Iraq |
Iraq recovers millions of stolen Oil For Food dollars in Switzerland |
2023-10-25 |
Mostly stolen from Saddam Hussein’s Oil For Food program. [Shafaq News] On Saturday, the head of the Federal Integrity Commission (CoI) announced the recovery of over 70 million dollars from a Swiss bank, and affirmed the recovery of billions of Iraqi dinars from individuals, including former Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi's advisor, local officials, and a former intelligence agency officer.Haider Hanoun stated that CoI has achieved significant milestones and laid the groundwork for combating corruption. CoI has addressed many gaps that were exploited by corrupt individuals. This was accomplished through collaboration with the executive authority, especially the government led by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al Sudan ![]() i, who has placed a new focus on the fight against corruption in Iraq. Hanoun explained that Law No. 9 of 2012 on the Recovery of Iraqi Funds aims to recover Iraq's financial rights acquired by Iraqis and foreigners through unlawful means as a result of the misuse of the Oil-for-Food program and the use of sanctions on Iraq to achieve financial gains at the expense of the Iraqi people. This law applies to funds acquired by Iraq before 2003. There are many funds that were stolen and the former regime used Iraqi, Arab, and foreign companies to create funds and give money to Arabs and foreigners to establish companies that served the previous regime. The law has several advantages and exempts those who cooperate with the fund. Hanoun explained that the Iraqi Money Recovery Fund managed to recover a sum of $70,610,000 from a Swiss bank. An earlier $800 million had been recovered from the same person who has since passed away. This money had been imported from the Central Bank (CBI). The funds have been transferred to the Ministry of Finance. Moreover, $26 million was recovered, which had been hidden in the Rashid Bank. These funds belonged to the Huda Religious Tourism Company, which was established in 2000. It previously managed Iranian visitors and was linked to the former intelligence agency. The company was dissolved in 2004, but the bank did not return the money to the Tourism Authority. The funds were hidden, and they have been recovered and will be transferred to the Ministry of Finance. CoI also managed to recover six billion Iraqi dinars from the United Investment Bank, part of the 15 billion dinars misappropriated by the bank. This resulted from corruption in the Iraq Export Support Fund, which was affiliated with the Ministry of Trade. Hanoun noted that an additional five billion Iraqi dinars were recovered from Haytham al-Jubouri, the financial advisor to former Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. al-Jubouri, who is currently imprisoned, is accused of having received a total of nine billion dinars. All the recovered amounts will be transferred to the state treasury. Finally, Hanoun reported the recovery of 1.5 billion Iraqi dinars from the defendant Raed Jaber Imran, the former Director-General of the Middle Oil Refineries. This is a recent recovery and represents a portion of the total misappropriation of seven billion dinars that is currently in the possession of the state treasury. |
Link |
Iraq |
UN: Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq fully implemented |
2017-12-10 |
![]() ...a lucrative dumping ground for the relatives of dictators and party hacks... Security Council announced on Friday that all measures imposed in the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq had been fully implemented. "The Security Council removed Iraq from Chapter VII of Oil and Food Program. Hence, Iraq restored its international position and normal status," said Ahmed Mahjoob, spokesperson of the Iraqi Interior Ministry. A statement by the UN Security Council read, among other things, "that the remaining $14,283,565 in the administrative escrow account had been transferred to Iraq." In August 1990, comprehensive sanctions were imposed on Iraq following the country’s invasion of Kuwait. A UN proposal was suggested for Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil in order to support the needs of its people. However the proposal was declined by the Iraqi government. Chapter VII of the UN Charter established the Oil-for-Food program in April 1995 which was implemented in December 1996. The program was established to "provide Iraq with another opportunity to sell oil to finance the purchase of humanitarian goods, and various mandated United Nations activities concerning Iraq," according to the UN Security Council. Iraq was initially able to sell $2 billion of oil every six months, with two-thirds of the monies received to be used to meet humanitarian needs within the country. The amount was raised in 1998 to $5.6 billion every six months, still with two-thirds of the money to be used for humanitarian issues. As of May 2003 approximately $28 billion worth of equipment and supplies had been used for humanitarian purposes within Iraq through the Oil-for-Food program, including $1.6 billion in oil-related equipment and another $10 billion went towards production and delivery pipelines. In view of warnings received from the US and UK governments regarding the prospect of war, the program ended and UN personnel were evacuated from Iraq on March 18, 2003. The Iraqi war began the following day with the bombing of Baghdad. Amy Tachco, US representative of the UN Security Council praised Iraq’s complete implementation of measures imposed under the Oil-for-Food program. Stating the country still faced many challenges, she "looked forward to close cooperation internationally and bilaterally in support of Iraq as a federal, democratic and prosperous country." |
Link |
Government |
A Proper Contempt for the UN |
2016-11-25 |
