Critics lash out at UN, but Annan survives US ambassador to UN says White House is confident in the secretary general amid probes of Iraqi oil-for-food program. By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – The Bush administration, standing up against nipping at its heels from the right, is publicly backing Kofi Annan in his post as secretary general of the United Nations. But that doesn't mean the effort of conservatives to highlight the UN's shortcomings, both political and financial, will end any time soon. An ongoing investigation into fraud at the UN-administered Iraq oil-for-food program is expected to deliver an interim report on involvement of UN personnel in January. Add to that the growing cries of the UN's ineffectiveness - some contend it's even undermining American goals - and the climb to smoother US-UN relations only looks steeper. Despite that, the US is expressing confidence in Mr. Annan - at a critical moment when the UN is assisting in the organization of Iraqi elections set for January, but also as steam was gathering among some Republicans for Annan's ouster. Last Thursday the US ambassador to the UN, John Danforth, ended what had been perceived as an unsupportive silence by declaring to reporters at the UN in New York that the White House and the State Department "are expressing confidence in the secretary general and in his continuing in office." In addition Mr. Danforth, who recently announced his intention to leave the UN posting, said that UN efforts, not just in Iraq but in the Middle East and Sudan, meant that the US intends to work with Annan "for the time to come." Those words laid to rest any doubts about the official US position on Annan, who had recently made clear his intention to remain in his job until his term expires at the end of 2006. Annan says he wants to dedicate his last two years to reforming the 191-nation body. A high-level commission appointed by Mr. Annan recently announced recommendations for refashioning the world body into a more responsive and effective force in meeting 21st-century security challenges. But to some critics, the UN has sunk so low that the US should not even bother with its reform when America's international plate is already so full. "The UN is so broken, so corrupt, so ineffective, and on top of that so unwilling to begin to contemplate the full implications of internal reform, that the Bush administration would be ill-advised to take this on as a foreign-policy priority," says Danielle Pletka, a foreign policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. Such exasperation with the UN, while a recurring theme, is on the rise in Congress again, where a growing chorus has been calling for Mr. Annan's resignation. Last week 19 members of Congress sponsored a resolution calling for Mr. Annan's departure over the oil-for-food scandal. That followed on the heels of another resignation demand from Sen. Norm Coleman (R) of Minnesota, who heads a separate congressional investigation into growing evidence of fraud and corruption in the multibillion-dollar program. The program was designed to supervise what were supposed to be limited sales of oil by Saddam Hussein's Iraq in exchange for food and medicine. Some Republicans are even calling for the US to withhold its UN dues - a favored tactic of anti-UN forces - unless the international body provides proof of full cooperation with oil-for-food investigations. So far nothing implicates Annan in any wrongdoing in the program, a point Ambassador Danforth stressed in defending the secretary general. But critics point to estimates that fraud tied to Iraqi oil sales reached up to $20 billion - what the conservative National Review calls "the largest corruption scandal in the history of the world." That alone, critics say, is sufficient cause for Annan to leave. Earlier this year Annan named former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to direct an investigation of the oil-for-food program, which ran from 1996 to 2003, and specifically to probe into any illicit involvement of UN officials. Some members of Congress say the UN hasn't cooperated fully with US probes into corruption that is believed to have benefitted foreign banks and officials, among others. At the same time, others say Annan shouldn't be tagged with the scandal - and suggest the US is not without responsibility in the sale of Iraqi oil at a time when Iraq was under international sanctions. At a Monitor breakfast last week, Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana said responsibility for the program "appears to lie in the Security Council [and thus] may lie beyond Kofi Annan." He added that despite a ban on Iraqi oil sales, the US encouraged Iraqi sales through Jordan and in other cases when it served US diplomatic goals. On a new website dedicated to the oil-for-food program, Oilforfoodfacts.org, the United Nations Foundation says that of $20 billion liberally attributed to illegal Iraqi oil sales under UN sanctions, a majority of revenue was from oil smuggling "outside the purview of the UN." The site says probes show that more than $13 billion was attributed to trade and smuggling that Security Council members including the US knew about but did little to stop. Some say opposition to Annan is actually driven by his ill-timed declaration, days before the US election, that the Iraq war was "illegal" under international law. "There's nothing to suggest Annan was involved in any way in [the scandal], but those who see the UN as obstructionist towards the use of American power will consider anything to disparage it," says Jeswald Salacuse of Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
I don't have well-formed opinions on this mess, yet. What are yours...generally on Annan...and his share of accountability for this??
Peoples' memory is incredibly short. The US Saving & Loan scandal in the 80s (Reagan's job program ), cost the American taxpayers $500 billion. $20 billion is just a drop in the bucket compard to that.
is it possible that this scandal has deeper implications because of the parties involved, even if it's less in terms of dollar figures?
The UNSC ran the oil-for-food program. It appears that all of the major players in the UNSC were up to no good. France, Russia, and China may be guilty of taking kickbacks. The US (from the above article) knew about the illegal oil sales to Jordan but did nothing. (The US also was busy during this time labeling hospital equipment dual purpose in the sanction program, which is amoral at best.) What's the beef with Annan? Annan has publicly stated, correctly btw, that the war in Iraq broke international law and was thus illegal. That po-ed the conservatives who are now looking for any reason to go after Annan. It is interesting the Bush Admin via the US ambassador to the UN has backed Annan. They have rightly calculated that the January Iraq elections need the UN involvement and do not want to jeopardize that by going strong after Annan, who is very popular in the UN and around the world. You know that has gotta hurt, since the Bush Admin loves political vendettas against anyone who crosses their path.
i don't mean Annan. i mean saddam. that they helped prop up a dictator who was not a real nice guy to his people. i'm thinking the implications of that are far more grave than the S&L scandal, no matter who is to blame.
