UN cover-up in progress

[Peter_Puget]

Cooperative? Does that mean agreeing? Or is there room for disagreement in international relations? Kyoto bad treaty. Smart to blow it off. Youll have to define cooperation in the context of international relations much better if you want to go down this road.

[mattp]

I ask only a simple question, Mr. Puget:

 

GENERALLY SPEAKING, if you had only to categories to select from, do you believe Mr. Bush has been A) cooperative or B) uncooperative.

 

I stated that I believe he has been generally uncooperative, and that undermining and refusing to abide by U.N. resolutions is an example of this. You said that I was confusing cooperation with the UN with cooperation with other nations, as if to say that he HAS been cooperative with other nations -- just not the U.N.

 

So which is it:

 

A) cooperative or

B) uncooperative.

 

There are no squirlly defnitions needed for a simple overbroad and vague statement like this.

[Peter_Puget]

Mattp – You are confusing my two posts. But to address the cooperative v uncooperative nature of the US government I say you should provide a better definition. Take the Kyoto accords - which I believe you are suggesting is an example of uncooperation – relative to the Kyoto accords the US was in fact cooperative. It participated in the process and when the final agreement was not acceptable the US refused to sign on. Something within the right of a sovereign state. I say in this case it cooperated with the international community. I am not being squirrelly at all unless by cooperation you mean acquiescence.

[mattp]

I'm not confusing anything, Mr. Puget. You seem to somehow view refusing to sign an agreement that most of our allies seemed to want signed as "cooperation," and you apparently don't want to answer my question.

[Peter_Puget]

You are correct in that I believe that cooperation in any meaningful sense doesn't require that any country sign any agrerement just because there are alot of other countries who are willing to sign it. I am not refusing to answer your question but I have asked for clarification. At least a sfar as Kyoto I have been very clear that I believe that the US cooperated. You appear to be saying that in order for the US to be cooperative it must agree with anthing the "majority of nations" agrees to. I consider this view to be silly. Should Trinidad have an voice equal India?

[Peter_Puget]

Damn uncooperative Americans Walk OUT! Link 1

 

The valiant nations in the UN carry on with their decision! ( Link 2)

 

Why can't we just get along... (Link 3)

 

PP

[stinkyclimber]

In 1994, Kofi Annan, then head of the UN's peacekeeping operations, blocked any use of UN troops in Rwanda even though he was told by his representative there that the genocide could be stopped before it started.

Hah, this is richly ironic. It is true that Kofi was in charge of peace-keeping at UN HQ, and that the UN let it all go down. But the reason that the UN didn't authorize appropriate force there was because two permanent members of the UN Security Council served notice that they would veto any resolution authorizing further action there. Retired Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, the one in charge of the UN contingent in Rwanda, still has PTSD from that tour, knowing he could have prevented it all if he was just given a little support. He is quite the speaker, and his stories are truly horrific.

 

Anyway, those two permanent members?...yes, those old comrades in arms: those bloody French, and the good ole US of A.

 

Sometimes when countries blame the UN, maybe they really need to blame themselves. After all, the UN is really just an association of members, and the 5 permanent members of the Security Council have enormous power - and accountability - for peace-keeping, and for programs such as Oil for Food.

Edited May 7, 2004 by stinkyclimber

[Martlet]

Ahhh, that's right. It's our fault the UN sucked money from the Oil for Food program, stalled attempts to oust Saddam so they could continue to syphon money, and attempted to drag out inspections.

 

[cj001f]

Ahhh, that's right. It's our fault the UN sucked money from the Oil for Food program, stalled attempts to oust Saddam so they could continue to syphon money, and attempted to drag out inspections.

 

Well we were a UN oversite body. From today's WashingtonPost:

 

Investigate, Don't Incapacitate

 

By Tom Lantos

Saturday, May 8, 2004; Page A19

 

Since the end of January, when an Iraqi newspaper alleged that a senior U.N. official had taken bribes from Saddam Hussein, the United Nations has been the target of unsubstantiated allegations involving potential mismanagement, unethical behavior and collusion with Hussein's despicable regime. The notion that a high-level U.N. official could have been on Baghdad's payroll is sickening, if true, and it must be investigated.

 

That being said, it has been just as sickening to see that longtime haters of the United Nations are using the bribery charge and other unproven allegations to discredit the world body when the case against it is far from clear. This campaign of slander threatens great harm to U.S. interests because it is aimed at undermining the United Nations' ability to help us in Iraq.

 

Based on my preliminary review of the oil-for-food program, it appears that the United Nations took action to prevent some of the abuses of which it is being accused, and that much responsibility for the problems that beset the program lies with the members of the Security Council, including our own government.

 

We know that U.N. officials raised concerns about possible Iraqi fraud in oil-for-food contracts as far back as early 2001, when Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a report warning that Hussein had begun to implement a system of surcharges on sales of oil under the program. Annan's reports led to reforms in the program. We also know that some U.N. officials tried to halt Hussein's scheme to extract kickbacks from companies seeking to sell goods under the program.