[COMMENTARYMAGAZINE] The United Nations ...an organization originally established to war on dictatorships which was promptly infiltrated by dictatorships and is now held in thrall to dictatorships... has become a cesspit of contemptible anti-Americanism that serves only to give the authoritarian nations undue influence over the course of global affairs. Its legations rewrite history so as to edit Jews out of Jerusalem. Its human rights When they're defined by the state or an NGO they don't mean much... commission elects by secret ballot human-rights violators like Muammar Qadaffy ...The late megalomaniac dictator of Libya, admired everywhere for his garish costumes, funny hats, harem of cutie bodyguards, and incoherent ravings. As far as is known, he is the only person who's ever declared jihad on Switzerland... ’s Libya and Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face... to lead. It is the font of scandals, including abuse of the Iraqi Oil for Food program and the allegations that the UN covered up the sexual abuse of minors by peacekeepers in war zones. The United Nations regularly infringes on U.S. illusory sovereignty by imposing on it climate regulations, restrictions on maritime navigation rights, and attacks on American freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Will Nikki Haley ...first woman to serve as Governor of South Carolina, and the second Indian-American governor in the country, after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. At the age of 39, Haley is the youngest current governor in the U.S., a distinction formerly held by Jindal. She is a Republican, which really grates on the Dems... make a good ambassador to the United Nations, whatever that means? It’s difficult to say. She will, however, be a welcome departure from a corrupting culture and an important voice advising President Donald Trump ...New York real estate developer, described by Dems as illiterate, racist, misogynistic, and what ever other unpleasant descriptions they can think of, elected by the rest of us as 45th President of the United States... |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Will the Clinton Foundation Mark the Fall of Our Republic? |
2016-08-29 |
[PJ] No matter how extreme the future revelations of Julian Assange and others turn out to be, the truth about the Clinton Foundation is already clear. Whatever its original intentions, this supposed charity became a medium to leverage Hillary Clinton's position as secretary of State for personal enrichment and global control by the Clintons and their allies. We also now know--as the Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel made clear in her recent oped--why Hillary decided to hide all her emails on her "infamous server." To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done in the history of the United States government. It calls to mind, if anything, the United Nations' scandalous Oil-for-Food program in which millions were siphoned off from a plan to feed Iraq's children during the war. It could even be worse, because of the national security implications. The Clinton Foundation and the State Department were commingled to such an extent we may never know the truth, certainly not before the election since that same State Department has refused to release Hillary's official schedule before then. This means, quite simply, that the United States of America has abandoned the rule of law. Maybe we did a while ago. In any case, we are now a banana republic--a rich and powerful one, at least temporarily, but still a banana republic. The election of Hillary Clinton--our own Evita--will make the situation yet more grave. Consider something so basic as how you raise your children in a country where the president is most probably an indictable criminal and most certainly a serial liar of almost inexhaustible proportions. What do you tell them? What do their teachers tell them? A far cry from George Washington, isn't it? What does this say about our basic morality and how does that affect all aspects of our culture? The fish, as they say, rots from the top. Equally importantly, what does our government do as further actionable information emerges as it inevitably will? The Department of Justice, as we have seen, is already corrupt, unable to indict those in power, indeed colluding with them aboard airplanes. The same personnel will undoubtedly be in place. Can we rely on congressional oversight for justice and/or a potential impeachment? What if the Democrats control the Senate? In the far less serious Watergate era, Republicans like Howard Baker stood up against Nixon. Democrats, however, cling to power the way they accuse Republicans of clinging to their guns and religion and will no doubt avert their eyes, pretending, with their friends in the media, that nothing out of the norm is happening. But plenty is and will. Look to Sweden for the future of America. And with expanded entitlements and immigration, Syrian and otherwise, don't look for a Republican revival in 2020. Those days will be long over. "A republic, if you can keep it," Benjamin Franklin reportedly said when emerging from the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Yes, it may be apocryphal, but so are many important statements that are true in concept. Some very hard hitting and insightful comments follow the article. |
Link |
International-UN-NGOs |
With A Grain of Salt! : Those frogs have a better Middle East foreign policy than the ross-bifs |
2007-10-20 |
So here we have a country which was considered to be a colonial enterprise in the Middle East, hated with a vengeance, totally imperialistic, only interested in its own culture and shoving its language down the native throats, only interested in the natives' oil and in return selling arms to repressive regimes. And then thirty years later, it has suddenly become a close friend of the very same people who previously thought of them as an enemy. Yes, Sir, I am referring to France, the same cheese eating surrendering monkeys who have successfully managed to turn their foreign policy dramatically upside down, inside out, and to turn enemies into friends. Compare that to the USA and UK, which are still embroiled in that hell-hole called as the Middle East. What happened there? Any lessons to be learnt? Frankly, up and until 1967, France was considered as the mortal enemy of the Middle East. The majority of the crusades were staffed, funded and originated in the French kingdoms. The name Franks relates to the French. Most of the massacres during the crusades, whether in Byzantine lands, Constantinople, Levant, Jerusalem or in Egypt were carried out by the Frenchmen. While the Brits think that they exerted most of the influence in the Ottoman Empire, it was actually the French who can arguably be said to have the greatest influence. French troops were present when the Turks were turned back at the gates of Vienna. Do you remember the battle of Lepanto? French capital, lots of French ships. Charles Martell? How about the huge French backing, funding, people and tactics which were involved in the roll-back of the Arab/Berber Empire of Granada in Spain? Or Napoleons invasion of Egypt, the carve out of the Ottoman Empire the French got the best parts of the carcass if you ask me - ranging from Algeria to Syria / Lebanon, etc. France sold weapons gaily to