CIA: Saddam Bought Off Countries, People with Oil

[walford]

http://www.*******.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6435697
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (*******) - The Central Intelligence Agency has published hundreds of names of people, firms, political parties and government officials Saddam Hussein purportedly tried to buy off to get U.N. sanctions lifted.

At the same time, Saddam and his government managed to amass some $11 billion through shadowy deals to circumvent the sanctions, first imposed in 1990 and lifted after the U.S.-led invasion a year ago, said the report, released on Wednesday.

The report was part of a 1,200-page survey for the CIA by Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. weapons inspector, who concluded Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons or a nuclear arms program before the U.S. invasion last year.

It was published on the CIA's Website: www.cia.gov.

The former government's scheme included making deals with firms in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen to acquire prohibited items, the report said.

The published lists show how much oil individuals, political parties or firms from more than 40 countries purportedly were allocated and the names of the companies contract to lift oil on their behalf.

The list cited names from France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, which supervised the program.

Accusations again emerged against Benon Sevan, head of the now-defunct U.N. oil-for-food humanitarian program that handled $67 billion. He is listed as a U.N. official, called Mr. Sifan, and has vigorously denied the allegations.

The United Nations has said it had turned over all documents to an investigatory commission headed by Paul Volcker, the former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman.

13 SECRET FILES

Others on the lengthy list include Russian ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his Russian Liberal Democrat Party, Charles Pasqua, a former French interior minister, Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri, the son of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and the Peoples Liberation Front of Palestine.

The lists, parts of which had been published previously, were compiled from 13 secret files maintained by former Iraqi vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan and the former oil minister, Amir Rashid.

But there was no independent verification. "We name those individuals and entities here in the interest of candor, clarity and thoroughness," the report said, adding that it did not "investigate or judge those non-Iraqi individuals."

Several U.S. firms were on the list but their names were not released because of privacy laws.

Iraq was under a sweeping U.N. trade embargo beginning August 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. The sanctions were lifted after the U.S. invasion.

At the end of 1996, the United Nations and Iraq began the oil-for-food program that allowed Baghdad to buy civilian goods and sell oil to pay for them under U.N. monitoring. But since 1990, Iraq, openly shipped oil by truck to Jordan and Turkey, with the United States and others turning a blind eye.

The report said oil deals with various governments generated over $7.5 billion for Saddam from the early 1990s until the start of the 2003 war.

Iraq earned an additional $3 billion from kickbacks or surcharges on oil, smuggling and other schemes, the report said.

Oil companies were forced to pay surcharges, which by late 2000 amounted to 25 to 50 cents per barrel, industry sources said at the time. Britain and the United States eventually stopped the practice by insisting U.N. oil prices be set retroactively to cut the surcharge.

U.S. oil companies purchased Iraqi crude from middlemen rather from Baghdad. But by early 2003, the United States was consuming 67 percent of Iraqi crude, by far the largest buyer.
Sanctions are rarely effective for many reasons -- especially against a dictatorship. Always the ordinary people are made to suffer the brunt of the deprivation. The dictator's prestige is usually enhanced in the region, because he is seen as standing up against foreign interlopers. Further, he can claim martyrdom status while he builds up his armories and stocks his and his cronies' larders.

It would have been far more humane to have taken Saddam out the first time when the Iraqi people were ready for it.

Bush's father chose instead to let the UN set the agenda [i.e. leaving the aggressor regime in power] and stood idly by while Saddam brutally crushed spontaneously emerging rebellions all over the country. There would have been nowhere near the amounts of terrorism that is being faced now.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children would have been spared as well. That's the real scandal. Where is the outrage about that?

[achilles]

so let me get this straight...Bush senior let the UN alone to impose sanctions on Iraq and that reliefs american administrations from any responsibilities...good old bush let the UN on its own and the UN killed half a million children...walford, man give this forum a break will you? Honestly you sound like an educated, sharp person but you tend to adopt dodgy perspectives on serious issues ( i believe dodgy is the appropriate word)...and again you support your arguments based on....CIA? The only objective info coming from CIA is the world factbook...the rest simply serves the interests of each american government, something which makes perfect sense to me.

I ll state my view of it as simple as i can...yes the sanctions on Iraq were imposed by a UN resolution that was supported by a large number of countries around the world. The US was one of those countries and that makes it automatically responsible for the humanitarian implications of those sanctions.

[Rakki]

Clinton finished off the Gulf War, Clinton enforced the sanctions.

[achilles]

sh...sorry my mistake

[scm77]

And if Iraq/Saddam had done what the UN said, all those people wouldn't have had to die. Instead Saddam breaks them for 12(?) years, while the UN sits back and twiddles it's thumbs and gets rich of oil.

