Trim down the United Nations from their "porky" habits"...
http://www.godubai.com/gulftoday/article.asp?AID=26&Section=Editorial
http://www.godubai.com/gulftoday/article.asp?AID=26&Section=Editorial
US Ambassador Bolton wants to...
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
UN Oil for Food 'Scandal'
Joy Gordon
The CIA's Duelfer report may have confirmed the gross falsity of the WMD claims invoked by the Bush Administration to justify its war against Iraq, but it has also triggered a feeding frenzy in the growing attacks against the United Nations. In January the Iraqi newspaper Al Mada published a list of people and organizations, including UN personnel, who supposedly received vouchers from the Iraqi government to purchase oil. In April the General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office) published a report claiming that the Oil for Food (OFF) program had been rife with corruption and that through smuggling and kickbacks, Saddam Hussein had managed to acquire more than $10 billion in illicit funds. A series of Congressional investigations followed, featuring conservative witnesses who pilloried the UN for incompetence, corruption and general unfitness. In the latest hearings chaired by Republican Norm Coleman, the committee staff claimed that Saddam's access to illicit funds totalled over $21 billion--twice the sum claimed by the CIA--and that the money went to terrorists around the world, not to mention (rather astonishingly) the post-Saddam insurgency.
If it is true that Benon Sevan, former head of the OFF program, accepted illicit oil vouchers, then that may well constitute fraud (although the evidence cited against him so far has been tenuous). But it would also have been in direct violation of clear UN policies--hardly an indicator of institutional corruption.
Rarely mentioned, either at the hearings or in the press coverage, was the fundamental distinction between the policies established by the Secretariat and the UN agencies and those that result from decisions of particular member states within the highly politicized Security Council. For example, the CIA report says that the bulk of the illicit transactions were "government to government agreements" between Iraq and a few other countries, for trade outside the OFF program. According to the report, they resulted in income to Iraq of $7.5 billion.
The largest of these arrangements was with Jordan--revenue from which totaled about $4.5 billion. This trade arrangement was the single largest source of Iraqi income outside the OFF program. From 1990 until the OFF program began in late 1996, "Jordan was the key to Iraq's financial survival," according to the report. Why didn't "the UN" do something about it? Because the Security Council--where the United States was by far the single most influential member--decided in May 1991 that no action would be taken to interfere in Iraq's trade with Jordan, America's closest ally in the Arab world.
Likewise, the maritime smuggling that took place under the nose of "the UN" in fact took place under the nose of something called the Multinational Interception Force, a group of member nations that responded to the general invitation of the Security Council for nations to interdict Iraqi smuggling. The "UN" Multinational Interception Force turns out to have consisted almost entirely of the US Navy. The commander of the MIF was at every point, from 1991 to 2003, a rear admiral or vice admiral from the US Fifth Fleet. The United States contributed the overwhelming majority of ships--hundreds in fact. Britain provided the deputy commander and some naval forces and other countries contributed a few ships. The UN itself provided no forces or commanders. "The UN" failure to interdict Saddam's tankers of illicit oil turns out, in nearly every regard, to have been a US naval operation.
The much-vaunted kickbacks on import contracts also turn out to be not quite as advertised. Saddam, the claim goes, inflated the price of import contracts by 5 to 10 percent, then received the difference in cash from the contractors. Thousands of contracts, stretching over years, were involved; how could the UN have been so incompetent as not to notice? In fact, prices inflated by only 5 or 10 percent were difficult to detect precisely because the amounts were so small and often within the normal range of market prices. But when pricing irregularities were large enough that they might have indicated kickbacks, the UN staff did notice. On more than seventy occasions, the staff brought these to the attention of the 661 Committee, the Security Council body charged with implementing the sanctions. On no occasion did the United States block or delay the contracts to prevent the kickbacks from occurring. Although the United States, citing security concerns, blocked billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts--$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002--it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented.
Far from giving Saddam a free hand, the OFF program involved extensive monitoring and oversight. The government of Iraq first had to submit a list of every single item it hoped to purchase in the coming six months, and the UN staff had to approve the list. Once Iraq had signed a contract with a vendor, the contract was circulated to UNSCOM (later UNMOVIC), to see if there was anything that could be used for military purposes. Every member of the Security Council had the opportunity to review every contract, and each member could block or delay any contract for imports. Every member of the Security Council also had to approve every contract for the sale of oil. If there was cash paid under the table, it did not happen for lack of oversight. It happened despite the most elaborate monitoring system imaginable. And if the members of the Security Council--including the United States--failed to do their job, that is not the fault of Kofi Annan.
