The UN’s Ms. Check and Mr. Balance Lasso the Ego-Crat
I notice the Houston Chronicle and several other newspapers that subscribe to my column found my new word “ego-crat” worth adding to the headline. Bureaucrat, kelptocrat, ego-crat: unfortunately, that’s an all too common UN resume’ .
But let’s turn to the two private citizens –Ms. Check and Mr. Balance– who are doing yeoman’s work in the hard field of UN accountability: Claudia Rosett and RogerL. Simon.
Claudia Rosett (Ms. Check) has a must read Weekly Standard essay on Kofi Annan’s “Hell no.”
Her opening salvo:
IN THE EPIC UNITED NATIONS Oil-for-Food scandal, we now have a moment of high farce, with what will surely be remembered as Kofi Annan’s “Hell, no” press conference–named for the secretary general’s belligerent answer on March 29 to a reporter who, quite appropriately, wondered if Annan shouldn’t think about resigning sometime soon. The U.N.-authorized inquiry into Oil-for-Food wrongdoing, led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, clocked in last Tuesday with its second interim report on a program now infamous as the biggest fraud in the history of humanitarian aid. That same afternoon, Annan summoned the media to the blue-curtained U.N. briefing room to announce his great relief at “this exoneration.”
What exoneration? Despite its scores of investigators, $30 million budget, and more than 10 months on the job, the Volcker inquiry has addressed only a few narrow issues. The focus of this second interim report was Annan’s role in the U.N.’s hiring in 1998 of an Oil-for-Food contractor, Swiss-based Cotecna Inspection, S.A., which employed Kofi Annan’s son, Kojo, as a consultant, while bidding on the lucrative U.N. contract to inspect Oil-for-Food imports in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Cotecna, coincident with its U.N. labors, kept paying Kojo Annan from 1999 through early 2004, five years after he had quit. These are intriguing matters. But Volcker has yet to address the bulk of the Oil-for-Food program, and his final report is not expected till mid-summer. It was Annan himself who just last year was urging all and sundry to wait for Volcker’s final word before reaching any conclusions.
Her comment on Kofi’s lack of oversight:
If Annan has indeed lost sight of his own oversight role, it would hardly be the only such lapse turned up in this inquiry. What emerges from the jumbled narrative of the Volcker interim report is a U.N. universe of forgetful officials, botched record-keeping, cronyism, and conflicts of interest so abundant they start to sound simply routine–which they apparently were. Most noteworthy is the volume of damning information whitewashed by bland wording, culminating in Volcker’s judgment that in some respects Annan’s performance was “inadequate.” By such standards, the Titanic was “non-buoyant.”
Touche’. She’s harded on Volcker than I am– I characterized his latest interim report as a soft hammer. Annan and the UN hierarchy hava taken a hit.
And a note on UN retirement accounts– a sort of Saddam-Annan I.R.A.:
Then there was Kojo Annan’s habit, recorded in this report, of dropping by the U.N. Procurement Division, where he liked to tinker with the computers and visit another old family friend, Diana Mills-Aryee, who worked there. While Volcker found no evidence Kojo did anything wrong during these visits, he did turn up an intriguing email from Kojo to Mills-Aryee (whom he liked to address as “Dear Aunty”), dated June 1999, informing her that one of his companies, Sutton Investments, “currently consult for or are associated with” Cotecna, and concluding, “Don’t worry Aunty your son will structure your early retirement.”
Now for Mr. Balance: Roger L. Simon.
Here’s his latest scoop, from April 2. Roger reveals a couple of the sources who have sent him information during the investigation. Roger thinks a another “bombshell” is about to land on Annan and the UN.
Here are links to Roger’s Special Report 2 and Special Report 3.
Here’s Roger’s conclusion to Special Report 2, which is in line with my column:
I do not believe that Kofi Annan is necessarily an evil man, or even a bad one. He is just the product of a system that overwhelmed him, one that he is particularly poorly placed to reform.
But with new allegations and revelations percolating, my “interim conclusion” could change.
UPDATE: Commenter 1– you come off not only as angry and rude, but highly presumptuous– and therefore quite wrong when you start your caw about agendas. Read my column from this past week about UN reform. The African successes I mention were by UNHCR. Commenter 2 (Roger Simon)– pretty fair comeback. I like the moxie.