everybody and their dogs. And then came the disaster that was the 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, followed by the strong French support for Israel (and the huge arms deals!) Think about the biggest military defeat for the Arabs, the 1967 war. It was almost completely due to French military equipment for the air force, army and the tiny naval fleet. Who can forget the long brutal colonisation of Algeria followed by the devastatingly brutal gradual retreat and final independence for Algeria with millions killed, injured, hurt, imprisoned and made destitute. You ask about oil? Well, after World War I, the carcass of the Ottoman Empire and the German colonies were subdivided, and France got a share of the Turkish Petroleum Company - an Anglo-German dominated company - as part of the repatriations emanating from the Versailles treaty. This company was the seed leading to the Compagnie Française des Pétrole in1924 and in turn became TOTAL in 1954. TOTAL was a very heavy investor in Iraq during the middle part of the century, right up to the point when the Iraqi oil fields were nationalised. Unlike the USA and UK, France does not have local domestic sources of Oil, which made it very single minded in pursuit of stable, secure and most importantly long term supply of oil. So a country which clearly wants oil and has had a very long history of anti-Arab / anti-Muslim actions is now, in the beginning part of this century, a very close and trusted friend of the Arabs! France deploys troops in Lebanon and not even a single squeak. France wags her fingers at Arab potentates and not even a single murmur of protest. Terrorist gangs are generally quiet about France. France negotiated the release of the nurses held for over ten years in Libya. Everyone loves France. It's not just the Arabs, but the Iranian Shia love it too. Remember the long hosting of Ayatollah Khomeini during his exile in France? (His house there is now apparently a pilgrimage site!) But this support has faded because France supported Iraq in the Iraq Iran War. Even the current sabre rattling against Iran is part of the same design, this puts them firmly in the Sunni Arab camp. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,506396,00.html) So what did France do? Starting from the 1960s onwards, it started to redress its balance to Israel and started supporting Arabs a bit more. This was a master stroke. France imposed an embargo on arms sales on both sides before the 1967 war. Since most of Israels weaponry was French, Israel was hit proportionally harder. And paradoxically, since Israel won so handsomely using French arms, the Arabs junked their clunky Soviet equipment and went for more French arms. And the cherry on the cake, was that after the war, France managed to sell more parts and equipment to Israel, funded by the Americans. So, at a masterstroke, France gained public congratulations from the Arabs, ended up earning loads of brownie points from the Arabs, and sold more to both sides. Guess who supplied Iraq with its Osirak Nuclear Reactor, which the Israelis destroyed? Guess who was supplying Iraq with huge amounts of weaponry during the Iraq Iran War? Guess who helped to broker the agreement which ended Lebanons civil war? Who do you think was the biggest opposer of Iraqi sanctions before the Gulf War I? And when it became clear that Saddam Hussein would not repay the debts owed to France for arms sales, who do you think was the fourth largest contributor to the coalition after USA, UK and Saudi Arabia (well, you can quibble whether Saudi Arabia really was a contributor, but that is detracting from the point)? Guess who positioned themselves very well for the post Gulf War I period? Do you remember the corruption allegations and accusations relating to the Iraqi Oil for Food programme against a gentleman called as Charles Pasqua and the BNP Paribas bank? Which western country fought the hardest against Gulf War II? No prizes for guessing! So how it is that France has a great reputation (despite having the most atrocious reputation amongst its own domestic Arab minority population)? What can the UK and USA learn from France's foreign policy? UK and USA are the Great and Smaller Satan at this moment on the Arab Street and in its basement. You are almost guaranteed to have the effigies of Brown and Blair and/or the flags of the two countries burnt during every Arab street demonstration. Well, the first and foremost bit is that its national interest (oil) is aligned to its foreign policy. For almost a century, the state was aligned with going after external oil with the exception of some war years. So the policy is stable. It learnt from its colonial experience in Algeria and has decided not to get involved in colonial endeavours. It supports the ex-colony governments, ties them together in a very tight francophone web of culture, language, politics, diplomatic, military and government contacts. When was the last time you heard France going to war or beating the war drums because a French ex-colonys government has been beastly to its citizens? Do you seriously think that France gives a rats behind about democracy, equality, liberty and fraternity of those oppressed people? All elements of its intelligentsia subscribe to Frances foreign policy, so it does not alter given changes of its president or prime minister. Whether we are talking De Gaulle, Mitterrand, Chirac, Jospin and now Sarkozy, the foreign policy has been remarkably consistent for almost half a century. This is because the elite of French society are drawn from a tight circle and the think tanks and intellectuals, are all bought into this national interest, national ethos and foreign policy. It is also remarkably consistent in its secularism, which paradoxically is very appealing to its Arab Muslim client states. They like knowing that the French State will follow its own national interest and that it will have nothing to do with anti-Islam, Islamophobia or what have you. It is also remarkably hypocrisy-free in terms of its arms sales these days. No questions asked, you want arms, you want technology, you want engineering products, show me the money and the stuff is yours. Whether we are talking food processing, engineering, petrochemical, shipping, France is your woman (if you pardon the pun, France is a woman, and dont you know? Unlike Germany which is masculine!) Why is it that French products were never hit with the boycott calls after the infamous Mohammad cartoons row blew up, despite French newspapers and magazines publishing the very same ones? While UK, despite not publishing them, was panned left, right and centre? The solution is simple! If the UK and USA want to go down the route of France They need to drop the governmental support for Israel, stop banging on about democracy, freedom, free speech, etc. They need to divorce foreign policy from trade policy and be ready to sell anything / everything to anybody who has money. Be discreet but consistent about supporting autocratic rulers, who will in turn support trade, industrial and defence industries. They need not worry about their populace, but have to make sure that the intelligentsia will march to the same tune of the national interest of UK and USA being the most important issue. The rest follow much later if at all. There you go - simple answer. All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt! |