NW, You seem to be implying that because the US was wrong then its okay for Annan (and France, Russia, etc...) to be wrong. How about it's two different things. You may feel that the US was wrong with regards to the war, but that shouldn't justify other countries (or the UN Secretary General) criminal acts. Critisize the US all you want but don't let U.S. wrong-doings prevent you from calling a crook a crook. The Beef with Anan is that he is in charge of the UN and therefor the buck stops there with regard to UN behaviour (kind of like our President). not to mention that he or his son may have profited from oil for food. Just because you don't agree with US policy doesn't mean that Anan isn't a crook.
I think Annan is generally a pretty good guy in a job that is at best very difficult to manage and at worst impossible. Whether US action in Iraq was 'illegal' or not is a different argument altogether (and hopefully this thread about Annan won't become another US-bashing Iraq thread).
I doubt than Annan had any personal, monetary gain in the whole scandal. I mean, he must pull in good money by costarring in movies like "Seven."
I am implying that conservative Congressmen are going after Annan since he said the Iraq War was illegal (and all that implies wrt GWB). I am implying that the UNSC countriies who took responsibility for running the oil-for-food program (the US included) are way more culpable than Annan.
Accountability is one of the topics. How can Americans want to hold Annan accountable for his albeit limited actions while simultaneously not wanting to held accountable for our own more serious violations?
it's off-topic. you posted an article about the UN and Annan. the questions posed to you were about the accountablity of Annan. we all know you dislike the president. that's great. relevance to annan's situation?? oh, yeah??? well clinton was impeached...so there!
From Scott Ritter who as hindsight has shown knew much more about and reported more honestly about Iraq affaris than the neocons who deceived us into war. The Oil-For-Food 'Scandal' is a Cynical Smokescreen by Scott Ritter United States Senators, led by the Republican Norm Coleman, have launched a crusade of sorts, seeking to "expose" the oil-for-food programme implemented by the United Nations from 1996 until 2003 as the "greatest scandal in the history of the UN". But this posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bush's self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimise the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption, and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse. The oil-for-food programme was derived from the US-sponsored Security Council resolution, passed in April 1995 but not implemented until December 1996. During this time, the CIA sponsored two coup attempts against Saddam, the second, most famously, a joint effort with the British that imploded in June 1996, at the height of the "oil for food" implementation negotiations. The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States - regime change. Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flowrise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey as well as fellow regime-change plotters in Kurdistan. At the same time as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was negotiating with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov concerning a Russian-brokered deal to end a stand-off between Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors in October-November 1997, the United States turned a blind eye to the establishment of a Russian oil company set up on Cyprus. This oil company, run by Primakov's sister, bought oil from Iraq under "oil for food" at a heavy discount, and then sold it at full market value to primarily US companies, splitting the difference evenly with Primakov and the Iraqis. This US-sponsored deal resulted in profits of hundreds of million of dollars for both the Russians and Iraqis, outside the control of "oil for food". It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under "oil for food" ended up in the United States. Likewise, using its veto-wielding powers on the 661 Committee, set up in 1990 to oversee economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States was able to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the provisions of the oil-for-food agreement. And when Saddam proved too adept at making money from kickbacks, the US and Britain devised a new scheme of oil sales which forced potential buyers to commit to oil contracts where the price would be set after the oil was sold, an insane process which quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food programme of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the United Nations. The corruption evident in the oil-for-food programme was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions. While money derived from the off-the-book sale of oil did indeed go into the purchase of conventional weapons and the construction of presidential palaces, the vast majority of these funds were poured into economic recovery programmes that saw Iraq emerge from near total economic ruin in 1996. By 2002, on the eve of the US-led invasion, Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks. Compare and contrast that image with the reality of Baghdad today, and the ultimate corruption that was the oil-for-food programme becomes self-evident. link
Hmmm... So Ritter says: -that the US policy was to strangle Iraqi/Saddam by making it impossible for money to flow to Iraq, even through Oil for Food. -then that they 'turned a blind eye' to a scheme where US bought oil and let the Iraqis and Russians split the over market value profits. -but then when Iraq was making money off illegal deals, they tried to strangle the oil flow... Which is it? Ritter then says: -the US stopped humanitarian purchases (although it was the UN that monitored the purchases, not the US). -Saddam was adept at using the money to buy weapons and to build palaces. -But MOST of the humanitarian purchases made Iraq a virtual paradise before the US invasion. -But because the US Iraq was a wasteland where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. So was Saddam using the money for weapons and palaces, or humanitarian materials? Was it a paradise or a wasteland? Ritter glosses over to many contradictions while just throwing out nonsensical claims, much like glynch seems to.
Agree with the gist of your post but iirc the US owned the UNSC review board that governed the economic sanctions. Both Ritter and the US government appear to take great liberties with the above facts for their ploitical gains. For example, Saddam did not use all of the blackmarket oil money and food-for-oil kickbacks to build palaces or bombs. Of course at this point the US has zero credibility, making Ritter look credible.
The major point of the article for me was the pot calling the kettle pack wrt accountibility. The pro-GWB poster who said that both GWB and Annan need to be held accountable was disingenuous AND did not take into account the seriousness of the alleged crimes against each. This is not to belittle the oil-for-food scandal, just Annan involvement in it, particularly compared to the US's own involvement in the scandal. I probably should have written a more detailed response originally. Reading my response again, I can see how you saw it as a blatant ad hominem (albeit deserved ) attack on our current President.