Isn’t it time to give up on the U.N. hounding? The Oil-for-Food program “scandal” has been flogged for all it’s worth by you U.N. detractors. It’s hardly “epic,” especially considering the much greater sums of money that went missing in Iraq during the Bremer administration. Where’s the outrage over that? So many have tried to paint Kofi Annan as a corrupt, detestable figure– but there’s just nothing there. Stop the smears. You should be more explicit about your agenda: you want to destroy the U.N. for presuming to have any interests in mind beyond the U.S.’s. You criticize the organization for being ineffective, but can’t make the connection that witholding support– as Congress does– and trying to strangle U.N. authority wherever possible may be part of the problem. Explain to me again why UNICEF is the scourge of the world. Who attends to refugees more effectively than UNHCR? If you were actually interested in improving this organization, why would you spend so much energy spitting on it? The U.N. is only as effective as its member states allow it to be, so if it’s bad, we deserve our fair share of the blame. Admit that you just hate it on principle and stop pretending you want reform.
Comment by Louis — 4/2/2005 @ 12:10 pm
So what you are saying, Louis, is that I am a liar. If you would like to do that to me face, I would be glad to offer you the opportunity, but you don’t even tell us your full name.
Comment by Roger L . Simon — 4/2/2005 @ 12:46 pm
Roger Simon’s Zell Miller moment. I ch-ch- challenge you.. to a duel! Meet me on the playground after school! Still, you won’t admit that you could care less about the hundreds of thousands of people the U.N. helps, that NEED the U.N. It’s more important to smear Kofi Annan, bogeyman du jour, than to use your energy and brainpower to solve real problems… like those bureaucrats at the U.N. do. What a shame. (by the way, if you need some sleuthing help to figure out my full name, it’s called a hyperlink.)
Comment by Louis — 4/2/2005 @ 1:41 pm
Kelptocrat? Is this the Lord of the Seaweed?
Comment by Schlomo Masri — 4/2/2005 @ 1:44 pm
Read this, from commie Forbes magazine, and get back to me on the epic oil-for-food scandal.
Comment by Louis — 4/2/2005 @ 2:08 pm
Louis: All institutions have corruption in them. The biggest problem with the UN is the almost total lack of transperacy and accountability. Mr. Volcker is a fine man but this investigation has no teeth. The UN can admit to destroying important records after the scandal was beginning to surface and there is no penalty. Mr. Volcker has no supeona power and and basically has to hope for the honesty of the people who are being investigated. Please explain under these circumstances how a honest record of the actions of the UN can figured out.Kofi might be not guilty, but if he was complicent in the fraud he has the power to destroy the records, to quiet any whistleblower because any individual so inclined know that there is no system built in to the UN to protect him or to get rid of the offender.Because Volcker has no real power he can’t conduct a proper investigation. Since he has to count on the good graces of the UN to investigate it anyone who might of commited fraud is certainly not going to admit it, and the higher up the food chain he is the more power he has to hide his deeds.Do you believe Volcker has the ability to conduct a proper investigation and how can explain how he can without the power of the supeona and the total lack of power to threaten jail time to anyone that lies or obstructs justice? As a rule crooks don’t confess unless the prosecuter has some power to threaten him with.
Comment by kevin Peters — 4/2/2005 @ 3:51 pm
Louis: Even though you are trying to ignore answering any points about the UN by changing the subject I will respond to your questions about the Bremer CPA. Bremer was dealing with a beauracracy that was being set up during a war where the entire govermental system was having to start from scratch. The CPA was operating as terrorists were bombing all infrastructure, was having to operate with a need to set up from scratch an entire beauracracy in the midst of war.Was it done perfectly, no of course not.But there is also no question that he was operating under horrible operating situations. When CPA have to carry a machine gun to their work it tends to amke it hard. On the other hand the UN was dealing with a intact Iraqi governmnet. The fraud was being conducted in the peacefull halls of the UN. Paul Bremers son was not receiving money from Saddam via corporations. Bremer was not allowing foreign governments to pay kickbacks to Saddam and then sending substandard goods and non food and medical goods disquised. Did Bremer alow Mercedes Benz’s to be called medicine? When Bremer was investigated was there supeona powers? If Bremer lied could he be put in jail? Is there any evidence that Bremer gained finacially from the poor auditing. Did the CPA spend 7 months shredding documents.Please answer those questions and aply them to the UN situation. And please explain to me how Volcker can conduct a proper investigation without any of the normal investigating tools that most investigations of massive fraud have.
