Speaking of check it out, I think Mark Kleiman puts it best:

Josh Marshall reports that The Economist reports that the entire oil-for-food scandal is based on reports seen only by Ahmed Chalabi and one of his trained seals.

Yeah, that Chalabi. Maybe there is less here than meets the eye.

Yeh,
And that's why the UN is stonewalling the investigation. http://nypost.com/news/worldnews/23691.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/05/03/un.oil.for.food.letter/

And that's why Benon Sevan is unable to talk.

Guys, get a clue. The Oil for food program was corrupt. The stink is obvious and until the UN comes clean, it will be marginalized. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. It's really just a matter of how high and how deep it reached.

Many of the named individuals on the list have accepted that the list is legitimate; they just deny that they did anything wrong by dealing in the voucher/kickback system. Given that the system was designed to allocate oil proceeds for use in purchasing food and medicine for the Iraqi people, and not palaces, weapons, media & political influence, etc. for Saddam and his supporters abroad, this seems like a rather weak defence.

This story will get little play in the left media because - not to put to fine a point on it - it kicks the anti-war left in the testicles. The anti-war left, remember, impugned the motives of the US administration by screaming "it was all about the oil" (in a rather transparent attempt to avoid arguments about the nature of the war itself). So now it appears (as many of us have said all along) that opponents of the war were motivated by nothing more than naked greed and amoral mercantilism. Fortunately, the internet community probably won't let the hard left conceal this story as they've so often sought to conceal their past crimes.

Having lost the argument that rescuing 25 million people from slavery is morally wrong, the anti-war left now has to contend with damning evidence of its own slave-trading. At least in the past, the left would commit genocide behind a banner of lofty-sounding ideals. Now they don't even pretend to care about the slogans; leftist "theory" for the 21st century is cover for the profitable business of thraldom.

Curious that this topic should draw so little traffic. Of the assorted blogs I visit, all views of the political spectrum, I've seen few if any like the uber Liberal Andrew Lazurus question the seriousness of this matter.

It appears that some see this scam which siphoned off billions of dollars desperately needed by Iraqi children for food and medicine as not of some significance. No less than Instapundit and other conservatives have called the credibility of the U.N. into question over this matter.

No more than right wing saber rattling? I don't think so. They're quite serious and the information is widely available in the mainstream press as "a given."

It was perhaps the apparent "failure" of the failed Food for Oil program which first gave rise to the uber Liberals in our midst who stridently opposed the continued oil embargo supported by the U.S. against Iraq over the issue of inspections for WMDs.

Shaking one's head or a blink of the eyes isn't going to make this go away anymore than the tragic events involving the Iraqi prisoners perpetrated by their captors.

Why must one be believed exlusive to the existence of the other? Perhaps we see "thinking by hyperbole" at work with regard to this issue as well as others.

"Thinking" itself seems to have all but disappeared from view in our strident demands to support Kerry and/or defeat the hated Bush, or visa versa, perhaps a position determined these days by little more than a coin toss at best if the coin toss represent "thinking" about the issues.

> Curious that this topic should draw so little traffic.

Most of the documents still aren't public. Until we have more information, there's not much to write.

Josh Yelon

And therein, as they say, lies the rub inasmuch as all the U.N. records that account for Oil for Food have gone missing.

Records about the 10.1 billion Saddam reportedly skimmed have been found in Baghdad.

But the U.N. has been unable to locate their records, records which would more clearly trace who got what and when. Names may be mentioned of French ministers or whatever in Saddam's papers, but without the original records, all of which reportedly passed through a single bank in Paris, we don't know the broader spectrum of who got the other billions.

Conservatives led off Monday of this week with UNSCAM. Liberals led with the Iraqi prisoner abuse issue. The significance of either, given that the conservatives aren't too thrilled with U.N. management taking over a peace keeping mission, as their hands appear to be dirtied by all the Iraqi oil money that went for something other than food and medicine for hungry Iraqi children, is not likely going away any time soon.

And the "paperwork?" It seems to have been lost.

Mark, I assure you that I didn't profit from the Oil for Food program. And I promise to refrain from profanity in suggesting that you are a right-wing warmonger intoxicated with the thought of someone else's battles, or whatever other non-personal insults you would like to trade against your vile aspersion on all leftists.

As to the main thread, I'll refrain from comment until we have evidence that Ahmad Chalabi and his officially-designated fabricators haven't besmirched.

> And therein, as they say, lies the rub inasmuch as all the U.N. records that account for Oil for Food have gone missing.

Give it time. We've got a decent independent investigation going on, I give it an 80% chance they'll "find" the records.

Besides, the scandal is supposed to have involved something like 50 people. Even if the central records have been covered up, I guarantee that some of the people involved still have theirs.

All we need to do is wait. I know that isn't satisfying to those who want Lakhdar Brahimi out of Iraq, but really, do you expect that he was personally involved in oil-for-food? I think it's unlikely.

Josh: Am glad to see someone is optimistic. ;) This isn't a case of Freedom of Information Act, investigation of matters in the U.S., etc. etc. The culprits, if information from Bagdad be true, in France and Russia (as well as elsewhere; not overlooking U.N. personnel) choose to keep the records "missing" there's little in the way of pressure that can be applied to force the records out of the "missing" status. There seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding on this point. No one can simply issue a supoena to produce the evidence. France has shown no interest in an analysis of the bank reputed to be the sole source of funneling all the funds.

I hope you're right. I fear you may not be. This matter reportedly has the fingerprints of the Russian mafia and all sorts of unhappy groups which are extremely powerful all over it, not the least of whom, as an individual, is a relative of the Secretary General of the U.N. whose company managed and provided oversight for the program.

It saddens me that all those years I blamed Clinton or Bush for being "too hard" on Iraq because children were dying from malnutrition or lack of medical supplies to learn that the money simply wasn't available, but had been diverted elsewhere.

