Corruption at the heart of the United Nations

Aug 9th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

An investigation has concluded that the former head of the United Nations’ oil-for-food programme in Iraq took kickbacks to help an oil company win contracts. Another senior UN official is accused of soliciting bribes. The report is a severe blow to the organisation at a crucial time

FOR over a year, investigators have pored over questions of mismanagement and corruption at the United Nations. On Monday August 8th, they produced their firmest—and most painful—conclusions to date. An independent commission has found that Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN’s oil-for-food programme in Iraq, “corruptly benefited” from kickbacks while he was in charge. Another UN official, from the procurement office, is accused of soliciting bribes. The UN’s biggest-ever humanitarian undertaking seems to have become its biggest-ever scandal.
A harsh light began to shine on Mr Sevan after his name appeared on documents found in Iraq after the American-led invasion of 2003. Under the programme he ran, Iraq, though shackled by trade sanctions, could sell oil to buy food and medicine for its people. But the Iraqis negotiated the right to choose buyers and sellers in the programme. This gave Saddam Hussein’s government the ability to use oil concessions as a way to buy friends and influence. Among those alleged to have been bribed with oil vouchers are several European politicians.

But the charge that corruption may have tainted the top of the UN bureaucracy itself shook the organisation deeply. Mr Sevan denied any wrongdoing when his name hit the headlines. But the UN called for an independent inquiry, headed by Paul Volcker, a former head of America’s Federal Reserve. Mr Volcker’s first report, in February, showed that Mr Sevan had had repeated—and oft-denied—contact with the president of an oil company, AMEP, that received oil vouchers from Saddam. Mr Sevan also had around $160,000 in unusual bank deposits. He insisted that the money had come from an aunt.

This week’s report gives details of repeated meetings not only with AMEP’s president but also with Fred Nadler, a close friend of Mr Sevan’s revealed by the new report to be a director of AMEP as well. Mr Nadler controlled a Swiss bank account in a shell company’s name. Pennies off each barrel of oil sold by AMEP under the oil-for-food scheme went to the Swiss account, says the report, and money was withdrawn from it when Mr Sevan and/or Mr Nadler were in Geneva. Soon after, large sums of cash—mostly $100 bills—were paid into Mr Sevan’s American accounts. The Volcker committee thus claims a “reasonable sufficiency” of evidence that Mr Sevan was on the take. An American criminal investigation may now see if it can indict him. The Volcker committee has asked UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to strip Mr Sevan of his diplomatic immunity, which he has said he will do. Mr Sevan resigned from his UN post on Sunday but continues to protest his innocence, saying that Mr Annan has “sacrificed” him under political pressure.

Another long section of Monday’s report examines the adventures of Alexander Yakovlev, an officer in the UN’s procurement department. The report charges that Mr Yakovlev solicited a bribe from Société Générale de Surveillance, an inspection contractor, in exchange for confidential bidding information. (There is no evidence that SGS paid any such bribe.) The Volcker committee also says it has evidence that Mr Yakovlev took hundreds of thousands of dollars from other UN contractors. He and Mr Sevan are now the first two UN officials to be directly accused of personally benefiting from corrupt activity.

Rotten timing

The report makes only passing references to Mr Annan, but he is personally connected to another affair still under investigation. The Volcker committee is looking into whether Mr Annan’s son Kojo, who worked for a Swiss inspection-services firm called Cotecna, used his UN connections to help Cotecna win a bid.

The committee’s last report, in March, accused Kojo of concealing the length and depth of his involvement with Cotecna. But the committee had no conclusive evidence that Mr Annan senior knew his son was currently being paid by a company bidding for a UN contract. Since then, in an e-mail that has appeared in press reports, a Cotecna vice-president at the time, Michael Wilson, tells of a useful meeting with the secretary-general “and his entourage” shortly before Cotecna won its bid. Mr Wilson denies that the e-mail is genuine. The Volcker committee promises a “definitive” report on the affair in September.

If direct links are drawn between the UN’s head and the oil-for-food scandal, Mr Sevan’s fall would seem comparatively trifling in its consequences for the world body. But even if Mr Annan is cleared of wrongdoing, the Volcker team has already highlighted extensive management failures that let so many things go wrong with oil-for-food on his watch. And all of this comes at a crucial time for the UN, as it begins to consider how to reform itself.