Comment by kevin Peters — 4/2/2005 @ 4:44 pm
The entire SIGIRT report to Congress that formed the basis for the AP spin piece that Forbes reprinted provides a totality that the AP fell somewhat short of adequately reflecting. This is the second time in days that I’ve seen Soroturfers use this AP piece as if the Forbes name on the reprint was an imprimatur. Somehow, the Soroturfers neglect to link to the easily available source document. I can’t imagine why.
Comment by Rick Ballard — 4/2/2005 @ 5:25 pm
Rick: It’s obvious Rick. The purpose of the Louis and the JC’s is to direct the conversation away from the UN. It would be one thing to take on the idea’s and arguments and point out where we are wrong about the UN and then bring up the Bremer CPA argument but they are here for misdirection.The hit and run posting style of ignoring the subject of the post and trying to change the subject is classic troll behaviour.
Comment by kevin Peters — 4/2/2005 @ 6:43 pm
Troll this, Kevin: the point isn’t to distract from the U.N. The point is to defend the U.N. against the constant sniping of good folks like yourselves… you want to bring down the U.N. by any means and make hay about a non-scandal, while meanwhile your OWN government and your OWN tax dollars are being pissed away by corrupt people, but since you line up with those people ideologically, you don’t care. Which demonstrates your values. The U.S. was a member of the 661 committee which oversaw oil for food, and never cut out a single contract on overpricing grounds. John Negroponte was aware of what was happening and didn’t stop it. So why are you gunning for Kofi Annan so much? Simply to damage the U.N. on ideological grounds. Meanwhile, the horrible oil for food program did a fair job of easing the burden of the sanctions regime on Iraqi civilians, despite the corruption. And while this madness is happening, you spend your time bloviating over a flawed but essential institution that does amazing work around the world.
Comment by Louis — 4/2/2005 @ 8:39 pm
Louis- Very passionate. But you never answer any questions. You refuse to say, Yes I think Volker has all the tools he needs, or no Volcker can’t possibly find out the truth because he has none of the standard powers that a normal investigation has. You defend the UN like it is your faith, rather then a institution that has flaws and the way it is set up know can never stop this kind of graft because there is no system of accountability or transparency.I do not think the US should get out of the UN. I have posted that on Simons blog, on Buzz Machine and on many other blogs. But I refuse to ignore the corruption. I refuse to praise a system that would have a government like Cuba or North Korea on the Human Rights commision.I refuse to praise a system that had it been around in the ’30’s would have had Adolph Hitler in the UN and would have allowed Nazi Gemany to be on a Human Rights commision. The only way to fix the flaws in the UN is to acknowledge them. Not to call people who bring up questions people who are “gunning” for the UN. You close your eyes and you don’t argue the merits. You just try to bring up other issues. You excuse the 21 billion stolen out of the mouths of the Iraqi’s and you ignore an investigation that can’t find the truth because it is crippled from the start. You say shut up, quit picking on the UN and I refuse to answer questions and I will only bring up other issues.With friends like you the UN can repeat the same thing all over again because you are complicent in helping to cover it up and protect the people who stole the money. One last time, how can Volker conduct a proper investigation with records shredded, no supeona powers, and no power to compel people to tell the truth. You have been challenged to form a counter argument and you are either unable to say I am wrong about Volkers investigation or you are more concerned with diverting attention from a 21 billion dollar fraud. Argument and counter argument about the UN oil for food scandal is what this thread is about. When you go to a debate about one item you don’t spend all your time on another if you want dialouge. “I will only talk about what I want and I won’t respond to challenges” is what trolls do.
Comment by kevin Peters — 4/2/2005 @ 11:48 pm
Louis, I can tell from reading your website that you care deeply about atrocities committed in Afrida, that you support the UN efforts to bring relief to the people who are suffering there, and that you have seen real people who have been helped by the UN. I hope all people deplore the type of suffering you detail on your website. But it’s vital that UN misconduct be identified and corrected. We’re not talking about random acts of misconduct, but systemic abuses. You describe filming people from Doctors On Call as they help people in Africa. Isn’t DOC’s first obligation to “do no harm”? Don’t you think the UN should be held to the same standards?
Comment by DRJ — 4/3/2005 @ 9:57 am
Those who love the United Nations, started with idealism, and if they lived in nations like mine (Canada), a little practical multilateralism. Unfortunately, it has all turned into complicity.
