View Full Version : Food for Oil
So I was reading the news this morning and I noticed that a US Senator was asking for Kofi Annan to resign because the Oil For Food Program was egregiously abused on his watch.
Now is that a reason for someone to step down?
Was the Oil for Food Program abused that badly?
Is the Senator mad because he didn't get in on the action?
Is food a better trade than bullets for oil?
Does the US own the UN?
I really haven't read much about the program. Everyone that I have seen use it in an argument uses it to show how bad France and Germany are and how the US was justified in inavading Iraq because said countries were stopping the Security Council from invading Iraq because it would cost them money.
Feel free to weigh in here and answer my outlandish questions.
blue_eye
2 Dec 2004, 12:04 AM
Okay I don't know that much and all.
Does the US own the UN?
No, but they do pay about 25% of the UN cost (he who has the gold has the power)
And - so what about what France or Germany says, if the US sees Iraq as a threat and feels the need to put application toward a solution, why should they have to have approval from France, Germany or the UN. If it wern't for the US France would be under Germany, if it wern't for the US the UN would be under Germany. See what I mean.
But back to your questions
Now is that reason for someone to step down?
Yes if they knew it was going on and neglitected preventitive action
Was the oil for food program abused that badly?
I don't know, but I do know that someone wrongfully profitted from it. Right is right and wrong is wrong despite the degree (which counts as well) of right or wrong.
Is the Senator mad because he didn't get in on the action?
Maybe, but than again if he didn't get in on the action he's still in the clear (despite intentions wants or whatever)
Is food a better trade than bullets for oil?
Ha, ha. There are many other countries the US can go to oil for (Angola, Kuwait, Saudi, Canada). Besides this whole war started before this scandle was exposed. I look at it as, "responsive decision against tyranical oppression." And maybe you would like to answer why oil prices have gone 'up' since the war. I mean after all the US is just robbing it, right? Why haven't all other countries that export oil to the US lost their exports, I mean come on you make it sound like they're stealing it all from Iraq.
So I did some research.
Firstly, I found out that in 2002, the US State Department endorsed the Oil for Food Program calling it:
In spite of Iraqi subversion, Oil-for-Food has been a dramatic success. $25 billion in humanitarian supplies and equipment have been delivered to Iraq, and another $10 billion is in the pipeline. Caloric intake has doubled, and communicable diseases have declined significantly among the Iraqi population. The transportation, agriculture, and electricity sectors have also been rehabilitated. In his November 2002 Report to the Security Council on the Oil-for-Food Program, the UN Secretary-General observed that “the program has made and continues to make a major difference in the lives of ordinary Iraqis.”
I made up the fact that Colin Powell said that. But I think it gives it a dramatic flair and he was the Secretary of State...I mean he could have said it.
Apparantly, it worked like this:
Q: Doesn’t buying Iraqi oil just support Saddam Hussein?
A: No, not if it is purchased through the Oil-for-Food Program. Proceeds are deposited directly into a UN escrow account. The use of these funds is administered by the UN’s Office of Iraq Programs for the benefit of the Iraqi people. 72% of all proceeds fund the humanitarian program. Another 25% underwrites reparations owed by Iraq for damage and destruction during its invasion and illegal occupation of Kuwait. 2.2% covers administration of the UN Office. The remaining 0.8% funds the UN arms inspectors in Iraq.
When it wasn't working it was because corporations and individuals decided to abuse the program for their own gain. But how different is that from Halliburton doing business in Iran? These people and companies were acting in the best interests of investors. A much bigger problem.
I also don't think this has anything to do with Kofi Annan. He would have been pretty powerless to stop this, especially if it had been done outside of the scope of the UN.
As for the US giving 25% of the money for the UN, I believe that the US bases its "dues" on a percentage of GDP so that say, Ethiopia, doesn't have to pay as much in dues as the US or China. In addition, the US has also been known to withhold dues and has in the past (I found a nice pie chart from 1997) been responsible for 57% of the UN's debt because of unpaid dues. Currently, I think they are putting that number at $1.3 Billion.
I don't think the UN would have existed had Germany won the war because I don't think Germany wanted to create the same type of global community the founders of the UN had in mind. As well, saying the US won WWII on behalf of the French is a bit of an overstatement. Germany suffered heavy casualties in Russia and the British in tandom with the US inflicted heavy damage to Germany. I would say it was an allied effort. The reason the security council was established and 5 permanent countries given vetos to prevent unilateral action in the hopes that future conflicts could be resolved with level heads. I would say that the security council has acted when it needed to over time.
As for where the oil from Iraq will go.
It's pretty straightforward," said James Woolsey, a former CIA director who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Saddam from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
.
But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
.
Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Saddam's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions..
.
Ahmed Chalabi, the congress's leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.
.
While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberian oil far less appealing.
.
I guess that means that if you are Allawi and Bush gave you your job you might feel like you owe him something.
