SwiftVets.com

[shawa]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/39819.htm

KOFI IN THE CLEAR?
February 4, 2005

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's hand-picked Oil-for-Food detective yesterday filed his first report on the multibillion-dollar scandal.
Guess what?

Kofi's in the clear.

So far, so good.

The interim Oil-for-Food report — released yesterday by former Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker — leveled no charges against the secretary-general, or any other current U.N. employee.

And it did not address, directly or otherwise, the activities of U.N. agencies, lack of oversight by the Security Council or corruption among Iraqi contractors.

But it did find one potential scapegoat, er, villain: Benon Sevan — Annan's hand-picked choice to run the $60 billion program, which was meant to let Saddam Hussein export oil for money to feed starving Iraqis.

(Sevan, by the way, was allowed to retire on a very healthy U.N. pension — and, in any event, now enjoys diplomatic immunity from prosecution, although Annan has said he might lift that. So, for now, he's not much of a prize.)

Otherwise Volcker's 200-page report disclosed nothing new: It confirmed that Sevan, while running the program, personally obtained $1 million in oil vouchers from Saddam — in Volcker's words, "an irreconcilable conflict of interest."

Indeed, most of the faults Volcker cited were administrative in nature: If the program was "tainted," as Volcker alleges, it was because of procedural shortcomings and bidding violations that "failed to follow the established rules of the organization designed to assure fairness and accountability."

Hardly a damning indictment.

To be sure, Volcker stressed that issues of possible corruption — including those involving Annan and his son, Kojo — are under investigation, but will not be addressed publicly until his final report is issued this summer.

But if yesterday's document is any guide, no one at the United Nations should lose any sleep until then.

Indeed, Volcker insisted that he and his fellow probers "are not here to tear down, we're here to restore" the United Nations. An admirable goal, perhaps, but not reassuring given the scope of the scandal.

Yet perhaps the most significant thing Volcker had to say yesterday was this: "The major source of [oil] revenue to Iraq came from sanctions violations outside the Oil-for-Food program."

That's surely true, of course, and nothing new.

Careful critics of the Oil-for-Food program long have noted that most of the money Saddam Hussein made came from illegal smuggling that was not part of Oil-for-Food.

But as Post columnist Nicole Gelinas presciently observed last December (when Volcker first said as much in a little-noticed interview), that statement seriously undermined the status and purpose of the entire investigation.

What's important is not just the actual dollar amount but the way in which Saddam seized on Oil-for-Food as a legal way to spread around millions for the express purpose (which he nearly achieved) of undermining international sanctions and buying weapons material.

As CIA investigator Charles Duelfer concluded: "The introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in late 1996 was a key turning point" for Saddam's regime. Indeed, noted Gelinas, it provided a convenient cover for his illegal oil-smuggling activities.

Moreover, she wrote, "learning how Saddam subverted the program to gain unrestricted financial access to the rest of the world while supposedly languishing under the watchful eyes of his U.N. babysitters" is precisely what Volcker was meant to investigate.

By virtually dismissing the importance of Oil-for-Food because the money involved was less than Saddam earned by earlier oil smuggling sends a clear and unmistakable signal that Volcker is missing the real import of this scandal.

Whether that's by accident or by design remains unclear.

Regardless, Kofi Annan must be breathing a little easier this morning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deja vu, the CBS 'independent investigaton'?
This appears to be standard operating procedure nowadays.
Hand-pick an "independent investigator" to do a review and issue
a report (whitewash).
The investigators are conveniently myopic to any criminal findings
against the top people in charge, put the blame on underlings and
procedural shortcomings that "failed to follow the established rules of the organization
designed to assure fairness and accountability."

VOILA, CASE CLOSED.

I hope the U.S. Congress gets all over this!!