[priccobe]

And if Iraq/Saddam had done what the UN said, all those people wouldn't have had to die. Instead Saddam breaks them for 12(?) years, while the UN sits back and twiddles it's thumbs and gets rich of oil.

This whole organization is a FAILURE. They've failed the Iraqi people, they've failed the Rwandans, they're failing the civilians being slaughtered in the Darfur region of Sudan... All the while they get rich off of illegal oil contracts...

And they say only Bush is about the oil...

[Sir Zach of R.]

"The war's for oil!"

"Knock it off Ted, I'm paying $2.75 for a gallon of unleaded."

:lol:

[walford]

so let me get this straight...Bush senior let the UN alone to impose sanctions on Iraq and that reliefs american administrations from any responsibilities...good old bush let the UN on its own and the UN killed half a million children...yes the sanctions on Iraq were imposed by a UN resolution that was supported by a large number of countries around the world. The US was one of those countries and that makes it automatically responsible for the humanitarian implications of those sanctions.
The UN voted on the sanctions. Many such as yourself are implying that the US somehow 'forced' them to do it. Please.

I am saying that it was a mistake for Bush's father to have gone to the UN in the first place when Kuwait was invaded. Or at least the UN should not have been allowed to set the agenda. The UN cannot legitimize anything, because the majority of the member states are not legitimized by popular mandates -- i.e. the regimes are held into place by force.

The UN is good for humanitarian programs -- if they are well-audited -- but not much else. Certainly it cannot determine the need for military deployment or set strategy. It is not possible to compromise between fundamentally opposite positions. Any attempt to do so only serves the more evil and irrational side.

Given that most of the member states are dictatorships, they would never have agreed to regime change. Now we are seeing that several UN members that are NOT dictatorships were profitting from Saddam's rule while his people were being slaughtered by the thousands.

BTW, you know very well that those deaths during the sanctions regime were Saddam's fault. We were not filling his mass-graves. He was permitted to sell plenty enough oil to feed, clothe, house and medically treat ALL of his people. Instead he used the money to pay for weapons and build palaces.

I honestly cannot fathom the mentality that would consider Bush to be more evil and a greater threat than Saddam Hussein.

It truly is a Brave New World.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

so let me get this straight...Bush senior let the UN alone to impose sanctions on Iraq and that reliefs american administrations from any responsibilities...good old bush let the UN on its own and the UN killed half a million children...

Wait a minute now. Are you saying that the US interests should trump those of the UN? Is that not exactly what Bush 43 did...and you complain about it? But you're saying that Bush 41 should have done it, and you'd be ok with it?

If you had read the report, you would have seen that the US & Britain were the ones who were urging the UN to stop the practice - and the ones who got it stopped. Not France. Not Russia. Not Germany. Not China. Why are you not complaining about those nations - who not only did nothing to stop the actions you abhor so much - but were the ones benefiting from it?

That would be akin to a person being robbed at gunpoint in a room full of people. The robber hands out the money to everybody in the room. Except one guy stops the robber. And you turn around an blame not the robber, and not those receiving the money, ..but the guy who stopped the robbery. "You didn't stop him sooner". Lovely.

[achilles]

The UN voted on the sanctions. Many such as yourself are implying that the US somehow 'forced' them to do it. Please.

No i never said 'force', but the top-dog can always 'push' things towards the direction it likes...



I am saying that it was a mistake for Bush's father to have gone to the UN in the first place when Kuwait was invaded. Or at least the UN should not have been allowed to set the agenda. The UN cannot legitimize anything, because the majority of the member states are not legitimized by popular mandates -- i.e. the regimes are held into place by force.

The UN cannot legitimize anything when member states do not respect the UN's calls and resolutions...the quality of the UN's institutions, decisions and overall operational character depends on its members...the UN is comprised by its members and not by some sort of evil metaphysical force whose favourite language is French, as many people around here tend to think ;) ...


The UN is good for humanitarian programs -- if they are well-audited -- but not much else. Certainly it cannot determine the need for military deployment or set strategy. It is not possible to compromise between fundamentally opposite positions. Any attempt to do so only serves the more evil and irrational side.

No doubt the UN is the perfect channel through which humanitarian aid can be dispersed. But i dont think it stops there...since this is not a thread about the goods and bads of the UN i ll stop here.