The exploits of Messrs Sevan, Yakovlev and others may have done more than just a terrible disservice to the wretched people of Iraq they were paid to help America has just sent John Bolton, a fiery critic of the UN in the past, to be its ambassador there. Those Americans backing the hard-charging Mr Bolton say that he is the ideal man right now, as the UN needs a good shake-up. Only someone not afraid to slaughter sacred cows, they say, can get the job done.
But the UN, rightly, turns some of the criticism over oil-for-food back to America (and its ally, Britain). First, while quite a bit of money went missing in the kickbacks and bribes detailed in Mr Volcker’s reports, much more misdirected cash went elsewhere. Saddam supported himself by selling oil illegally to neighbours including Jordan and Turkey. UN defenders say America turned a blind eye to this, since these two countries were its allies. And UN backers remind America that the UN Security Council, through its sanctions committee, approved every contract awarded under oil-for-food. That means that America and Britain could have vetoed any of the dodgy deals involving Mr Sevan and the others accused. But they appear to have been more concerned with potentially weapons-related “dual use” Iraqi imports than they were about corruption. A later Volcker committee report will look into the Security Council’s oversight failures.

So Mr Bolton’s arrival and the mutual acrimony over oil-for-food mean tense times between the UN and its most powerful member—all the more so given that this comes just before the world body is set to consider proposals to keep it relevant after the war in Iraq. These include adding new permanent members to the Security Council, defining terrorism more clearly, helping the UN to react more robustly to humanitarian disasters, and more. A high-level summit in September is meant to tackle these questions.

The big reforms require a two-thirds majority in the UN’s general assembly, and no veto by any of the five permanent members of the Security Council (America, Britain, China, France and Russia). But not even the claimants to new Security Council seats—including Japan, Brazil and India—can agree among themselves who, exactly, should get a place at the table. They now seem unlikely to convince America, grouchier than ever about the UN, to take their side. Some of the other worthy goals of September’s reform conference could also be caught in the crossfire. The exploits of Messrs Sevan, Yakovlev and others may have done more than just a terrible disservice to the wretched people of Iraq they were paid to help.

Obviously Bolton is in the right place at the right time. It would be a good outcome if Annan left his position since his integrity is in serious question now.

Regarding reforms for the UN's future, with the current voting structure it will be difficult to obtain any intelligent changes which would effect real change away from the backroom deal making that has plagued the UN since its inception.

All the same one can be hopeful and expect that Mr. Bolton will be able to make the organization more accountable and responsive to important members like the US in future.

Ramblings for today....

Regarding the bloggingtory story... I did receive annother email from BT and this one was a LOT NICER than the first one. I am not in the mood today to rehash this issue but will try to address it in the next few days. I thank Stephen for responding in a mature matter and you have regained my respect because of it.

Now onto my rant for the day...

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts expressed great disappointment after learning the NEW YORK TIMES was poking around for details on his adopted children, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

What can I say about this???

First of all, we all know that if the Democrats controlled the House, the White House and the Senate then they would have parachuted their choice in by now and it would be done with. But since the left cannot stand to lose... even the smallest battle anymore.. we are faced with some hypocrite exec., from the NYTimes investigating a Supreme Court Nominee. How low can you go? Furthermore, I'm going to stick my neck out here (not unusual I'd say..), and state that even if their were issues with these adoptions... who is hurt by this? What great crime has occurred other than some supposed infraction that opponents of logical and practical thinking can latch onto to destroy more people for their own advantage? Nuff said about this I think.

Now onto the battle of Creationism vs Evolution in the US...

Meteor strikes may have aided early life-study

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005080818290002018849&dt=20050808182900&w=RTR&coview=

My second attempt at this thanks to the wonders of Google's Blogger...

I will attempt to reduce this debate which has gone on for hundreds of years (more probably millenia that is...), to a level that I believe a child can understand. Aided of course by this article and such that indicate that life as me know it in the universe is really quite mobile even without alien intervention.

First of all, it is a disservive to humanity to be intellectually dishonest or to only consider part of an issue or to limit debate on an issue especially for political or selfish reasons.

That is why the debate of whether creationism or intelligent design as it is often alternately called MUST be taught in all schools to all young people as a COMPLIMENTARY theory to explain the origin and adaption of all life as we know it.

To do otherwise would be to limit the capability of our own scientific mind and our ability to reach to the highest levels of spiritual enlightenment. To shut off the debate to a narrow path such that young talented minds are limited in how they think is not only discriminatory but criminal in my opinion as it limits the asperations and inclinations of all humanity.

Now on to the facts... this article referenced indicates that life has for millenia travelled countless distances in our universe to see and share and yes intermix wherever it has ended up. You could consider these travelling bodies computer viruses that infect worlds where the new or adapted life can take hold and influence what currently exists.