Investigators, based on a review of Saddam's documents, who seem to have settled on the 10.1 billion dollar figure, give hints of other wrong doing but they're not going to find the evidence required unless someone else's records are "discovered" I fear. And even the suggestion that 10.1 billion is correct implies a good many other folks out there who were involved, else the whole scheme wouldn't have worked. Who and how much? Some of the "who" may in time come to light. Proving anything and punishment of other wrong doers is going to be all but impossible without the "how much" and a more complete description of the process.

And it's those records, ALL of which have gone missing from the U.N. records. Billions of dollars were involved in the program. ALL the UN records are missing.

I sincerely do hope you're right.

I'd also like to make a bigger point about these UN scandals.

Imagine if the US government were mired in corruption (Liberals would argue that it is mired in corruption, but I don't need to argue that right now, just take it as postulated.) I would argue for the removal of the president, and an aggressive purge of the corrupt officials, but I would never argue for the complete dissolution of the government as a whole. In particular, if certain departments had avoided corruption and were doing good works, I would try not to dissolve those departments during the purge. Finally, I would praise the career bureaucrats who had managed to avoid taking part in the corruption. In short, I would want to repair the US government, not dissolve it.

By the same argument, the UN is having corruption problems right now, especially in oil-for-food and human-rights commission. But to those of us who believe in its basic mission, this is an argument for aggressively cleaning it up. It's not an argument for dissolving it. We also believe that many of the UN's works are still positive, and it makes sense not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Of course, many people here dont agree with the UN's basic mission. But understand that for those of us who do believe in its mission, a corruption scandal doesn't change our mind - it just makes us want to get rid of the corrupt individuals.

> It saddens me that all those years I blamed Clinton or Bush for being "too hard" on Iraq because children were dying from malnutrition or lack of medical supplies to learn that the money simply wasn't available, but had been diverted elsewhere.

To blame the starvation on the corruption is somewhat misleading. The starvation was caused by the sanctions. The oil-for-food program was an attempt to partially mitigate that problem. The corruption in oil-for-food partially reduced the effectiveness of the oil-for-food program. But let's face it, I think even without corruption, the oil-for-food program wasn't enough. I think the combination of sanctions+oil-for-food just wasn't the right system.

Josh - BTW, I've long been convinced of the importance of the U.N. mission. But I cannot allow my eyes to stay firmly shut in the face of the massive amounts of information coming out of Iraq, the U.N.'s stone walling of the investigation (oops, we've lost all the records) etc.

http://acepilots.com/unscam/

Be warned this appears to be a "conservative" site, but if all their comments are tracked down, many to sources that are relatively objective (during a time when finding much of anything "objective" is rare) I think the magnitude, or its potential, can be seen. The original post by Rick V. provided some useful links. This blog (relatively new?) appears to provide a good many others.

I noted the most recent, for example, was from a Swedish source who commented on Kofi Annan. I'd like to see that source proven wrong. I'd like an explanation of the simplest kind as to why the appointed investigator has been denied access to UN records while the UN is stating it is interested in getting to the truth of the matter.

There are many worrisome bits of information on that blog which I find refuted nowhere. The alternative to the fact that Saddam made off with 10.1 billion, for example, comes from investigators who are not entirely U.S. If this is some scheme by the U.S. to paint Saddam in an especially bad light I'd like to see the proof of that.

All the information to date supports the fact that under the auspices and complete control of the U.N. wrongful acts occurred, ammnunition not food was purchased, tank parts not medicines were acquired. There's further evidence that Saddam had an oil pipeline running which wasn't authorized under the program and that this was known to his UN overseers.

There is nothing more difficult to believe than a finding of wrong doing or heresy in one's own backyard. Trusted friends and honored public figures can too often be the last to die, i.e., be uncovered for what they truly were.

If all the higher up military authorities are to be believed the torture of Iraqi prisoners comes like a stab in the back to the American military which claims to have sought freedom for Iraq. There's the old legend of the general who, before leading his troops into battle during Desert Storm, warned: "no more My Lais." Call either P.R. if you wish. Call it practical. Call it whatever but investigate whether or not beliefs are so strongly rooted in the consciousness as to make seeing the truth difficult or impossible.

I remain hopeful you are correct and that the U.N. records will turn up. Losing such records, in their entirety, does not bode well. And that's all I'm saying, and I think it reasonable to make such an assertion. Relatively minor issues of whether or not Kerry is a bonafide "hero" or Bush someone who skipped a year of duty in the national guard have both been beaten to death. We have access to such records. Such records can be forced out into the open. There are witnesses. We have access to the truth.

I hope you're right.

Steve

Josh,

Regarding your bigger point, above--I think you've misstated the position of your opposition, which includes me. I don't have a problem with the U.N.'s mission, as stipulated in its charter.

The problem, as I see it, is that the U.N.'s structure undermines its mission, and the problems with corruption are not accidental, but expected. The mission of the U.N. Security Council, as envisioned by FDR, was for the permanent members to act as a global police force in concert with one another. The beginning of the Cold War put a sharp end to that purpose. The poles of the overarching conflict were within the P5, which destroyed any hope of a resolution to most local conflicts enforced by consensus among the P5.

The end of the Cold War left us in a unipolar world, but the Security Council is still stuck in a multipolar framework, without any practical method of changing to reflect the new reality. This structural rigidity is one reason the U.N. will break under sufficient pressure, rather than bending through reform.

By its nature, the U.N. can not be reformed to the scale required. The heart of the organization is the P5, and no fundamental decisions can be reached without consensus. Since the essential corruption runs to 1-3 members of the P5, the chances of achieving the necessary reform-oriented consensus is exactly zero.

Reid Stott has a nice overview of the Oil-for-Food brouhaha / scandal / donnybrook here.

Andrew,

Let me clarify my position for you, just so you understand the depth of my revulsion for the anti-war left's position, and its cousin, marxist theory.

