded that it appears they missed one hell of an opportunity to engage in and profit from this corruption, especially since they were "on the scene", so to speak, all the while this was going on.
Of course, if it turns out otherwise, off with their heads!!! :)
BTW-Last I looked, Bill Clinton was an individual.
I continue to watch with great interest. ;)
J2
I've been away for a while, but I'm glad you keeping up the good work. ;)
I agree this whole food for oil program smell like a rat. If this is true which I think it is. Where does this put the UN and who will take them seriously from now on?
I know 3 people who work at the UN. As you remember I live in NYC.
Anyway I'm glad to see quality people still around here!!! :smilie4:
Hey! :o
How's tricks, Club?
It's been a long while; what kept you?
Are you staying?
Thanks for the kind words, BTW-I'll shoot you a PM tomorrow if I get time; just stopped in for a sec-gonna be pretty busy for a while, but I always manage to make a little time for the sandbox. ;)
Man-hard to believe you posted-ShareDaddy was here, too, today, after an extended absence. :D
I think I'll be checking in more often now! Had a lot going on, but things are back to the usual now!
Good to be back!!! :)