Stand aside if you do not believe in intelligent design in this universe and if you prefer a scientific rationale for all animated matter that you experience if in fact it really is real that is... but do not ignore the potential for intelligent lifeforms to go out and seed such travelling bodies in the knowledge that such life will spread, like weeds in the wind. Either way the argument that all life on earth originated here in some puddle struck by lightening and from whence all we know came from seems retarded to me. Also, consider the efforts of humans to reach out and explore in a limited fashion their own celestial backyards and the probable long-term effects of such contaminations in other places.

The time has ended for evolution as a complete stand alone theory to explain what exists... even a child with a smattering of imagination can see what folly this is... so why the hell can't an educated man or woman? Sometimes kids are smarter than we are.

Blogging Tories: Comments on my threatened Expulsion and subsequent decision to leave!

Here is the text, unedited as sent to me by Stephen Taylor via my email re: posts that I have recently made and comments attached to them. Stephen and some of his weak-kneed friends at the Blogging Tories found great offense to some of this material (which I let stay on the blog for everyone to decide for their self as to its merit and your perusal to let me know if I am in fact a bigot or a racist as some a-holes found fit to call me). There is again, nothing illegal or wrong with any of the statements made, although they are controversial in this liberal day and age, and as such may offend some people. I have chosen to let these statements stay because I believe in free-speech and NOT CENSORSHIP unlike Mr. Taylor.

As you can see by the tone of this email, I am an embarrasment to the BloggingTories and threatening to destroy them and the entire Conservative Party according to Stephen and his buddies. Of course since Stephen hangs in Ottawa at any opportunity to ingratiate himself with any politico he can latch onto, one wonders if his pronouncements on behalf of the CPC are to be taken with a grain of salt? Either way, I respect the LITTLE EMPIRE he is building for himself and certain of his LIBERAL MINDED friends and I will go my own way as I state in my response below:

Brian,

as you're likely aware, your most recent post has caused quite a furor in the blogosphere.

While your post is a slightly 'controversial'criticism on immigration, it is the comments on that post have me (and some other Blogging Tories) ashamed of your association within the group.

Discussions of the "white race" and decrying intermarriage/"race mixing" have absolutely no place in any organization with even a remote association with the Conservative Party of Canada.

I have discussed with Craig (the other Blogging Tories admin) and some
other Blogging Tories what should be done.

We recognize your right to free speech, however, we also recognize our
right to determine what group of individuals we want associated with
our group.

As such we see two possibilities,


a) You can purge the comments section of your latest post on
immigration (all comments) or
b) Continue to express your opinion, unmolested, but realize that we
cannot continue to endorse you as a member of Blogging Tories.
Please note that you are free to choose your own path here, but we are
also free to choose ours. If you choose to continue your association
with Blogging Tories, please be advised that a similar notice in the
future will not be forthcoming in response to a similar incident and
that we will choose in favour of your removal from the blogroll.

Sincerely,

Stephen Taylor
Craig Smith

Now my response:

Stephen:

After some deliberation on my part, I have decided that 'I no longer want anything to do with the blogging tories.' Thus you can remove me from the roll and I will delete any mention of the bloggingtories from my blog.

I do not see what I have done to bring shame to the blogging Tories and nothing that you have mentioned in your email indicates where I have. In regards the comments, I'm not aware that any of them are illegal, hateful or unfair. I do not advocate anywhere for anyone to belong to any group nor do I belong to any group other than a political party (which I may be considering the wisdom of in future). Furthermore, if I choose to favour my own kind and stand up for them and be concerned for their future survival whilst you think it is not important at all, then obviously we have entirely differing views of the future, the present and even what politics is about.

In regards racial mixing, please point out to me what I said that is so offensive or wrong if I even said anything?

You also speak as though you are some expert on what views the conservative party of Canada has... I guess your meetings with a few MP's in Ottawa has gone to your head apparently...

If you wish to cave into globalism/liberalism and still continue to call yourself a conservative without any thought to questioning the status quo and all accepted ways of thinking then I do not wish to associate with the bloggingtories any longer. This is what is best for everyone. It appears that the blogging Tories for the most part are a group of 20 somethings with little real world experience that are idealistic and in some cases opportunistic and I have little in common with such people.
Frankly, many of the members remind me more of liberals than any kind of conservative anyhow.

If this is the face of the NEW conservative party then it is starting to remind me too much of the old PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES.

All the same I appreciate the opportunity to express my views let me know if you disagree with anything I have said but I doubt you will lest you enter into an argument that you cannot win.

I wish you luck in the future,

yours truly,

Brian