The anti-war left, in opposing the war, condemned 25 million people to continued mass slavery, torture and genocide. It did this knowingly, after thinking through the consequences for the people of Iraq. It did this while purporting to support the cause of regular, working-class people. It did this while claiming to be moral.

Now, we discover that the main champions of the anti-war left, France & co., were actually profitting from the suffering of regular, working-class Iraqis. We learn that a number of non-state anti-war leftists (journalists and thinkers) were paid petro-dollars in exchange for Iraqi slavery.

Now that the full horror of your position is coming clear - as the stench of mass graves hits your nostrils, as the child prisons and rape room stories emerge, as Iraqis celebrate their freedom from all this - you are scrambling for cover. If this is not bad enough, now comes the allegations that your side did it all for cash.

Of course you didn't personally take money; but you allied yourself with a grossly immoral cause, and you had to ask yourself what motivated so many influential people to do so. In failing to ask vital questions, and in taking an atrociously unethical position, you were negligent in your moral reasoning.

If the moral difficulties of the anti-war position were at least acknowledged, things might be different. If the majority of the anti-war left had said before the war "Yes, we understand that we will be condemning Iraqis to slavery for the foreseeable future - tens of thousands will be buried in mass graves, tortured and raped - but we think this can be tolerated because of x,y, and z", then perhaps I'd have more sympathy. But I've not seen anyone on the left do so. I ask myself why, and I have no answer. Perhaps you can explain it.

Because war supporters have had to deal (albeit from a sanitizing distance) with every innocent Iraqi victim, every fallen soldier, every mistake - including prison abuse, de-Baathification and re-Baathification, plan revisions, hostage-taking, etc, without evasion, and with only the prospect of a free and democratic Iraq as compensation. The consequences of supporting the war were clear, and few honest proponents ever denied the price to be paid for it.

Now comes an accounting for the anti-war side, and what do we get? Denials. Silence. Evasion.

What did we get from marxists when the Cambodian killing fields were found? Same thing. Soviet gulags and genocide? Ditto. Maoist slaughter? See above. Cuban dictatorship? Same, with some celebrity photo-ops thrown in. If you think all this is unrelated, walk into a faculty meeting and discuss the Iraq war or communism and listen for the similarity in the answers. Vile aspersions indeeed.

How should a normal person feel about this? How should I react to slave-trading? How would you?

Slavery and atrocity should evoke righteous indignation. Profitting from slavery and atrocity should evoke white hot indignation. It's disgusting, and it is worthy of condemnation. I won't apologize for drawing uncomfortable conclusions for your position.

Regarding Josh Marshal, and the idea that this is all just another Chalabi Jobby: then why would Sevan admit "'that as much as 10 percent' of the programme's revenues may have been 'ripped off.'"

Why would a former program coodinator for the Oil-for-Food program call it "The classic 'whodunit,' in which it turns out everybody 'did it,' is a perfect model for understanding what happened to Iraq's national resources during the sanctions: Most of the international community was in on the fleecing of Iraq."

Statements like the above would imply that Chalabi has the power to make people confess to things they didn't do, if you want to believe Marshall's theory.

But the UN has been clearly damaged by all this talk, and one would think the obvious thing to do is meet the charges with immediate transparency. Especially if you feel you are innocent. But regaining the trust of the international community and getting to the bottom of this doesn't seem to be the main priority in this matter, from the UN point of view.

It appears to be something else. And that ought to speak for itself.

> The problem, as I see it, is that the U.N.'s structure undermines its mission

What surprises me, though, is the vehemence with which conservatives have latched onto these scandals. I perceive these scandals as important, in the sense that the UN is an important body and it needs to be free of corruption. But the gavel-pounding that I'm seeing taking place on the right suggests more than a simple civic desire to clean up a corrupt institution. It seems like you interpret these scandals as somehow reinforcing the neocon world-view as a whole. I just don't see it.

I wrote an entire paragraph describing my perception of how the neocons perceive the UN scandals, but it was just so nonsensical I just deleted it. Maybe you could fill me in: give me a ten-line explanation of how these scandals prove ... well, something important to neocons? I mean, obviously they prove the need to clean up the UN. But what else?

Well, It proves that many of our 'allies' had other than principled reasons to oppose the war in Iraq and certainly puts a different spin on the "no blood for oil" argument.

This is really interesting. Why the silence from the left toward France, Germany, and Russia over their apparent proping up a dictator and subverting UN economic sanctions to gain access to favorable oil deals. Where's the outrage?

Mark, I stopped reading after "the anti-war left's position, and its cousin, marxist theory".

If I have time, I'll get back to you with an essay on the pro-war right's position and its cousin, Nazism. I can play outrageous straw man, too.

OK?

(As a matter of fact, not that I want to stand up for Marxist theory, but I don't see why it would clearly support either the pro- or anti-war position.)

> Where's the outrage?

Rule of thumb, I tend to care a lot about the actions of my government. It's my home, and this is the only nation I really have any power to influence. I mean, yeah, it's only one vote and a few political contributions, but it's something.

When some other government engages in corruption, I'm annoyed, but like I said, it's not my home. I know this is unfortunately ignorant, but I don't know the structure of (say) France's government, and I don't know who the ruling party is. I don't really know who to get outraged at. I also tend to feel that since I don't have a vote there, and since I don't even speak French to speak to the people who do live there, I feel rather powerless to do anything about it.

I guess it's merely a question of choosing your battles. The US is my home, dealing with the corruption right here is the battle I've chosen to fight.

Josh,

Obviously, I speak for no one but myself. That said, I'm surprised that you think outrage at the scandal should or can be mediated by a political viewpoint.

This is shaping up to be one of the largest financial scandals in history. But it wasn't simply a theft. Funds meant for food and medical aid was appropriated by wealthy Arab and Western parties, in exchange for their assistance in prolonging the suffering of helpless Iraqi citizens. If it was just a straight theft ring - plundering the coffers of some government program or another - it wouldn't be nearly so offensive. What makes the conduct so execrable is that the consequence of the theft resulted directly in continued enslavement of an entire people. It's a bit like the AIDS virus, attacking the system meant to fight off an infection.