Given that most of the member states are dictatorships, they would never have agreed to regime change. Now we are seeing that several UN members that are NOT dictatorships were profitting from Saddam's rule while his people were being slaughtered by the thousands.

most member states are dictatorships? Do you have any official stats to back this up? i have no idea about the complete composition of member states so i am a bit curious after your claim...as for the non-dictatoral states that were profiting from saddam's rule, i have no objection about that...but US is included, no? If that were not the case the US would invade and overthrow Saddam many decades ago...


BTW, you know very well that those deaths during the sanctions regime were Saddam's fault. We were not filling his mass-graves. He was permitted to sell plenty enough oil to feed, clothe, house and medically treat ALL of his people. Instead he used the money to pay for weapons and build palaces.

I never argued that Saddam was not a monster and frankly i never even thought about this:


I honestly cannot fathom the mentality that would consider Bush to be more evil and a greater threat than Saddam Hussein.

The thing is that sanctions induced a barter sort of trade that did not really allow Iraq to meet its basic needs...you probably know that barter is anything but economically efficient...

[achilles]

so let me get this straight...Bush senior let the UN alone to impose sanctions on Iraq and that reliefs american administrations from any responsibilities...good old bush let the UN on its own and the UN killed half a million children...

Wait a minute now. Are you saying that the US interests should trump those of the UN? Is that not exactly what Bush 43 did...and you complain about it? But you're saying that Bush 41 should have done it, and you'd be ok with it?

If you had read the report, you would have seen that the US & Britain were the ones who were urging the UN to stop the practice - and the ones who got it stopped. Not France. Not Russia. Not Germany. Not China. Why are you not complaining about those nations - who not only did nothing to stop the actions you abhor so much - but were the ones benefiting from it?

That would be akin to a person being robbed at gunpoint in a room full of people. The robber hands out the money to everybody in the room. Except one guy stops the robber. And you turn around an blame not the robber, and not those receiving the money, ..but the guy who stopped the robbery. "You didn't stop him sooner". Lovely.

I enjoy your examples but i find the specific one oversimplistic since it misses important parts of the bigger picture...the guy who stopped the robber, even late, agreed that the robery should happen in the first place... so things are getting a bit more complicated and i think an everyday example cannot give a comprehensive view of the Iraqi-case...

Could you elaborate a bit on how and why China, Russian, France, Germany etc., benefited from it and US did not?

Why i am not complaining about other countries...let me put it this way...
suppose a strange guy from Mars arrives on earth, obtains a computer and access to the internet and is fortunate enough to discover this forum...and then he starts reading about the UN and US, with respect to Iraq and the issue of sanctions in general...since he has no previous info about the whole thing what impression would he get, bearing in mind the claims of the majority of posts? He would be convinced that UN is byproduct of the past, 100% corrupt, imposes genocidal sanctions on its own and out of the blue and usually becomes an obstacle to the benevolent aims of the top dog: the US of A.
Personally i would want the Marsian to get such a distorted view of the world, now would you?
All in all, many countries approved those sanctions, and the US was one of those countries that initially pushed towards that direction...what is annoying is that a great deal of americans posting here are unable and unwilling to accept their responsibilities as US citizens...all they know is how to bash the UN as if it is an self-guided entity that has given oath to contradict US interests....have you seen any French, Germans, Greeks or Mozambicians to claim that they are saints or something like that?
I dont like generalizing but Brits (of this forum), for instance, seems to be more open to accept things...and above all, QUESTION things regarding their country's foreign policy.

[walford]

most member states are dictatorships? Do you have any official stats to back this up? i have no idea about the complete composition of member states so i am a bit curious after your claim...
Really you could do this sort of work yourself, but for the benefit of others:

http://www.amnesty.org/report2004
Africa
Political opponents were free in only a few countries in the Africa region to exercise their rights to freedom of conscience, expression and association. Governments of countries such as Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Togo and Zimbabwe used malicious prosecution, arbitrary arrest and excessive force against demonstrators as tools of political repression. In some cases newspapers and radio stations were arbitrarily closed down. Journalists and human rights defenders continued to be harassed by the security forces or accused, charged and detained on grounds of libel to silence dissent and prevent criticism of government acts and policies. In some countries, detainees were denied their right to a fair trial on “security” grounds and in some instances, such as in Kenya, legislation was being prepared that would allow derogation from key human rights obligations on grounds of combating “terrorism”.

In many countries, including Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Togo and Zimbabwe, torture and illtreatment of suspects continued to be widespread. Across the region too, the judiciary was undermined and politically influenced by governments to silence opposition. In December, the Commonwealth decided to renew its suspension of Zimbabwe because of the government’s poor human rights record; Zimbabwe then withdrew from the Commonwealth.