Link |
International-UN-NGOs |
The U.N.'s Big Power Grab |
2007-10-03 |
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. The Washington Times | 10/3/2007 If Americans have learned anything about the United Nations over the last 50 years, it is that this "world body" is, at best, riddled with corruption and incompetence. At worst, its bureaucracy, agencies and members are overwhelmingly hostile to the United States and other freedom-loving nations, most especially Israel. So why on earth would the United States Senate possibly consider putting the U.N. on steroids by assenting to its control of seven-tenths of the world's surface? Such a step would seem especially improbable given such well-documented fiascoes as: the U.N.-administered Iraq Oil-for-Food program; investigations and cover-ups of corrupt practices at the organization's highest levels; child sex-slave operations and rape squads run by U.N. peacekeepers; and the absurd, yet relentless, assault on alleged Israeli abuses of human rights by majorities led by despotic regimes in Iran, Cuba, Syria and Libya. Nonetheless, the predictable effect of U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST) would be to transform the U.N. from a nuisance and laughingstock into a world government: The United States would confer upon a U.N. agency called the International Seabed Authority (IA) the right to dictate what is done on, in and under the world's oceans. Doing so, America would become party to surrender of immense resources of the seas and what lies beneath them to the dictates of unaccountable, nontransparent multinational organizations, tribunals and bureaucrats. LOST's most determined proponents have always been the one-worlders members of the World Federalists Association (now dubbed Citizens for Global Solutions) and like-minded advocates of supranational government. They have made no secret of their ambition to use the Law of the Sea Treaty as a kind of "constitution of the oceans" and prototype for what they want to do on land, as well. Specifically, the transnationalists (or Transies) understand LOST would set a precedent for diminishing, and ultimately eliminating, sovereign nations. It would establish the superiority of international mechanisms for managing not just "the common heritage of mankind," but everything that could affect it. In the case of LOST, such a supranational arrangement is particularly enabled by the treaty's sweeping environmental obligations. State parties promise to "protect and preserve the marine environment." Since ashore activities from air pollution to runoff that makes its way into a given nation's internal waters can ultimately affect the oceans, however, the U.N.'s big power grab would also allow it to exercise authority over land-based actions of heretofore sovereign nations. Unfortunately, the Senate has been misled on this point by the Bush administration. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte claimed in testimony before the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee last Thursday that the treaty has "no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources." He insisted, "That's just not covered by the treaty." Worse yet, State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger, said, "[LOST] clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources. That would stop at the water's edge." Thank goodness for Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, who caustically observed, if that were true, "Why is there a [LOST] section entitled 'Pollution from Land-Based sources?' " He went on to note there is not only a section by that name, but a subsequent section on enforcement concerning such pollution. Few senators have more immediate reason to worry about LOST's dire implications for our sovereignty than Mr. Vitter and his Democratic colleague, Mary Landrieu. It is inconceivable that their state's crown jewel, New Orleans, would be in business today even in its diminished, post-Katrina condition had the United States been subject to this Treaty when that devastating hurricane hit Louisiana and Mississippi. Enforcement of the unprecedented commitment not to pollute the marine environment can be compelled via LOST's mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms. The U.N.'s Law of the Sea Tribunal is empowered to "prescribe any provisional measures" in order "to prevent serious harm to the marine environment." States parties are required to "comply promptly with any [such] provisional measures." Surely, the sovereign act taken in an emergency situation which dumped into the Gulf of Mexico vast quantities of toxic waste that had accumulated in Lake Pontchartrain after Katrina would have been enjoined in this manner. Does any senator want to assure such interference in our internal affairs in the future? Scarcely more appetizing is LOST's empowering of a U.N. agency to impose what amount to international taxes. To provide such an entity with a self-financing mechanism and the authority to distribute the ocean's wealth in ways that suit the majority of its members and its international bureaucracy is a formula for unaccountability and corruption on an unprecedented scale. To date, the full malevolent potential of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been more in prospect than in evidence. If the United States accedes to LOST, however, it is predictable that the treaty's agencies will: wield their powers in ways that will prove very harmful to American interests; intensify the web of sovereignty-sapping obligations and regulations promulgated by this and other U.N. entities; and advance inexorably the emergence of supranational world government. Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan declined to submit our sovereignty to the United Nations and rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty. If anything, there are even more compelling reasons today to prevent the U.N.'s big power grab. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the founder, president, and CEO of The Center for Security Policy. During the Reagan administration, Gaffney was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy, and a Professional Staff Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator John Tower (R-Texas). He is a columnist for The Washington Times, Jewish World Review, and Townhall.com and has also contributed to The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New Republic, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Los Angeles Times, and Newsday. |