Everyone from across all political parties should rightly condemn this conduct.

I tend to agree with the posters above that the UN is fundamentally flawed, given that it is designed mostly to ensure world stability, even if that means trading freedom & democracy in exchange. That some individuals would eventually decide to profit from this odious exchange typifies the immorality inherent in the trade itself.

> It proves that many of our 'allies' had other than principled reasons to oppose the war

But pretty much the entire population of Europe opposed the war. I think even if you had subtracted the 50 or 100 corrupt individuals from that number, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

> certainly puts a different spin on the "no blood for oil" argument.

It certainly does put blood on the hands of those who did this. But is there more to it?

Josh,
It certainly bothers me that Kerry (your preferred candidate?) said he had the backing of certain unnamed European leaders, the same ones that presumably chastised the US for going to war in Iraq, and possibly the same ones that benefited from the corruption that is the UNSCAM scandal.

It's your purview to limit your horizons with respect to outrage. Would you please share this perspective with the rest of those on the left? I'm really tired about hearing how unilateral we are and everything. This might be a stretch, but would it be too much to ask you to lobby the others on the left to not mention Europe again? That's a horizon that I could live with!

The U. N. has many missions some legitimate, some, IMO, illegitimate. Among these missions are a forum in which the nations of the world can discuss issues of interest. This is a legitimate function. Then there are some of the various organizations subsumed under the U. N. including the World Health Organization, UNICEF, etc. Some of these perform legitimate functions, some not. There is no particular reason for these organizations that perform legitimate functions to be subsumed under the U. N. structure.

One of the missions of the U. N. is as a sort of incipient world government. This mission includes components such as the International Criminal Court. IMO this is a wholly illegitimate function. Legitimate government requires consensus. No such consensus is present today.

So the problems with the U. N. are not just structural. It's mission creep.

> Everyone from across all political parties should rightly condemn this conduct.

Sure, but my condemnation is necessarily going to be ... uh ... concise. For example, I could say, "I condemn Michel Grimard!" (That's one of the names on the list.) But since I have no idea who that is, or what he did, there's not much more I can say about it.

If I were a blogger, I suppose I could repeatedly issue these extremely bland condemnations, but it would get boring after a while. To really write an interesting article, I'd have to research the political systems of the nations involved, find out who these people are, and get ahold of some of the oil-for-food documents. But there are hundreds of nations involved, none of the documents are available, and most of the people are petty officials who have no public record. To really learn anything, I'd probably have to do a lot of international travel. In other words, this is probably the hardest research project ever. Honestly, I doubt I would undertake it. Instead, I'd probably stick with the blanket condemnation and wait for Volker to come out with his report. I know that comes across as "not giving much attention to the scandal," but what can I do?

> It certainly bothers me that Kerry said he had the backing of certain unnamed European leaders, the same ones that presumably chastised the US for going to war in Iraq, and possibly the same ones that benefited from the corruption that is the UNSCAM scandal.

I suspect that Kerry has the support of 80% of Europeans. And yes, I would expect that 50% of all world leaders have been involved in corruption of some sort or another. So I'm sure there's quite a bit of overlap. I'm not sure how strongly that reflects on Kerry. I suppose if he had support from nobody, then he would have the support of nobody corrupt.

Josh,
You originally asked why neocons were so agitated with the UNSCAM scandal. Let's see if I can get any plainer.

It would seem that the folks that were calling pro-war advocates unilateral, evil, and Iraqi killers, were at the very same time unilaterally undermining the UN economic sanctions and corrupting the food-for-oil program, thus promoting continued suffering and deprivation of Iraqis.

Is hypocrisy on all counts reason enough?

It seems to me we've all danced around this topic a good deal.

The basic problem appears to clearly stem from lack of accountability. The Clinton administration was pushing the issue of the U.N. being accountable for its actions with record keeping subject to outside audit.

It didn't happen. The desire to have records audited was not a one shot deal with the previous or the present U.S. administrations. The U.N. ducked its head and ignored such requests, or stonewalled them if you prefer.

The magnitude and alledged depth and height of the allegations are what may make this a critical matter. The conservative side seems to be saying that the U.N. administration, at the highest levels, is too corrupt to be trusted to administer any program. I think their point may be correct if indeed the corruption reaches all the way to the top, i.e., Koki Annan, and was widespread through all levels of the U.N.

One must consider the historical perspective, what the U.S. has been pushing for in the U.N. (enforcement of inspections) for a number of years and how the U.S. has been criticized because the Oil for Food program appeared to be a failure, with no knowledge at the time of the alledged corruption in the program which literally, it is alledged, gutted its effectiveness.

This issue it seems to me is intertwined with our perspective, and of the whole world's, as to whether or not the U.N. management is corrupt or not and if the corruption extends to all levels. One of the great values of the U.N. has been its peacekeeping missions. Proven corrupt to the core, if that be the case, the credibility of even those missions, especially as regards the future of Iraq and Afghanistan, is called into question.

One can't ignore this topic, it seems to me, if the U.N. is going to continue to function effectively in all areas, including peacekeeping, but also other programs where monies of its members are spent. This in no way implies the structure of the U.N. is at fault, other than the need in the future for accountability and a determination of past corruption, if applicable.

So we just let the U.N. stonewall the topic, denying any complicity, and ignoring the fact that the requested records have been "lost?"

That involves a breach of faith I'm unable to ignore. How did all those many records of many years in running the Food for Oil program "get lost?" Money had to be disbursed to hundreds, possibly thousands of contractors to deliver products. There are the records of how much oil was sold and to whom. All "lost?"

I'm talking in circles. The outrage that would have occurred had all the Enron records been "lost," a little operation much, much smaller than Food for Oil, would have been incredible in the U.S. The scam that bankrupted the multi-national Italian and French companies in recent years would have sent shock waves through the international business community, as did Enron or WorldCom for that matter.