Americas
Political, economic and social crises in several countries laid bare the fragile foundations of the rule of law and the faltering process of democratic consolidation in the region...Efforts across the region to combat impunity for gross human rights violations committed in previous decades gained momentum in 2003....Less progress was made, however, in tackling the legacy of more recent conflicts in Central America...

Corruption, parallel power structures and the failure to assert effective civilian control over the military remained serious threats to human rights and the rule of law in Guatemala and elsewhere in the region. Military and police jurisdiction over human rights cases also remained an obstacle to justice in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Mexico.

Asia and the Pacific
Against a background of massive political, economic and security challenges, the legal framework for the protection of human rights remained very weak. Asia continued to be the only region without a regional human rights mechanism and governments remained reluctant to ratify key international human rights instruments...

More people were executed in 2003 in the region than in the rest of the world combined, thanks largely, but not exclusively, to China and Singapore. There was a sharp increase in death sentences and executions in Viet Nam. Singapore was believed to have carried out the highest number of executions per capita in the world since 1994...

Child offenders in three countries were known to be at risk of execution. In Pakistan, children continued to be sentenced to death, especially in tribal areas, reflecting the government’s failure to implement nationally the laws that forbid the imposition of the death penalty on children in most areas of the country. However, no children were executed during the year. In China, it was reported that a young man was executed in January for a murder committed when he was 16 years old. China’s criminal law forbids the execution of minors. In the Philippines, at least seven children held in adult facilities remained under sentence of death.

Europe and Central Asia
Torture and ill-treatment were reported from across the region, including in Albania, Moldova, Romania and Serbia and Montenegro, where reports of such treatment were common and credible. In Turkey, torture and ill-treatment in police detention remained a matter of grave concern, despite some positive legislative reforms. In Germany, an intense public debate on the permissible use of torture occurred after it emerged that a senior police officer had ordered a subordinate to use force against a criminal suspect. Some states, such as Belgium, Italy and Switzerland, lacked fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment in police custody.

In other states, such as Greece, Macedonia, Portugal and Spain, there were reports of reckless or excessive use of firearms, sometimes resulting in deaths. In several countries, conditions in prisons as well as in detention facilities holding asylum-seekers and unauthorized immigrants, were cruel and degrading. In some states, people with mental disabilities were treated inhumanely – in social care homes in Bulgaria, and through the use of cage beds in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Many states lacked independent scrutiny mechanisms to address such violations, a problem compounded by the continued failure to accept accountability at EU level for human rights observance by member states.

In some states impunity for human rights violations continued. In Turkey, the ratio of prosecutions of members of the security forces to complaints of torture and ill-treatment filed by members of the public continued to be pitifully low. Russian Federation security forces continued to act with virtual impunity in the conflict in the Chechen Republic, amid ongoing reports of their involvement in torture and “disappearances”. Continued impunity for wartime violations remained a concern in the western Balkans. Although some people suspected of war crimes were transferred to the custody of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, others continued to evade arrest, some apparently protected by authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro.

Middle East and North Africa
Despite government promises of reform, grave human rights violations continued across the region. While most governments have ratified major international human rights treaties, these standards were rarely incorporated into law and practice. The absence of basic safeguards facilitated patterns of arbitrary political arrest and detention, prolonged incommunicado detention, torture and ill-treatment. Minimum standards for fair trial were disregarded, resulting in the incarceration of prisoners of conscience, long-term political imprisonment and executions following unfair trials. There were few independent systems or mechanisms to carry out thorough and impartial investigations into human rights abuses, and alleged perpetrators were rarely brought to justice...

In Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco/Western Sahara, Syria and Tunisia, women and men were detained or threatened because of their human rights work. In several countries human rights organizations faced severe obstacles to gaining legal status under restrictive laws governing non-governmental organizations which effectively curtailed their human rights work as well as their funding.

It is beyond naive to expect governments that do not respect their own people's rights to negotiate in good faith the international arena.

The very existence of tyranny guarantees war. No amount of diplomacy can change that.

[achilles]

our fundamental difference and by 'us' i include also 2sheds is that you view the United Nations as a humanitarian-aid provider only whilst i do not...as it is the case in general if you compare US and EU points of view regarding the role of the UN.

As for the non-democratic members, i will repeat what i have said in the invote only section during an interesting chat with DE6...if i remember correct we agreed that the UN is not redundant and it needs to be reformed rather than get nuked...one sort of tranformation could be that non-democratic states can participate in UN councils but they cannot vote...that can be a strong 'filtering' criterion that could enhance the 'good faith' you referred to, during the decision making process.