Link |
Britain |
Galloway may face criminal charges |
2007-07-19 |
![]() Detectives are to seek documents from the Serious Fraud Office, which carried out a previous investigation, to establish whether there are grounds to prosecute Mr Galloway. The police may seek his bank accounts after a report by Sir Philip Mawer, the Parliamentary Standards Commisioner, concluded yesterday that Mr Galloway's Mariam Appeal charity received large sums from Saddam's manipulation of the United Nations oil-for-food programme. Sir Philip said: "Mr Galloway has consistently denied, prevaricated and fudged in relation to the now undeniable evidence that the Mariam Appeal, and he indirectly through it, received money derived, via the Oil for Food programme, from the Iraqi regime." He added: "Mr Galloway through his controlling position in the appeal, benefited from those monies, in terms of furtherance of his political objectives." He went on: "He [Mr Galloway] had received such support at least recklessly or negligently, and probably knowingly." But Sir Philip said there was no evidence that Mr Galloway had benefited personally from the programme or that any funds had entered his personal bank account. The 181-page report said that the Respect MP had "consistently failed to live up to the expectation of openness and straightforwardness". The investigation was triggered by The Daily Telegraph in April 2003 when David Blair, a foreign correspondent, discovered documents purporting to be about Mr Galloway in the Iraqi foreign ministry in Baghdad shortly after Saddam's overthrow. The papers claimed to show that he received funds from Saddam's regime for the Mariam Appeal. The committee report demands that Mr Galloway apologise to David Blair, who he accused of perjury, and to the Commons. In December 2004 The Daily Telegraph lost a libel action brought by Mr Galloway who was paid £150,000 in damages. Detectives are studying the section of the report where Sir Philip referred to Mr Galloway's bank accounts which he had not seen. The report said: "I have not pressed for access to bank accounts . . . primarily because I believe that embarking on such action could take me into matters more properly within the jurisdiction of other agencies." |
Link |
International-UN-NGOs |
Too Strong for comfort, OR Whither Maurice Strong? |
2007-06-06 |
From the woman who wrote Privilege Means Responsibility, posted by Mike earlier. An old piece, dated March 23 2007, but still interesting I think. Paranoia, says my dear clever brother Bruce, "is the family disease." "Well, ok then" I said to myself, "let's take that bad boy out for a walk." China announced this week that it was bumping its defence budget by 17%. I suspect one of our so-called great men is behind that monstrous threat: Maurice Strong. While we all watch Conrad Black being taken apart by the Yanks, one of Canada's most dubious characters is hiding out in China, still fomenting trouble at the age of 77. When history comes to write his story, it will be one of extraordinary back room deals that curiously make him rich, while decreasing the self-determination of others. Strong's true talents lie in behind-the-scenes manipulations of the political process. He is reputed to be very, very wealthy, despite being a self-confessed, life-long socialist. Socialism for everyone else, apparently. As godfather of Kyoto, he is responsible for the virulant anti-capitalist stance of the enviro movement (now thankfully acknowledging sanity when it shows up on the playing field). Strong was the UN official who was chief co-ordinator of re-forms that set up the Iraq Office, which oversaw the Oil for Food program. In fact, he resigned from the U.N., when a $1,000,000 cheque was found to have been delivered to him, endorsed by him and cashed, that came from Saddam Hussein's UN sanctioned regime. While Strong protests innocence, he vanished to China soon after and returns seldom. Particularly since, following right after the Oil for Food indictments in New York this fall, revelations of pay-outs that propped up North Korea's nuclear community were found to have come winding through various UN outfits which Strong, as special envoy to Kofi Annan for the Korean peninsula from 2003-2005, controlled. But it is in Strong's machinations for "global governance" that he is most terrifying. Global governance is UN speak for "give us money and go away while we run the world." One of his most flesh-crawling recommendations was that the U.N. take a .5% tax on foreign-exchange transactions, raising, by the estimate of economist James Tobin, $1.5 trillion annually for a supra-government, which answers to no voter in no country. Not only that, under his aegis, at the same time, a two-stage system revoking veto power by the five members of the Security council was recommended. No wonder he's pitched up in China, the only functional Stalinist state left with nuclear ambitions. Is he, I wonder, about to trigger another Cold War? This one in the name of someone, anyone, standing up to the evil American Empire? I suspect he's going to try. That, and hiding out from any indictments that might come down from his fiddling with the massive budgets he supervised and spent, under the aegis of the U.N. There is nothing wrong with the U.N., except for this one small thing. Its structure, and lack of oversight by the democracies of the world, has made it a snakes' nest for international manipulators who work against freedom and self-determination of ordinary men and women, in the service of an ideology that is the most murderous and destructive in human history. We need to rescue it and soon. Women's Post claims to be read by more mid to high income professional women in Toronto than their versions of the NY Times. Kinda like the Wall Street Journal, I guess, being read by those who actually do run things. ;-) |
Link |
Home Front: WoT |
The Left's Iraq Muddle |
2007-05-22 |