Saddam, if he skimmed 10.1 billion from the program, did not do it alone. That's inconceivable if the process itself is examined, based on the records uncovered in Bagdad. That the other players were involved in some way is a puzzle without the U.N. records, the overseer of the entire matter. But they're "lost."

Just read this on today's Instapundit (yes, one of those nasty conservative sites, but one to which virtually everyone links to keep up with the latest news):

" May 6, 2004 -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan talks grandly of "transparency" in the so-called probe of the world body's festering Oil-for- Food scandal - but don't believe a word of it. For he seems to be running a coverup. . . .

The latest line from Turtle Bay is that the Oil-for-Food mess isn't really a scandal at all, just an anti-U.N. plot inspired by "right-wingers" - or, alternatively, by former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi.

Those are shameful lies.

In fact, the Iraqi Governing Council has been probing the mess since January, when the Baghdad newspaper Al-Mada published its now-famous list of the 270 officials from 44 countries who were bribed with oil vouchers by Saddam (see above: Benon Savan).

Indeed, reports of massive corruption in the $46 billion program began years before the liberation of Iraq opened government records to inspection."

Disregard the innuendo and conclusions if you wish. This provides a brief, historical background of the concerns many have had, and not just the conservatives.

If this is merely a conservative plot of some sort it has to be the Mother of all Plots, although it appears more likely that any plotting going on was with Saddam and his "trading partners" under the auspices of U.N. management.

http://www.instapundit.com/ (sorry, don't have permalink; it's the top news story posted as of the time and date of my post)

> It would seem that the folks that were calling pro-war advocates unilateral, evil, and Iraqi killers, were at the very same time unilaterally undermining the UN economic sanctions

This is an abominably bad analysis.

If liberals expressed support for the policy of UN sanctions, it wouldn't prove that we supported the corruption of oil-for-food, it would only prove that the UN wasn't following the policy that we supported - that the UN had betrayed us and our policies.

That you think otherwise speaks poorly of your intelligence.

> This issue it seems to me is intertwined with our perspective, and of the whole world's, as to whether or not the U.N. management is corrupt or not and if the corruption extends to all levels.

What's interesting is that the UN's power stems directly from its credibility. If it fails to "unlose" those documents, it loses most of its credibility, and hence its power. That doesn't mean we won't still use the big meeting room in the UN building, and it doesn't mean we won't periodically ask for help from certain intelligent individuals (like Lakhdar Brahimi). But if they discard their credibility so quickly, they won't have much influence over the actions of nations any more.

Josh,

I was thinking of France, Germany, and Russia who opposed the war and were benefiting from the status quo while using the UN to preserve it. I'm not sure what this says about liberals in the US.

Sorry about not being more clear.

Josh,

The anti-war left can't get off that easily. They impugned the motives of the US Administration in going to war, choosing to focus not on the moral or immoral nature of war itself but on character of the state actors. I thought it was a bad syllogistic move at the time, but the anti-war left can't be heard now to object to critical parity.

The motivations ascribed to proponents of the war ranged from "blood-for-oil" to "world hegemony and imperialism". From France's aristocratic UN ambassador to the common leftist street activist, we heard this again and again.

Such an analysis of the war may have been intellectually weak, but the anti-war left should have been aware that in criticizing motives of their opponents, it could, sooner or later, face criticism of its own motivations. Thus, the anti-war left should have enquired about the motivations of its own side. In law, this is sometime called "clean hands". It is said that you can't plead before a court using an equitable doctrine unless you have "clean hands", or good conduct & motivations.

Moreover, a red flag should have gone up on the left given its past history of sacrificing individuals to the greater good; in this case, condemning Iraqis to slavery in order to oppose Imperial capitialist America.

All of this was ignored. It was "full-speed ahead, lets oppose those bad, arrogant Americans". So the anti-war left can hardly be heard to complain now about the venal, immoral motives of its leaders.

As I said, I don't accuse all anti-war leftists of complicity in the scam, but the case for moral negligence seems tenable.

Josh,

First, I'm not a neocon, although I do consider them ideological allies. I'm just a plain vanilla conservative, for the record. =)

I don't agree with your premise that the UNSCAM issue has been primarily driven by conservatives, neocon or not. The person in the blogosphere I've seen devote the most time and energy on this topic has been Roger L. Simon, and he'd be a full-blown lefty if he wasn't a hawk. He's also at least as big a fan of the U.N.'s mission as you are. A large chunk of the criticism I've read has been from the viewpoint you bring up repeatedly--this scandal undermines U.N. credibility, and therefore effectiveness, and so it must be repaired and reformed so the U.N. can regain its credibility/effectiveness.

My position is different. I do not believe that reform is possible, so the proper course of action is to either replace the U.N. with a "new and improved" international organization, or just shunt the current system into some diplomatic backwater, bereft of influence. To clarify, I am specifically talking about the U.N. Security Council and its associated security apparatus, as this is the heart of the organization. Peripheral organizations, like WHO, could be dealt with on an individual basis.

The reason I think UNSCAM is important is that it demonstrates to the broader public what a waste of money the U.N. is. Our government collects taxes, and spends money, but the money trail is fairly well audited and while waste certainly occurs, our system is not institutionally rife with graft, corruption, and kickbacks. I think the American people generally find our own government to be at least minimally acceptable on this front. The U.N.'s money trail is an entirely different ballgame. UNSCAM was not an aberration--it was typical of what will develop when a system governing billions of dollars is not subject to independent auditing and reporting. Since the U.S. puts up 22% of the U.N.'s operating budget, that's a heck of a lot of OUR MONEY that gets flagrantly wasted by an unaccountable, thoroughly corrupt system.