The Duelfer report, along with eight sets of Congressional hearings, vitriolic press coverage and considerable ranting by the right, suggest an antipathy toward the UN that goes well beyond election-season maneuvering. The consequences of this scandal will be considerable. We witnessed the ill-fated decision to invade Iraq without Security Council authorization; we might recall that the Security Council would not grant the American demand to authorize an invasion, precisely because the United States was unable to provide any compelling evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If the world's most respected institution of international governance is rendered impotent by accusations as distorted and exaggerated as these, we should all fear the consequences.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041206/gordon
Joy Gordon
The CIA's Duelfer report may have confirmed the gross falsity of the WMD claims invoked by the Bush Administration to justify its war against Iraq, but it has also triggered a feeding frenzy in the growing attacks against the United Nations. In January the Iraqi newspaper Al Mada published a list of people and organizations, including UN personnel, who supposedly received vouchers from the Iraqi government to purchase oil. In April the General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office) published a report claiming that the Oil for Food (OFF) program had been rife with corruption and that through smuggling and kickbacks, Saddam Hussein had managed to acquire more than $10 billion in illicit funds. A series of Congressional investigations followed, featuring conservative witnesses who pilloried the UN for incompetence, corruption and general unfitness. In the latest hearings chaired by Republican Norm Coleman, the committee staff claimed that Saddam's access to illicit funds totalled over $21 billion--twice the sum claimed by the CIA--and that the money went to terrorists around the world, not to mention (rather astonishingly) the post-Saddam insurgency.
If it is true that Benon Sevan, former head of the OFF program, accepted illicit oil vouchers, then that may well constitute fraud (although the evidence cited against him so far has been tenuous). But it would also have been in direct violation of clear UN policies--hardly an indicator of institutional corruption.
Rarely mentioned, either at the hearings or in the press coverage, was the fundamental distinction between the policies established by the Secretariat and the UN agencies and those that result from decisions of particular member states within the highly politicized Security Council. For example, the CIA report says that the bulk of the illicit transactions were "government to government agreements" between Iraq and a few other countries, for trade outside the OFF program. According to the report, they resulted in income to Iraq of $7.5 billion.
The largest of these arrangements was with Jordan--revenue from which totaled about $4.5 billion. This trade arrangement was the single largest source of Iraqi income outside the OFF program. From 1990 until the OFF program began in late 1996, "Jordan was the key to Iraq's financial survival," according to the report. Why didn't "the UN" do something about it? Because the Security Council--where the United States was by far the single most influential member--decided in May 1991 that no action would be taken to interfere in Iraq's trade with Jordan, America's closest ally in the Arab world.
Likewise, the maritime smuggling that took place under the nose of "the UN" in fact took place under the nose of something called the Multinational Interception Force, a group of member nations that responded to the general invitation of the Security Council for nations to interdict Iraqi smuggling. The "UN" Multinational Interception Force turns out to have consisted almost entirely of the US Navy. The commander of the MIF was at every point, from 1991 to 2003, a rear admiral or vice admiral from the US Fifth Fleet. The United States contributed the overwhelming majority of ships--hundreds in fact. Britain provided the deputy commander and some naval forces and other countries contributed a few ships. The UN itself provided no forces or commanders. "The UN" failure to interdict Saddam's tankers of illicit oil turns out, in nearly every regard, to have been a US naval operation.
The much-vaunted kickbacks on import contracts also turn out to be not quite as advertised. Saddam, the claim goes, inflated the price of import contracts by 5 to 10 percent, then received the difference in cash from the contractors. Thousands of contracts, stretching over years, were involved; how could the UN have been so incompetent as not to notice? In fact, prices inflated by only 5 or 10 percent were difficult to detect precisely because the amounts were so small and often within the normal range of market prices. But when pricing irregularities were large enough that they might have indicated kickbacks, the UN staff did notice. On more than seventy occasions, the staff brought these to the attention of the 661 Committee, the Security Council body charged with implementing the sanctions. On no occasion did the United States block or delay the contracts to prevent the kickbacks from occurring. Although the United States, citing security concerns, blocked billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts--$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002--it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented.