The high oil prices and their current drop are the result of a lot of factors. First, the oil in Iraq (the disputed second largest reserves outside of Saudi Arabia) were not secure. If you spend all your time fixing blown up pipelines its hard to ship oil out. As well, there is talk that Russia may have underestimated its reserves by 2 or 3 times. Venezuala also wants to tax foreign companies using its oil and they just had an election. And uncertainty before the US election caused the prices to rise.
Lucas
2 Dec 2004, 03:42 AM
As for the US giving 25% of the money for the UN, I believe that the US bases its "dues" on a percentage of GDP so that say, Ethiopia, doesn't have to pay as much in dues as the US or China. In addition, the US has also been known to withhold dues and has in the past (I found a nice pie chart from 1997) been responsible for 57% of the UN's debt because of unpaid dues. Currently, I think they are putting that number at $1.3 Billion.
The reason the security council was established and 5 permanent countries given vetos to prevent unilateral action in the hopes that future conflicts could be resolved with level heads. I would say that the security council has acted when it needed to over time............global community the founders of the UN had in mind.
Wow mgbradsh, thanks for that post!
It's sad that the US continues to blow off the UN. With the changes globalization is bringing, I think only a supranational power structure can ensure a peaceful and sustainable future. With the enormous power and influence the US has, it could help build and strengthen this sort of global government-for the good of humanity- instead of just worrying about US interests.
Arcades
2 Dec 2004, 07:28 AM
Slightly off topic but I have been wondering about this. Oil prices go up say .15 for sompthing understaindable like supertankers not being able to get to port because of a huracane. OK, but the price stays there weeks and months after what caused to price to go up was over.
Any Ideas?
Oil prices are fairly artificial. Its a commodity so is subject to supply and demand. However, supply can be modified (say by something like OPEC) to drive the prices up. Fear can also play a factor. An election in Indonesia could trigger some concern in the international community over the "volitility" of the potential new regime. This may cause a price increase. I believe that prices are traded in advance as well. So I think they are already trading oil for January delivery, that may also explain the lapse. Usually it is more than one factor working at once so you end up with a steady stream of increases (or decreases) making it appear to hold at a certain price.
SheepDog
2 Dec 2004, 02:15 PM
Maybe someone else can describe the logic of blaming Annan for this. Isn't it a bit like saying GWB should step down because Enron happened on his watch?
I see a lot of rhetoric indicating the US should get out of the UN. The attitude is "why should we have to get permission from other countries to do what we want?" I won't defend or refute the idea, but I suspect that this is really an attempt to sway public opinion away from the UN and at the same time create a diversion so that the US companies aren't accountable for being the ones actually abusing the system.
Like most political battles, I'm sure the reason they are blaming Annan and asking him to step down is because of his past actions. This is just a scapegoat. They don't want him in there anymore, and this is a good time to say "Ah-hah, you screwed up, you're out of here".
I also read that Saddam "skimmed" something like $20 Billion off the food for oil program, some of which was used to pay the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Large German & French companies evidently were also blatantly involved in the corruption, which has led to speculation as to why they were so opposed to invading (in addition to their large legitimate contracts they had with Iraq).
I also read that Saddam "skimmed" something like $20 Billion off the food for oil program, some of which was used to pay the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. Large German & French companies evidently were also blatantly involved in the corruption, which has led to speculation as to why they were so opposed to invading (in addition to their large legitimate contracts they had with Iraq).
"Imagine" if someone was abusing the welfare program in the US. Now imagine trying to get George Bush to resign because it happened under his nose.
But why isn't the US going after the companies that perpetrated the fraud?
This wasn't France or Germany doing this, it was French and German, not to mention Russians, Egyptians, Swiss, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabian companies. Well, maybe it was just Saudi Arabia, but lets sweep that under the rug. I would be willing to wager that some of the companies involved in the abuse of the program do work in the US. Call it a hunch.
So why make Kofi Annan the scapegoat? And if you are Kofi Annan, why listen to a Senator from Minnesota?
If anything I would say that this is another indication of US "cowboymanship" (I made that up) on the world stage.
(Disclaimer: Being an INTP, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but like to argue both sides of a story - I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about)
Part of the perceived problem is that the team that Annan assigned to investigate the corruption is wholly funded by the UN (conflict of interest). Plus, his own son was involved - and he (Kofi Annan) knew about it and is trying to act like he didn't. Also, I'm sure the US will go after the companies involved - if it can. I believe there is a French bank (BNP Paribas) that was suspect and is being investigated. Ironically it is chartered in New York, so it is subject to US Banking laws.
Unlike something like welfare, the corruption is widespread among supposed leaders and rises right up to the inner circle of the UN. It may be more appropriate to compare it to Enron, where the CEO said he didn't know about the corruption in his company...but isn't it his job to know what's going on directly under (or even next to) his nose?
I don't have a strong opinion either, I just like to argue too.
Who do you suggest pay to fight corruption in the UN? Of course the UN pays for it, that's why they had an Independant Inquiry Committee (IIC) begin investigating the goings on. I am not sure if the IIC has a name reminicant of the "Clean Air Act" but I guess we will have to wait for the results to see if they are truly independant.