By Bob Kerrey At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause. But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "Democracy cannot be imposed with military force." What troubled me about this statement--a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq--is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently. Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores. As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program. No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq. Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right. The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart. Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would. American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear. With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy. The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes." This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory. Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week. Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism. The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them. |
Link |
International-UN-NGOs |
Whos Dissin Whom |
2006-07-26 |
Theres a disproportionate response all right. By Claudia Rosett As Israel fights to defend itself against the Iranian-and-Syrian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah, are we really seeing a reckless, damaging and yes disproportionate response? You bet. But not from Israel. Its coming from the U.N. Hezbollah deliberately provoked this war on July 12 by kidnapping Israeli soldiers inside Israels borders, and has been launching rockets into Israel from a massive arsenal that under U.N. writ Hezbollah is not even supposed to possess. That was not the deal under which Israel, in keeping with U.N. wishes, withdrew entirely from southern Lebanon in 2000. The U.N. promise was that Hezbollah would be defanged and that U.N. peacekeepers would help the Lebanese government reestablish control over Hezbollah-infested terrain inside Lebanon. Over the past six years, Israel honored its commitment to peace. The U.N. disproportionately required in practice no such compliance on the Lebanese side of the border. The peacekeepers of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, called UNIFIL, sat passively looking on, costing about $100 million a year and doing nothing to stop Hezbollah from trucking in weapons, digging tunnels, and running the armed protection rackets with which it has kept a grip on swathes of Lebanon, including the southern border with Israel, parts of the Bekaa, and southern Beirut. Before the current fighting, UNIFIL had most recently distinguished itself for a run-of-the-U.N.-mill financial swindle involving a contingent of Ukrainian peacekeeping troops. On that subject, whatever laws might have been violated, the U.N. has as usual with U.N. scams refused to release details. Now, UNIFIL peacekeepers have been reduced to casualties of the crossfire, while Secretary-General Kofi Annan urges that we take what the U.N. has done wrong already, and do more of it. With its false promises, and disproportionate deals for peace, the U.N. left Israel exposed to the attack that has now come, and a war that Israel did not seek. Like America when attacked by al Qaeda, Israel has been fighting back. In response, U.N. officials have come close to trampling each other in their stampede to the media microphones not to admit the U.N.s own failure to stop Hezbollah, not to apologize for administering a phony peace that incubated this miserable war, but to denounce Israel. These latest exercises in disproportion begin, of course, with U.N. officials ritually condemning all parties. With that sleight of hand, they conjure the baseline U.N. fallacy known as moral equivalence. In that U.N. scheme of the universe, a democratic society that is attacked while honoring U.N. agreements is treated as no different from its death-cult rule-violating terrorist attackers. But and here we get to the U.N.s real dark arts having set up that bizarre equation, U.N. officials then proceed with their proportionate calculus, lavishing their further innuendos, sly criticisms, or, in some cases, outright denunciations on Israel. These comments biased or even inane though some of them are echo especially loud in the so-called international community because they come from officials flashing a U.N. badge. Thus did we get last weeks Pollyanna platitudes from U.N. Deputy-Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown, who on the subject of this Hezbollah-propelled war opined that military solutions an apparent allusion to Israel are not the answer. The basic point, said Malloch Brown, is that saving or losing a life is a very simple business Perhaps that is how the world looks from the tree-shaded lawns of the George Soros estate, where Malloch Brown rents a $10,000 per month home. But the saving of lives is anything but simple in the face of a Lebanese landscape infested with Hezbollah terrorists using Lebanese civilians innocent or otherwise as shields to launch death-dealing attacks on Israel. It is even less simple when you consider that Hezbollah has for years been on the receiving end of a Syrian-Iranian Ho Chi Minh trail of money and munitions which the U.N. despite its resolutions and resources devoted in theory to peace has done nothing in practice to block. And it all gets most terrifyingly un-simple when you take into account that Hezbollah, which among its assorted brutalities has killed more Americans than any terrorist group except al Qaeda, is the Lebanon-based arm of a nuclear-bomb-seeking Iran, which the U.N. has also failed to stop, and whose president has vowed to annihilate Israel. At the very least, one has to wonder if Malloch Brown would take the same Bambi-eyed view were Hezbollah rocketing his local tennis courts. Following the words of Malloch Brown, we have been treated over the past week to Secretary-General Kofi Annan condemning Israel for excessive use of force, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour hinting darkly about war crimes, and the accusations this past weekend of U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator Jan Egeland about violation of humanitarian law. The issue here is not, in fact, what yardsticks these people are using though that is quite problematic enough but that they are abusing their U.N. positions by making these selective, ad hoc accusations against Israel in the first place. These folks are not presidents, or prime ministers. They are U.N. civil servants. Even Kofi Annan, who fancies himself, by