At this point, I expect you would respond, "Big problem means big need for reform, right?" Yes, in theory. Theory and practice don't link up here, though, because I don't believe we have a stick big enough to enforce the necessary reforms. What our reforms would do is effectively kill the goose that lays the golden eggs for those skimming money off U.N. contracts, and simultaneously force the U.N. to be more accountable to the U.S. taxpayer (and the Japanese taxpayer, the British taxpayer, etc.).

So, assuming we pushed for reforms with the leverage we have (the threat to cut off the U.N.'s funding), we are left with two possible future worlds. One is a cleaned-up, reformed U.N. that is independently audited AND more thoroughly under the thumb of the U.S.--because the guy that pays sets the terms. The other is a world where the U.N. doesn't exist (a potential successor organization, however, probably would). Of the two, I think you would prefer World A, but the bureaucrats at the U.N. would probably end up with World B, hoping that the U.S. was bluffing, and trying to go for World C--the status quo.

> I don't accuse all anti-war leftists of complicity in the scam, but the case for moral negligence seems tenable.

You're saying we should have deduced the existence of corruption in the oil-for-food program? I note that you didn't deduce its existence it either.

> I don't agree with your premise that the UNSCAM issue has been primarily driven by conservatives, neocon or not. The person in the blogosphere I've seen devote the most time and energy on this topic has been Roger L. Simon, and he'd be a full-blown lefty if he wasn't a hawk.

Honestly, I don't know. I was just taking what the others around here were saying for granted.

Logically, though, I can believe that certain liberals would write about it. After all, this is directly frustrating to us in that it creates a negative association to our policies, without ever actually testing our policies. We don't know what would have happened if we had actually tried real sanctions against Saddam.

I'm sure that certain folks around here will understand that sentiment: the endless string of botches in Iraq creates negative associations to the idea of forced democratization, without ever actually testing what would happen if somebody did a competent job of it.

> Of the two, I think you would prefer World A

Heck, I don't really care. If a complete disbanding and re-creation is what it takes, then so be it. I suppose it would be less disruptive if the current organization could be fixed, so in that sense, yeah, I suppose I'd rather have world A. But it's not a real strong preference.

Josh,

Ok, so you think sanctions didn't work because of corruption. Without corruption, they would have worked. Well, I'd tentatively agree with that construction, BUT I don't think it's useful, since the failure-inducing corruption was inevitable, given the nature of the U.N.

As far as the rest, what do you think about my actual thesis? In short, I think World A (a reformed U.N.) is a pipe dream, World C (the status quo) is unacceptable, and World B (no U.N., potential successor organization) is the appropriate goal.

Az di bobe volt gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde. (If my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather.)

The U. N. is not reformable. Much of the world doesn't think that graft is a corruption of the system. Graft is the system.

> Ok, so you think sanctions didn't work because of corruption. Without corruption, they would have worked.

Actually, my view is more agnostic than that. My view on foreign policy strategy is that you have to be creative, and try a lot of things, until you find something that works. However, it would be nice to genuinely try these strategies, rather than merely pretend to be trying them.

Actually, your thoughts on the inevitability of the oil-for-food corruption mirror my thoughts on the inevitability of the chaos in Iraq. Perhaps we're both right, perhaps humans just can't avoid corruption enough to successfully meddle in each others affairs by any means.

> As far as the rest, what do you think about my actual thesis?

I honestly don't know what's going to happen. It's possible that Volker and his team will discover a great deal of documentation about pervasive corruption. If so, I think they will have the political clout to get sufficient reform. On the other hand, if they only find a few scraps, then not much is going to happen, and in all likelihood, the UN will linger with reduced credibility for a long time. It may eventually be replaced, but what I really forsee is an interim period in which we interact with "world opinion" in the abstract, rather than dealing with a UN-like body.

So has anyone else actually read the link to the photodude blog listed as an update in the original article?

http://photodude.com/index.php?id=293

When I think of the Iraqi children that died due to lack of food and medicine while Saddam was able to prop up his army a bit more...

...I wonder what makes me more sick at my stomach: the torture of Iraqi prisoners or the Food for Greed program.

The lurid photo of an Iraqi male, a Muslim and an Arab, naked and being forced to masturbate for the camera with a female American guard present.

Children slowly starving to death (or dying for want of the most basic medication; take your pick)

Comparisons like this should NEVER be made. Or should we have some sort of morality guage, perhaps an index showing how disgusted and saddened we are by a particular event. Let there be a barometer displayed, and let the Time-USA Today poll provide the figures...disgusting.

Steve,

There already is a "morality gauge" of the type you suggest--the front pages of the NYT, WaPo, etc. The issues that their respective editors believe are more relevant get bigger press. And according to their morality, they do indeed find the humiliation of an Iraqi prisoner to be more morally significant than the starvation of an Iraqi child.

I think there is a proper time and place for weighing an atrocity in terms of its significance. A small atrocity is no less morally wrong for being small, but doesn't a larger atrocity deserve proportionally more time and effort to redress, if necessary?

> And according to their morality, they do indeed find the humiliation of an Iraqi prisoner to be more morally significant than the starvation of an Iraqi child.

From the new york times: did a search from 1996 to 1999, searching for +SANCTIONS +IRAQ in SUMMARY. Ignoring articles which are obviously not relevant, I found these:

FOREIGN DESK | March 31, 1999, Wednesday
U.N. Panel Seeks to Ease Suffering of Iraq's People
By JUDITH MILLER (NYT) 725 words

ABSTRACT - Panel of senior UN officials concludes that Iraq has gone from relative affluence to massive poverty since imposition of economic sanctions after Persian Gulf war in 1991 and recommends several steps to alleviate suffering of its people...

EDITORIAL DESK | February 9, 1999, Tuesday
Iraq's Not-So-Secret Weapon
By George Yates (NYT) 696 words

ABSTRACT - Op-Ed article by George Yates says UN oil for food program allowing Iraq to sell oil if it uses proceeds to buy food and medicine is noble policy but is fatally flawed; says not only is aid not getting to Iraqi people...

