This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Paul Deserves both praise and applause for his Report
Published on November 6, 2005 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
After the end of the first Gulf War the United Nations at the instigation of the USA and other Western Powers imposed a most horrendous regime of sanctions on Iraq. Iraq was forbidden even to sell oil and as a consequence the quality of life and the civil infrastructure of Iraq virtually collapsed. It is well known that nearly 800,000 children dies prematurely because of the nobn availability of paracteamol, a drug that all take for granted. In these circumstances the UN decided to allow Iraq to export its Oil and import food, the program that came to be called Food for OUIl Program. The moneies gained by the export of Iraq oil was to be deposited in an escrow account maintained by the UN. So far so good. Then the likes of KOjo Annan, the son of the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, got on to the act and subverted a viable humanitarian program into a get rich fast scam in which the minnions of Saddam Hussain were accomplises. Shell companies were created and the Iraqi Oil Ministry at Bagdad assigned the right to lift and sell oil in the international market at a lower cost and the differnece in price to the tune of 50cents a barrel was deposited against the accounts of individuals in the Jordon National Bank.

This was a scam waiting to happen and Paul Volcker has done a comendabel job in following the money trail and has perused 20 million documents in order to arrive at the truth. The fact is that some of the leading Third world politicians like Natear Singh, India's Foereign Ministeer seem to have made millions at the cost of starving and dying Iraqis. Ofcourse, no thief ever says even if he is caught with his finger in the till. even acknowledges that he is a thief. And the same with the like of Natwr Singh and his son Jagat Singh. There is now an outrage agaIst these clowns and they have been thoroughly exposed by Paul Volcker and his team.

There is howeve a small problem. Paul Volcker in his interveiw with LA tIMES STATED THAT HE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE OF THE REPORT vis a vis Kofi Annan. I think that a splendid job was compromised by allowing this needless concession to Kofi Annan. The father claims that Cotecna, for which his son Kojo works obtained contracts without his knowledge. Given the way the UN system works this is impossible and Paul Volcker muist have nailed the lie of Kofi Annan,as the credibility of a truthful and accurate Report stands compromises as a consequence.

Comments
on Nov 07, 2005
I need to read through this again, but I would swear I agree with you. It can't be...

Well, about everything but the silly 800,000 number and your weepy lament for the poor Iraqis...
on Nov 07, 2005
need to read through this again, but I would swear I agree with you. It can't be...


Good to know that Baker Street is in agreement. The 800, 000 is as accurate as is possible.
on Nov 07, 2005
I wish you could take a second step, though, and use this as a candle to illuminate the anti-war sentiment among some nations before the invasion. If you accept that there was gross malpheasance, you could easily see how lucrative it was for France and other nations to keep the Iraqi people under those sanctions as long as possible, and support Hussein all they could.
on Nov 07, 2005
wish you could take a second step, though, and use this as a candle to illuminate the anti-war sentiment among some nations before the invasion. If you accept that there was gross malpheasance, you could easily see how lucrative it was for France and other nations to keep the Iraqi people under those sanctions as long as possible, and support Hussein all they could


Your basic point that the Oil for Food scam has undermined the moral worth of those nations and entities that opposed the war is well taken. However in our anxiety to discredit the anti war sentiments we should not overlook the fact that the sanctions regime imposed untold misery on the Iraqi people and it was the very young and the very old who bore the brunt of the sanctions regime. I am distressed by the fact that the anti war advocates had converted a humanitarin affort into an office of profit and they deserve no sympathy.
on Nov 07, 2005
The fact you seem to be overlooking is those nations were perfectly happy to allow the Iraqi people to continue suffering under those sanctions, and a war to unseat Hussein and stop the sanction was the last thing they wanted.

Does that sound like concern for the Iraqi people to you? If what you are saying is true, vast numbers of people were killed by sanctions while "peace loving" nations prevented Hussein from being removed; many more than were killed BY the war. Do you think had we taken the "peaceful" route, it would have been better with Iraqis starving and Husein getting richer and richer?
on Nov 07, 2005
Great Article Baku!!

I've often wondered why sanctions are considered a "diplomatic" way to exert pressure on a government but assassination is considered "inhumane". I mean, when was the last time a national leader didn't get fat while under sanctions, while the people starved and died. Could it be that "diplomacy" considers the life of 1 leader more important than millions of people?

The ceasefire of 91, along with applicable UN resolutions made allowances for the lifting of sanctions as Hussein demonstrated compliance. Unfortunatly, the UN established the Oil for Food program even though Hussein was defiant to the sanctions. What made it even worse, even after humanitarian organizations reported to the UN that the oil revenues were going to palaces and weapon systems instead of food, medicine and infrastructure maintenance, the spineless UN still allowed an increase in the revenue Hussein was allowed.

The next question is, what should be done about the comprimises to the report, and more importantly, what should be done in response to the information brought to light by the Paul Volcker's report?
on Nov 09, 2005
The ceasefire of 91, along with applicable UN resolutions made allowances for the lifting of sanctions as Hussein demonstrated compliance. Unfortunatly, the UN established the Oil for Food program even though Hussein was defiant to the sanctions. What made it even worse, even after humanitarian organizations reported to the UN that the oil revenues were going to palaces and weapon systems instead of food, medicine and infrastructure maintenance, the spineless UN still allowed an increase in the revenue Hussein was allowed.


Assasination as a weapon fo achieving foreign policy objectives is a two sided one. Therefore it is best not to talk about it. However, the sanctions on Iraq were inhuman and ought not to have been imposed. There is no point punishing the pepple fo a nation for the sins of their leaders. This is the logic of Islamic Terrrism: Pubnish innocent people for the sins of Bush, Blair and Howard.
on Nov 09, 2005
Yeah, I should have put a disclaimer Bahu. I'm not saying we should assassinate national leaders, I was merely pointing out that sanctions don't target anyone who is in a position to affect a change of policy.

As far as the ceasefire and applicable UN resolutions, had Hussein complied the people of Iraq wouldn't have been affected much. However, since Hussein chose to use the little (relatively speaking) revenues he could generate under the sanctions to defy instead of comply with the sanctions, the people of Iraq did suffer.