Far from giving Saddam a free hand, the OFF program involved extensive monitoring and oversight. The government of Iraq first had to submit a list of every single item it hoped to purchase in the coming six months, and the UN staff had to approve the list. Once Iraq had signed a contract with a vendor, the contract was circulated to UNSCOM (later UNMOVIC), to see if there was anything that could be used for military purposes. Every member of the Security Council had the opportunity to review every contract, and each member could block or delay any contract for imports. Every member of the Security Council also had to approve every contract for the sale of oil. If there was cash paid under the table, it did not happen for lack of oversight. It happened despite the most elaborate monitoring system imaginable. And if the members of the Security Council--including the United States--failed to do their job, that is not the fault of Kofi Annan.
The Duelfer report, along with eight sets of Congressional hearings, vitriolic press coverage and considerable ranting by the right, suggest an antipathy toward the UN that goes well beyond election-season maneuvering. The consequences of this scandal will be considerable. We witnessed the ill-fated decision to invade Iraq without Security Council authorization; we might recall that the Security Council would not grant the American demand to authorize an invasion, precisely because the United States was unable to provide any compelling evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If the world's most respected institution of international governance is rendered impotent by accusations as distorted and exaggerated as these, we should all fear the consequences.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041206/gordon
There is no doubt that the UN needs a massive ground-up renovation. But it would be
A) Costly
B) None of the developing nations or industrialized nations would likely end up happy.
A) Costly
B) None of the developing nations or industrialized nations would likely end up happy.
The UN is stacked to work for the US. All it needs is a President who has some diplomatic skill. Unfortunately, on the diplomatic front, GWB can't organize a pee-up in a brewery.
Any US President who can't make it work in their favour really has to ask himself if he has enough skill to be a world leader.
Any US President who can't make it work in their favour really has to ask himself if he has enough skill to be a world leader.
Human Rights Hypocrisy*
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 27 February 2006
Last week, the President of the United Nations General Assembly
announced a new proposal to revamp the UN Human Rights Commission
and rename it the UN Human Rights Council. The product of months of
negotiations between the 53 member nations of the Commission, the
proposal will be voted on by the General Assembly next month. The
United States, however, immediately denounced the compromise. John
Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, said it has too many
"deficiencies" and should be renegotiated.
Bolton stated last month, "Membership on the Commission by some
of the world's most notorious human rights abusers mocks the
legitimacy of the Commission and the United Nations itself." But
Bolton was not referring to the United States, which invaded Iraq in
violation of the UN Charter, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis,
and tortured and abused prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Guantánamo Bay.
The United States and Western European countries have criticized
the Human Rights Commission because it has elected countries such as
Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya and Cuba, whom the Western nations have
accused of human rights violations.
In a press release issued last week, the Permanent Mission of
Cuba to the United Nations said, "If any government does not deserve
to be part of the Council, it is the one who represents a State that
benefited from the slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, that
kept a 'constructive commitment' to extend the existence of the
apartheid regime, that protects and bestows impunity to the human
rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli occupation of Palestine
and other Arab territories, that supported the bloody military
dictatorships of Latin America, that today tortures and murders in
the name of liberty which the majority of its own citizens do not
benefit from, that fails to meet its commitments and obligations of
official development assistance to the Third World, and that
threatens and attacks the Southern countries."
The United States objects to the new proposal's commitment to
the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. The refusal
to enshrine rights such as employment, education, food, housing, and
health care in US law is the reason the United States has not
ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. Since the Reagan administration, there has been a policy to
define human rights in terms of civil and political rights, but to
dismiss economic, social and cultural rights as akin to social
welfare, or socialism.
Indeed, the United States' inhumane policy toward Cuba
exemplifies this dichotomy. The US government criticizes civil and
political rights in Cuba while disregarding Cubans' superior access
to universal housing, health care, education and public
accommodations and its guarantee of paid maternity leave and equal
pay rates.
The US also opposes the new proposal's affirmation that the
right to development is on par with the rights to peace and
security, and human rights, as the three pillars of the United
Nations system. Last year, the United States and Australia were the
only nations to vote against a General Assembly resolution on the
Right to Development, which was passed by a vote of 48 to 2, with 2
abstentions. It reaffirmed the principle that the right to
development is an "inalienable human right."
A member of the Commission since it was formed in 1947, the US
was furious when it was voted off the Commission in 2001. Many
countries were angry with the United States for its policies in the
Middle East, and its opposition to the International Criminal Court,
the treaty to ban land mines, the Kyoto Protocol, and making AIDS
drugs available to everyone.
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 27 February 2006
Last week, the President of the United Nations General Assembly
announced a new proposal to revamp the UN Human Rights Commission
and rename it the UN Human Rights Council. The product of months of
negotiations between the 53 member nations of the Commission, the
proposal will be voted on by the General Assembly next month. The
United States, however, immediately denounced the compromise. John
Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, said it has too many
"deficiencies" and should be renegotiated.