As for Annan's son. He isn't Kofi Annan and does have the right to work. It is believed that the payments might actually have been labeled as compensation for Kojo Annan's agreeing not to compete with Cotecna's business in West Africa. Back to Bush stepping down-this would be like his father having ties to the Carlyle group and all the money they have made because of the war in Iraq, except it was far less money for Kojo Annan.
And how does it rise to the inner circle of the UN? One guy's son who worked for a company that inspected shipments going out of Iraq (I am sure they weren't privy to where all the money was going) does not define the inner circle of the UN.
And how did this go unnoticed by the US for so long? Don't tell me they just show up for the meetings.
KentOhio
3 Dec 2004, 04:55 PM
[QUOTE=Lucas]
It's sad that the US continues to blow off the UN. With the changes globalization is bringing, I think only a supranational power structure can ensure a peaceful and sustainable future. QUOTE]
The UN is why we HAVE globalization to such a degree!
And Mgbradsh, does everything always have to lead to blaming the United States?
The UN is why we HAVE globalization to such a degree!
And Mgbradsh, does everything always have to lead to blaming the United States?
Its just more fun and inflamatory to pick on the US. Like I said, I am not taking this too seriously. I really am not blaming "Americans" per se, just the super structure that America and a lot of the countries in the world are made up of.
Plus, a lot of people on the board are from the US, so it makes sense for me to use analogies that can be understood by the most amount of people. If I was to say that Margaret Thatcher should be forced to step down from her foundation because her son attempted a coup in Equatorial Guinea it just wouldn't have the same ring to it.
I also really don't think you can say the UN is the reason that there is globalization. Globalization far outdates the UN. I would turn to corporations as the reason for globalization as we know it today. To survive a corporation needs growth. In order to achieve growth you need new consumers and cheaper and cheaper raw materials. In order to do this corporations have had to spread outside of their home countries across the world. I think that the UN facilitates a global community to some extent but I think the idea of "globalization" comes from corporations.
It is also pretty obvious that corporations thrive in the economy the US has provided them. So I think you see the spread "American ideals" through the corporations across the world. I mean, when we look at the 100 largest economies in the world we find that 50 of them are corporations. A lot of them are American or have strong ties to the US.
I like viewpoints from outside the US that question the US. Gives us here another perspective.
I've actually been getting most of my info on this topic from the Wall Street Journal, admittedly a conservative, pro-American, pro-capitalist newspaper. It's a good balance to the plentiful liberal news outlets. Anyways, that's where I read that it involves several high-level UN leaders. But just like the republicans vs. the democrats, they're always looking to get rid of someone for any reason.
The bottom line is that US leaders want Kofi out because they want someone that will bend to the United States' will, which Kofi wasn't always known to do. You can be sure that this investigation is not a surprise to US leaders.
Groty
3 Dec 2004, 09:53 PM
I think a large problem is the Multinational Companies. A large Swiss corporation could open a subsidiary in, say Tunisia. That Swiss company, through the subsidiary, is freed from the laws and ethics of Switzerland, because it is based in Tunisia. Untouchable.
I like viewpoints from outside the US that question the US. Gives us here another perspective.
I've actually been getting most of my info on this topic from the Wall Street Journal, admittedly a conservative, pro-American, pro-capitalist newspaper. It's a good balance to the plentiful liberal news outlets. Anyways, that's where I read that it involves several high-level UN leaders. But just like the republicans vs. the democrats, they're always looking to get rid of someone for any reason.
The bottom line is that US leaders want Kofi out because they want someone that will bend to the United States' will, which Kofi wasn't always known to do. You can be sure that this investigation is not a surprise to US leaders.
I think in order to get pro-US that person might have to be anti-the-rest-of-the-world. The general UN voting record isn't that favorable to the US. It is probably time to have an asian Secretary General since they easily make up close to half of the world's population and has been severely under-represented so far (almost as much as North America).
Feel free to use sources that are as right wing as possible (the more right the better hee hee). Mine are coming from the left so I am sure we can find a balance somewhere in between.
I think a large problem is the Multinational Companies. A large Swiss corporation could open a subsidiary in, say Tunisia. That Swiss company, through the subsidiary, is freed from the laws and ethics of Switzerland, because it is based in Tunisia. Untouchable.
It gets worse than that when you include WTO/IMF mandated "free trade zones" where the companies don't even operate under the bare minimum standards that even the poorest countries have. They don't even have to put "made in Tunisia" on the things they make because technically it wasn't.
Globalization is a bitch if you can't shop at Wal-Mart.
I didn't read all of the posts (I'm fucking off at work as it is), but I did read that this was the largest scandal (measured in dollars) in the history of earth. And that saddam made some SERIOUS coin, and that diplomats and other important people from france, germany, and russia also got rich dealing with saddam. One argument states that this is the REAL reason those countries didn't want the united states to invade iraq.
Scott
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.