FOREIGN DESK | January 15, 1999, Friday
U.S. Proposes Easing U.N. Curbs on Iraq Oil
By JANE PERLEZ (NYT) 734 words

ABSTRACT - US proposes ending restrictions on how much oil Iraq can export to pay for relief supplies; acts under pressure from UN Security Council to alleviate suffering...

In other words, even years after the sanctions had been imposed, the NYT was still writing about them constantly, and almost every time, it raised the possibility that the sanctions regime should be lifted or altered.

Sorry but the two references to the NYT don't compute. Josh is making a point of some kind that goes over my head.

Sam Barnes is making an observation regarding small and larger atrocities.

There seems to be some assumption that what gets space, what is "news," is that which garners the often or more frequent coverage? And the editors of the NYT are the aribiters of what's "news," presumably what's "worse?"

We live in the age of infotainment, with the journalism I knew something of a part of history. I would be the first to agree that where small pockets of the "journalism" of old live on the NYT would be a place to look.

But they, no less than the CBS of the Vietnam period, have ceased being moral arbiters or barometers of what is newsworthy or of importance in this world. The ugly tone of news bias towards the Liberal side, no less than the more obvious bias of FOX News network, the number one ranked TV news source, is beyond being disgusting.

In both cases.

I'm having trouble grasping at the fact there can be anything more tragic than the suffering of a child. Not grown to full term as yet, perhaps the suffering is not that great in the Greek sense of that word, but denial of that ability to attain maturity through the greed of a world of so-called adults, adults who are acclaimed world leaders strikes me as having its own special pathos.

Perhaps the starvation and dying of a child has become so commonplace that it bothers us little anymore. And whether the dying occurs as the result of sheer negligence or slothful ways, it's not "news."

I know of no one that claims UNSCAM is brand new news. What is "newsworthy" is the surprise to world leaders that the U.S. ever wound up in Bagdad with all the records available. I've early mentioned that there were calls in the Clinton administration, and before, for accountability by the U.N. in its various programs.

That they weren't especially "newsworthy" as they were mere allegations and not followed up shouldn't be surprising. The investigation of Watergate was front page on the Washington Post for a year or more prior to the 1972 elections in which Richard Nixon was re-elected. There wasn't enough substance, enough proof, in the eyes of the public.

That proof became available after the election was over in the form of the Watergate hearings. There was more to it then the concern that Nixon was a crook and had covered up his deeds, there was the thought of what else such actions might represent.

Perhaps some won't like the analogy. But it seems to me there's something endemic in what's going on with UNSCAM. And what that portends for the usefulness or functionality of the U.N. we still don't know and can only speculate. But we know a good deal. We know that it portends, possibly, a good deal of worse things for the future if we're to rely on the present U.N. and its structure. For those who have placed their faith in the U.N. as the arbiter of the world's problems and the messenger of individual rays of help and assistance, what is the loss of a war, of the good will of a people or nations, in comparison?

I don't have the answer to that. I'm merely an ignorant Boomer. I grew up with the belief that the U.N. would be the ultimate organization to ensure a world, one day, of world peace. I didn't think that countries like France, Russia, and Germany would hold the U.N. hostage, through their vote in the security council or by other means, in seeing that precisely the opposite of its intended mission would be blocked through the greed of those who were higher ups in their governments.

UNSCAM, if it plays out as is presently the case, suggests the possibility that the world will have to look to a new body, one that can be trusted to act in accordance with its charter. One that's "accountable," a much bandied about word, but one which seems to be of little consequence in this matter.

We still don't know and can only speculate where the torturing of prisoners will lead, but anyone that read much should realize that we're not talking about decision makers or top leadership in the U.S. military or government. How many are involved? 2 dozen? 50? 100? And the Arab/Islamic men who were faced with a torture of sorts that may go beyond the physical abuse of those tortured Vietnam prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton, are a source of outrage and concern which ignores the deaths of countless children?

Perhaps the world in which I was raised is wrong. It places the most value on its children, their rearing, and their education. And given that we're only talking about a few thousand more (10,000, 20,000?) children why should we be so concerned? And if we live in a world where Condi Rice, Rummy and/or the C.I.A. director is calling the shots for the brutality that occurred in Iraqi prisons, what must we think of our own government?

But perhaps someone will come along with a nicely formatted spreadsheet to demonstrate further the greater importance of the torturing of Iraqi prisoners than UNSCAM. It seems to me possible that the long festering and greater evil, best understood by C.P.A.s and assorted bean counters, may indeed take second stage to the torture of a few hundred men by a similar, likely smaller number, of American prison guards.

But who knows. Guess I'd better start counting the number of infotainmentnews pieces in the NYT. All those photographs do indeed make for great stories. Photographs of dying/dead children make for boring stories at best in today's world.

> That proof became available after the election was over in the form of the Watergate hearings. There was more to it then the concern that Nixon was a crook and had covered up his deeds, there was the thought of what else such actions might represent. Perhaps some won't like the analogy...

The difference is that Nixon was still in power. The oil-for-food assholes aren't. That takes away a lot of the sense of urgency.

Josh,

They're still influential in the U.N. - a body that does have some power, and which many liberals believe should be given far more power over America's foreign policies and security.

All this despite an endemic history of corruption that caused the U.S. to stop paying dues for a while, and contributed heavily to the pull-out fron UNESCO in the 1980s. As Dave Schuler pointed out - graft IS the system.

Not to mention the U.N.'s complicity in genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, et. al.

But since the U.N. is the favorite vapourware alternative to Pres. Bush's current policies, calling it radically into question by mentioning these things is... how shall we say... problematic for many lib-left types. Especially the transnational progressivists. Therefore, the scandal needs to be minimized or ignored. Which we are dutifully seeing right here.

It's a classic and very long-standing pattern on the left, repeated over and over again in many contexts, for many decades, to excuse even the most heinous acts. And no less shameful this time.