Bolton stated last month, "Membership on the Commission by some
of the world's most notorious human rights abusers mocks the
legitimacy of the Commission and the United Nations itself." But
Bolton was not referring to the United States, which invaded Iraq in
violation of the UN Charter, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis,
and tortured and abused prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Guantánamo Bay.
The United States and Western European countries have criticized
the Human Rights Commission because it has elected countries such as
Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya and Cuba, whom the Western nations have
accused of human rights violations.
In a press release issued last week, the Permanent Mission of
Cuba to the United Nations said, "If any government does not deserve
to be part of the Council, it is the one who represents a State that
benefited from the slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, that
kept a 'constructive commitment' to extend the existence of the
apartheid regime, that protects and bestows impunity to the human
rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli occupation of Palestine
and other Arab territories, that supported the bloody military
dictatorships of Latin America, that today tortures and murders in
the name of liberty which the majority of its own citizens do not
benefit from, that fails to meet its commitments and obligations of
official development assistance to the Third World, and that
threatens and attacks the Southern countries."
The United States objects to the new proposal's commitment to
the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. The refusal
to enshrine rights such as employment, education, food, housing, and
health care in US law is the reason the United States has not
ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. Since the Reagan administration, there has been a policy to
define human rights in terms of civil and political rights, but to
dismiss economic, social and cultural rights as akin to social
welfare, or socialism.
Indeed, the United States' inhumane policy toward Cuba
exemplifies this dichotomy. The US government criticizes civil and
political rights in Cuba while disregarding Cubans' superior access
to universal housing, health care, education and public
accommodations and its guarantee of paid maternity leave and equal
pay rates.
The US also opposes the new proposal's affirmation that the
right to development is on par with the rights to peace and
security, and human rights, as the three pillars of the United
Nations system. Last year, the United States and Australia were the
only nations to vote against a General Assembly resolution on the
Right to Development, which was passed by a vote of 48 to 2, with 2
abstentions. It reaffirmed the principle that the right to
development is an "inalienable human right."
A member of the Commission since it was formed in 1947, the US
was furious when it was voted off the Commission in 2001. Many
countries were angry with the United States for its policies in the
Middle East, and its opposition to the International Criminal Court,
the treaty to ban land mines, the Kyoto Protocol, and making AIDS
drugs available to everyone.
What gets me is the U.S. yelling loudly about the Oil for Food scandal and blaming the UN when that particular boondoggle was run almost entirely by the U.S. navy. The UN reported 71 instances of possible corruption to the attention of the U.S. leaders of the program and every one was ignored. Still, if you tell enough lies, or throw enough poop, some is bound to stick.
RE: US Ambassador Bolton
What blows me away with the right wingers is thier love of corporate globalization and thier fear of global
government.
What blows me away with the right wingers is thier love of corporate globalization and thier fear of global
government.
The UN has seen better days. John Bolton doesn't like the UN and they know it, and that is good. The UN knows if they make a real stupid decision that Mr. Bolton will say so. Some of those same stupid people are in US Congress. Those with the same thought(said very loosely) processes as UN lackies, they are the reason President Bush skirted the US Congress in his appointment of John Bolton to the UN. Our Congressmen didn't like the fact that Mr. Bolton would stand his ground when something was wrong and tell (said loosely) his esteemed fellow ambassadors they were/are wrong.
Annan offers another Senility Move...what's he taking for his reality lapses???
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060228-091051-4697r.htm
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060228-091051-4697r.htm
Yeah the UN needs to remove the security council and replace it with something democratic. The current one gives too much power to France, USA, Russia, China and the UK.
Finder
I does look like it was an old Cold War politics kind of set up....
They need rearranging from all sides. Not to throw out the original intent of the U.N. but how it operates. It is hugely wasteful and the funding is not getting to the recipients. That's my big beef...
They seem to think they are a global kingdom which is the antitheses of what the United Nations should represent. Where all are equal? In the U.N.? hmmmmmmmmmm
I does look like it was an old Cold War politics kind of set up....
They need rearranging from all sides. Not to throw out the original intent of the U.N. but how it operates. It is hugely wasteful and the funding is not getting to the recipients. That's my big beef...
They seem to think they are a global kingdom which is the antitheses of what the United Nations should represent. Where all are equal? In the U.N.? hmmmmmmmmmm