Comment by David M. McClory — 4/3/2005 @ 12:17 pm
Louis, Remember the context of the UN corruption. In 2002-2003 some western European nations postured as moralists against the liberation of Iraq. Now we know that many were bribed by Saddam. Would not those facts, if known at the time, affected the tenor of the debate? The No Blood for Oil folks look naive in this context. (Not to mention heartless in terms of ignoring the suffering Iraqi people.) Then there’s Darfur. Why is the UN so toothless in the face of genocide? Of the world’s powers, the USA is not drilling for oil there and isn’t kissing the Sudanese government’s fanny, unlike say, China. Blood for Oil, indeed. As a conservative, I value the UN for what it can do right. But when the Left insists it be the arbiter of what’s right and wrong in the world (”illegal war blah blah blah) then it should be prepared to see systemic corruption for what it is.
Comment by Jim Bass — 4/3/2005 @ 1:31 pm
Please excuse the intensity of my initial comments. Look, if your interest in the oil-for-food scandal is thoughtful and earnest, and if you’re not just looking for a cudgel to bash the U.N. with, and if you aren’t heaping an unwarranted amount of scorn on Kofi Annan (a fine man with a long career, a Ghanaian who has risen to a high position on the world stage– which is rare)– fine, let’s get to the bottom of this. But acknowledge that long into Bush’s first term the U.S. knew exactly what was happening in Iraq. Sanctions weren’t working and further, they were killing people. And for God’s sake, the money from these kickbacks wasn’t enough to cause France and Germany to oppose the war– not like hating France isn’t a great pastime. And when you’re done with the U.N., take a minute to look into Custer Battles and the Coalition Provisional Authority– bigger scandal, plus if you’re American, it’s your money.
Comment by Louis — 4/3/2005 @ 4:32 pm
Louis: Is the Volcker investigation equiped to find out the truth? Does the fact that he does not have supeona powers and the ability to compel testimoney criple him from finding out what happened? Does the fact that people involved in OFF were shredding document for months indicate that they were trying to keep the truth hidden.Do you buy the line that they were shredding strictly to “make room”. I think that it is very possible that Kofi received not one red cent in graft and that the fact that he turned his head regarding his son is explainable by the fact that these activities are not uncommon in the current atmosphere at the UN. I do have a problem with his declaring his innocence using the interim report and claiming “It’s over, lets go on to other things ” disturbing. He may still be the best person to head this organization but the effort to sweep this under the rug stinks. I also find the initial refusal of the bulk of the media to cover this story and now the rush to proclaim it over smelly too.
Comment by kevin Peters — 4/3/2005 @ 8:07 pm
Louis, please. “Kofi Annan (a fine man with a long career, a Ghanaian who has risen to a high position on the world stage– which is rare.” Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle (a person rises to their level of incompetence?) Yeah he’s had a long career. Much longer than the lifespan of some of the 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered in Rwanda. Kofi, in case you didn’t know, had a tipoff about that genocide 90 days in advance. How can you, who apparently feels Africa’s suffering, defend a feckless bureaucrat like Kofi Annan? And you don’t you feel outrage at the slap on the wrist the UN peacekeepers got for child rape in Africa? Jeez.
Comment by Jim Bass — 4/3/2005 @ 8:17 pm
Louis, The “Bremer” missing funds are estimated at $9 billion, all of which came from the US taxpayers. These missing funds are described in the Forbes “inadequetly managed.” They may have been stolen, or they might have been used as intended but not well controlled. Contrast this to the Oil-for-Food missing funds: $22 billion embezzelled out of the program & used by Saddam to buy weapons, build palaces, to import Mercedes fopr his cronies, and to bribe Western politicians and UN officials. I suggest you are using the “Bremer” missing funds story to divert attention form the bigger and more sinister problem of the UN Oil for Food Scam. The people investigating the scam are not trying to destroy the UN, they are trying to save it from the corrupt officials and politicians who are using it to line their own pockets. By continually ignoring genocide, stealing money, supporting dictatorships & covering up sex-abusing “peacekeepers”, the corrupt & incompetant UN leadership is destroying the institution. The UN needs massive reform to save it, and Kofi Annan is not the man to do it. He is not the solution, he is part of the problem.
Comment by Kenneth — 4/4/2005 @ 10:26 am