his own description, to be perhaps chief diplomat of the world, is actually under the U.N. charter mandated to be nothing more than the organizations chief administrative officer. (When trying to duck the blame for the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, Annan was quick enough to deny not only any policy role, but even his clear administrative responsibilities). In the case of Arbour, and her threats aimed at Israelis, Ambassador John Bolton had a very good point when he offered a reminder last weekend to the U.N. High Commissioner, as one lawyer to another, that In America, prosecutors are not supposed to threaten people in public based on press accounts. In the case of Jan Egeland, his job is to coordinate aid, not make selective pronouncements on the fly about humanitarian law. (This is the same Jan Egeland who immediately after the 2004 tsunami took it upon himself to publicly insult U.N. member states, including the U.S. mainstay of the bloated U.N. budget for being stingy). Among other things, it was apparently lost on Egeland, when he toured the bomb damage in south Beirut last weekend, that his convoy was waved past a road block by a Hezbollah guard dressed in black and armed with an assault rifle, according to a Reuters report. That scene right there was a violation of everything in the U.N. book, and not by Israel but apparently it didnt fit his script. There are of course some subjects on which the same senior U.N. civil servants now so vocal have been most disproportionately circumspect. I cant recall any of them protesting in public that totalitarian, terrorist-sponsoring Syria (surely something in there is a violation of international law?) was allowed not so long ago to chair the U.N. Security Council, while democratic Israel has been chronically shunned. And when operations of the U.N. itself have come under the spotlight in recent years, in some cases for behavior as egregious as pedophiliac rape by peacekeepers, or complicity in the kickback rackets of Saddam Hussein, Kofi Annan, and his entourage have rushed to impose the omerta in-house, while urging the rest of us to wait upon due process, refrain from rash comments, consider the larger picture and preferably just shut up and forget about it. If Annan and his retinue feel a desperate need during this current crisis to express themselves, perhaps they should channel it into actually delivering some of that transparency theyve been promising in their own operations. That would be good preparation in the event the U.N. Security Council decides, say, to impose sanctions on Iran, and needs the Secretariat staff to perform with at least slightly more integrity than was displayed under the Iraq Oil-for-Food program. Right now it is the job of the worlds more responsible political leaders not simply to deplore the horrors of war, or construct another false U.N. peace leading to even worse nightmare ahead, but to seek real answers to the miseries and menaces of the Middle East. That is a task perilous, contentious, and rough enough, without a parade of unelected and largely unaccountable U.N. civil servants using public platforms to insinuate into the process their private prejudices. Claudia Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix | |
Tongsun Park guilty in Oil-for-Food scandal | |
2006-07-15 | |
![]() Oil-for-Food has had its first airing in federal court, and the verdict is in. South Korean businessman Tongsun Park was accused of conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in shaping the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. He has been found guilty.
| |
Link |
International-UN-NGOs |
The U.N.s Day in Court |
2006-06-29 |
Oil-for-Food hits a New York courtroom. By Claudia Rosett While United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already dismissed the Oil-for-Food scandal as over and done, within the wood-paneled walls of a Manhattan courtroom it has just come to life. The opening this week of the first federal trial linked to the U.N.s former relief program for Iraq has transformed the distant saga of sanctions busting and stolen billions into an up-close drama, with prosecutors alleging that Saddam Hussein, in his efforts to shake off U.N. sanctions, reached via a secret back channel all the way from Baghdad right into Washington, New York, and the U.N. executive suite. The defendant, South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, is charged in the Southern District of New York with acting as an unregistered agent of Saddams Iraq which tried through various means, especially the manipulation of the 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food program, to end the U.N. sanctions imposed after Saddams 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Parks lawyer, Michael Kim, says the 71-year-old Park is absolutely not guilty. Whatever the outcome for Park, his trial expected to last about three weeks looks likely to provide an unprecedented view into the workings of U.N. backroom politics. Not least, this comes as a timely warning to beware whatever might be going on today in any back channels the U.N. might have opened with nuclear-happy, sanctions-threatened, oil-rich Iran. In an opening statement Tuesday, federal prosecutor Michael Farbiarz told the jury that Iraqi agents had been working since 1991 to try to eliminate the sanctions, to try and create a major exception to them on the way to wholesale elimination. For five years, Iraq worked without success. But starting in 1996, alleged Farbiarz, The Iraqi cash began flowing to Tongsun Park. It flowed all year long. Sure enough, by the end of that year the Iraqis got their multibillion dollar exception to the UN sanctions, the so-called Oil-for-Food program. Alleging that Cash by the bagful was sent from Iraq to the United States and doled out here by an Iraqi agent to Tongsun Park, Farbiarz outlined a tale of secret swaps of messages and money in New York cafes and restaurants; night-time meetings at the Sutton Place official residence of former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali; a close encounter with longtime U.N. eminence Maurice Strong, who served as a top adviser to both Boutros-Ghali and then to Kofi Annan; and an episode in which Park in 1997 picked up cash from Saddams number two man in Iraq, Tariq Aziz, and drove out of the Iraqi desert over the Jordanian border. (Boutros-Ghali, Strong, and Annan have all denied any wrong-doing in relation to Oil-for-Food.) Parks lawyer, Kim, waved aside the prosecutions version of events as sounding like a Tom Clancy novel. Park, he said, was simply a