 

Although the Security Council did not give the U.N. Secretariat oversight authority, U.N. officers worked to hold up overpriced contracts by demanding that missions that submitted them on behalf of their companies explain any overcharges. In many cases, the missions were unable or unwilling to defend the contracts, and they were never approved. In cases where the missions did attempt to justify the overpricing, the United Nations forwarded them to the Security Council's Sanctions Committee with red flags about the cost.

 

Nevertheless, the State Department never exercised the power it had as a Sanctions Committee member to block any of the overpriced contracts flagged by the United Nations, nor did it otherwise try to halt Hussein's kickback scheme. Other members of the Security Council, including France, Russia and China, also failed to act.

 

We have learned that the State Department approved dozens of ridiculously overpriced contracts, including three multimillion-dollar deals submitted by Syria that were inflated by a whopping 44 percent. In February 2002, the State Department even approved the sale of a fleet of 300 Mercedes-Benz luxury cars for use by the Iraqi government. We have learned that the State Department approved dozens of ridiculously overpriced contracts, including three multimillion-dollar deals submitted by Syria that were inflated by a whopping 44 percent. In February 2002, the State Department even approved the sale of a fleet of 300 Mercedes-Benz luxury cars for use by the Iraqi government.

 

I fully understand that our highest priority as a Sanctions Committee member was to make sure that Iraq could not get its hands on illicit and dual-use items, and the United States blocked thousands of contracts based on these concerns. But another important priority should have been to prevent overpriced contracts that invited kickbacks.

 

The United Nations clearly has to answer to the allegation that a U.N. official accepted bribes from Hussein, and the panel of inquiry headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker will thoroughly investigate this charge. I would expect that such an inquiry would look at whether the United Nations had put in place sufficient mechanisms to deter corrupt behavior by its employees. If the panel also discovers evidence of shoddy management or other problems in the program, the United Nations must make appropriate reforms. In Congress, as we move forward with a responsible inquiry, we should also focus attention on our own government and other Security Council members, and find out why they didn't use the authority they had to block Hussein's padded contracts.

 

U.N. bashers would love to hold the United Nations culpable for Hussein's abuse of the oil-for-food program, because it would make an effective case for excluding the United Nations from Iraq's transition. But fairness and U.S. national interest require us to avoid being distracted by reckless distortions and to focus on facts.

 

Rep. Lantos, of California, is the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.

[Martlet]

Again, you're absolutely right. It's the USA's fault that the United Nations corrupted the Oil for Food program and fed Saddam's coffers.

 

We should leave the UN immediately in disgrace. Which was my point initially. The UN is a corrupt, useless, money hole. We need out.

[j_b]

the un does what we want most of the time but it's not enough for the war party. our neocons don't want a political resolution to the iraq situation and need to discredit the un; they'd rather slug it out for the next 5years at least, at great cost to everyone (almost). they also don't want to compromise with the international community about global problems like climate change, human rights and international crime court (just imagine the pickle we'd be in ), and of course equitable conflict resolution.

 

it certainly does not change the problem of corruption at the un if this confirms to be true. remind me again, who pushed to have kofi annan as secretary ...

 

also of note: it is odd that conservatives now seem to think that nepostism, conflict of interest, etc .. are enough to cast an aura of suspicious dealing. it sure does not seem to concern them when this administration exhibits the same attributes.

[Martlet]

the un does what we want most of the time but it's not enough for the war party. our neocons don't want a political resolution to the iraq situation and need to discredit the un; they'd rather slug it out for the next 5years at least, at great cost to everyone (almost). they also don't want to compromise with the international community about global problems like climate change, human rights and international crime court (just imagine the pickle we'd be in ), and of course equitable conflict resolution.

 

it certainly does not change the problem of corruption at the un if this confirms to be true. remind me again, who pushed to have kofi annan as secretary ...

 

also of note: it is odd that conservatives now seem to think that nepostism, conflict of interest, etc .. are enough to cast an aura of suspicious dealing. it sure does not seem to concern them when this administration exhibits the same attributes.

 

12 Years wasn't enough time to take care of this politically? When we finally attempt to push it to a close, we find the nations that thwarted our attempt to make it a UN led coalition were directly profiting from the Oil for Food program. We find that the HEAD of the Oil for Food program was profitting directly to the tune of 3 million dollars. It wasn't a "conflict of interest". It was a DIRECT MONEY SYPHON!

 

We pump money into a corrupt international governing body that weakens our national security. We need out, and Kerry wants us crawling BACK!. Waffles doesn't have a plan for success, he wants the UN to make him one.

[j_b]

so let's see. which nations "were directly profiting from the oil for food program"?

 

"The bulk of goods were supplied by Australian, Vietnamese, Thai, Russian, Jordanian and Syrian firms, said an official familiar with the contracts. Saudi firms were also involved, as were US companies although they were minor players, he said."

 

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/19/1084917660987.html