> But since the U.N. is the favorite vapourware alternative to Pres. Bush's current policies...

Let me let you in on a secret. What we really want is for the occupation be put in the control of somebody else. Anybody else. You could turn it over to the government of Tuvalu, for all I care (yes, I know Tuvalu no longer exists.) Our feeling is that nobody could possibly be hated as much as we are, and nobody could botch it as bad as we are botching it. Our suggestion that it be turned over to the UN was more or less arbitrary. I think the Center for American Progress suggested NATO command in their proposal. That would be fine by me - anyone else, really. As for Lakhdar Brahimi, he may be tainted by his association to the UN, but he does appear to be doing good work, so I think he should be allowed to continue.

Josh,

"Anybody else?"

The great legacy you have of the Boomer generation has little to do directly with the Civil Rights movement or the War in Vietnam of the 1960's. The tales of acid and Woodstock are largely hyped up in modern text. Yeah, we had three major assasinations in the U.S., but the 1960's are the real legacy.

The Boomers willed unto you, the best and brightest generation to date, the legacy of Watergate. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals all jointly wept at the knowledge that the prophesy of the 1950's, the Eisenhower years, when the world was going to be made better and brighter, was finally shown to be a still birth after all.

We stayed up, many of us, until all hours of the morning and worked like zombies during the week of the Watergate hearings. PBS rebroadcast of those hearings that ended at 2 or 4 a.m. sometimes got higher ratings than the most popular sitcoms.

It was the ultimate disillusionment. We would teach our children not to trust, to know no ends to the earth's bounties, but to mistrust and hate, especially those we trusted most.

Watergate is your legacy. If you choose to entrust Iraq to the U.N., or to anybody (assuming that the U.S. is the worst of the worst or simply can't be trusted with the job of the war), so be it. Cast your fate to the winds. NATO? You must be joking. The U.S. is so closely tied and such a driving force behind NATO that that has as much chance flying as putting the North Korean president in charge of the rebuilding of Iraq.

Congrats. You have your own Watergate to wade through now and it's not a lousy 100 or 200 individuals who played the torture game, both sides, in the dungeons of Iraq.

Could 9-11 have been prevented? Maybe now we'll wonder if the demise of the U.N. could have been prevented and which is the larger in importance? Those of good, conservative blood, who haven't given a damn about the U.N. for years could perhaps care less. In some ways that's an ideological thing they'll have to handle for themselves.

Virtually all sides and arguments in this thread have had their legitimate points. But the time for point making is at an end and we're left on the steps of yet another legacy of Watergate, not that I expect all to understand its import to an earlier generation. Water was more about the coming of age of those who came after WW II, not merely some political cover up, although its context in today's world might be difficult to understand. In comparison with the actions of other presidents that followed it wasn't all that bad, or was it? Think about time and place. Think about the dangers in the world versus those of the 1960's.

"Liberals," not all that popular a phrase, fought the good fight in the American south for the disenfranchised, then fought the war in Vietnam. But they cried the biggest crocodile tears over Watergate. Bestrayal, if you were to ask a man like Malcolm X, was a grievous thing. It more than merely deflated the good that had been done. Among other things it blotted out the positive prospects for the future. It undid nothing, it merely left much undone.

Last rant this topic....sorry....

Josh,

You missed my point on the NYT front page. I did not say that the NYT never referenced starving Iraqi children; I was referring to the relative emphasis placed on competing news stories--in this case, UNSCAM (ignored) vs. Abu Ghraib (above the fold on A1 several days running, major op-ed/editorial space). Also, the editorial line the NYT was pushing in the articles you referenced was not anything like "corruption in the U.N."--rather, it was "evil American sanctions." Their recommended policy was to lift the sanctions--precisely the policy Saddam himself would undoubtedly have preferred. Not that the NYT would have allowed their editorial line to be subject to the whims of an evil dictator, of course (for that, you need CNN); they just happened to coincide.

"The difference is that Nixon was still in power. The oil-for-food assholes aren't."

Which assholes do you mean? Kofi Annan is still Secretary-General of the U.N., and many of the other people that received kickbacks from UNSCAM still hold the same offices. If you were referring to Saddam and his cronies in Iraq (they aren't still in power), then your net isn't being cast widely enough.

"Our feeling is that nobody could possibly be hated as much as we are, and nobody could botch it as bad as we are botching it."

I don't understand what the antecedents to your pronouns are. I think the "we" refers to Americans, but who is the "our" in "our feeling?"

Andrew, could you be so kind as to cite the Economist article for me? (I have a subscription) I've been following this for a while, and are you saying Claudia Rossert and Therese Raphael are trained seals?

Twist, I don't have a subscription but I assume that it's this from the 4/27 print issue. Marshall quotes:

His [Chalabi] evidence and nearly all the other allegations against the UN have so far been based on documents found in Iraqi government archives. But no one, other than he and the GC's 25 members, has seen or authenticated the documents.

If this is correct, then trained seals is a reference to the members of the IGC Finance Committee (apparently handpicked by Chalabi). The investigation is being run by an old friend of Chalabi (who is a convicted swindler, of course). I wouldn't think trained seals applies to the journalists in this case, although perhaps they should show more skepticism.

American intelligence agencies remained fooled because Iraqis who wanted Saddam toppled kept feeding them false stories about his hidden stockpiles of chemical and other weapons, Kay said.

"They told us about weapons in order to get us to invade Iraq," he said. "They moved U.S. policy, and we didn't catch it."

My favorite performance has to be the "scientist" Chalabi provided to draw lines in the sand in front of his close friend and embed at the NY Times, Judith Miller, and the US military she had invited along. The faux-scientist was pointing out places he had worked on WMD. Now, even allowing for the current excuse that the Syrians decided to become the next target by welcoming the WMD into their country, testing at this particular site showed no evidence of chemicals. The whole story had no more backing than "The Wizard of Oz". Judith Miller is a trained seal, not a journalist.