middleman, a facilitator, like everybody else who was involved in the Oil-for-Food program. Positing that the bigger picture was much more complicated than prosecutors would have you believe, Kim promised to map out a web of connections including prominent Republicans who hob-nobbed with the same Iraqi agent alleged to have passed envelopes and bags of cash to Park, and Texas oil companies that saw in Oil-for-Food a huge money-making opportunity. The biggest eye-opener in the trial so far is the hob-nobbing Iraqi agent, Samir Vincent, 65-years-old, with a shock of silver-gray hair, who on Tuesday took the stand. Born in Baghdad, Vincent became a naturalized U.S. citizen around 1971. Having done substantial business with Iraq over the years, including under Oil-for-Food, he was arrested in January 2005 on federal charges including engaging in prohibited financial transactions with the government of Iraq, and acting as an unregistered agent of Iraq. He pleaded guilty before the same judge now presiding over the Park trial, Denny Chin, and became a cooperating witness. Speaking in a firm voice, with only a slight accent to suggest his Iraqi origins, Vincent in his testimony on Tuesday outlined a web of connections that led him over many years, via Baghdad and Washington, to Tongsun Park. He came to the U.S. in the late 1950s to attend Boston College, and eventually went into business for himself, in Virginia, just outside Washington. In 1984, he met the then-ambassador of Iraq, Nizar Hamdoon, an alumnus of the same Jesuit high school that Vincent had attended as a young man in Baghdad. They became good friends. Vincent began doing business with Iraq, where Hamdoon by 1990 had become deputy foreign minister. Vincent was in Baghdad when Saddam invaded Kuwait and the U.N. imposed sanctions. In the aftermath, Vincent by his own account became a conduit for messages and money from Baghdad, as Saddams regime sought to slip out from under those sanctions. In the early 1990s, according to Vincent, this entailed a variety of schemes centered in Washington that simply flopped. In early 1992, he said, he hooked up with a Washington lobbyist, William E. Timmons, who had served as a congressional liaison in the Reagan administration. (Timmons did not return a call yesterday to his office at his Washington firm, Timmons and Company, where he is now listed as Chairman Emeritus). Vincent said that with the help of Timmons, he tried a number of approaches to the State Department, including a request to see John Bolton, currently the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., then assistant secretary for international organization affairs at the State Department. That resulted in meetings with deputies of Bolton, said Vincent, But I never had a chance to meet with Bolton himself. According to Vincent, Timmons also helped him approach Elizabeth Dole, then head of the American Red Cross, with a proposal that the Red Cross take part in a plan similar to, but on a smaller scale than, what later coalesced under the U.N. as Oil-for-Food. The idea was that Iraq would be allowed to sell a limited amount of oil to buy food and medicine, all coordinated with the Red Cross. Vincent said his understanding, relayed second-hand through Timmons, was that this project died when then-Secretary of State James Baker looked over the proposal and decided it was a no-no because he thought the Iraqis were trying to circumvent sanctions. Bakers view, according to Vincent, was that if this has any chance, it has to be done under the United Nations auspices. By late 1992, according to Vincent, he and Timmons concluded that the U.S. State Department would not play ball, and Iraq should look directly to the U.N. Thus, Vincent needed access to the upper reaches of the U.N., and it was at that point, he testified Tuesday, that Timmons introduced him to Tongsun Park. Within a few weeks, Park had arranged a meeting for us with the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the United Nations headquarters. On that occasion, according to Vincent, it was only Park who actually went in to speak with Boutros-Ghali; Vincent waited in the outer office. But the stage was set for a series of secret meetings and maneuverings, of which we shall no doubt be hearing more in coming days. Parks lawyer, Michael Kim, who has not yet really begun to fight, may well produce evidence at odds with the picture that the prosecutors and Samir Vincent have begun to present. For public consumption, Tongsun Park appears to have launched his own website, complete with the information that he is a unique personality known around the world, but remains humble and is always an especially gracious host. (His lawyer, in a phone interview Tuesday evening, could not confirm that this is genuinely Parks website, and Park, who is in federal custody, could not be reached for comment.) Even after this very preliminary bout, what jumps out is that, in contrast to the folks at the U.N., at least some of the private players who got caught up in the epic scandal that was Oil-for-Food have by now had to tangle with prosecutors, or at least have been required to face inquiries conducted in broad daylight. Also under federal indictment are a number of Saddams former business partners, who face trial in the Southern District of New York this November. In Australia, the Cole Commission has been delving in public hearings into misconduct under Oil-for-Food. But at the U.N. itself, which actually ran Oil-for-Food, not a single official involved in the administration of the program, from Kofi Annan on down, has been required to come forth and tell, in public, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Top U.N. officials have declined invitations to testify at congressional hearings and stonewalled questions from the press. They have tucked under the rug of diplomatic immunity and silence a great many loose ends left by Paul Volckers U.N.-authorized probe, which covered some of the material now spilling into the New York courtroom, but did all its questioning in secret and is now hiding from the public its entire archive of underlying documents. No one at Turtle Bay seems even interested that the former director of Oil-for-Food, Benon Sevan, alleged by Volcker to have taken $147,000 in payoffs on Iraqi oil deals, is protesting innocence, uncontested, receiving full U.N. pension and living on Cyprus. Watching Tongsun Park's trial begin on Tuesday, and listening to testimony that is opening one can of worms after another, I had to wonder, were the U.N. subject to a similar standard of law, what might we learn? |
Link |