Although a UN inquiry has exonerated UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of complicity in what has become known as the UN oil for food scandal, the report has criticised his handling of the affair.
In light of the inquiry’s findings, do you feel that Annan should step down as Secretary General of the United Nations, or should he serve out his term?
In light of the FINDINGS? Serve out his term.
I do find it rather difficult to believe that he was so clueless about his own son’s meddling though, so I think the report covered his ass and he shouldn’t just step down, but there should be a rather probing inquiry into the whole matter, with legal consequences if necessary.
And I’m definitely not one of the “UN is evil” wackos, btw.
Fun analogy: would this even remotely take down someone in Washington?
[Dodged]
Probably not at the top, although there would be criminal indictments at lower levels, which won’t happen here.
Criminal indictments of Kofi for something his son did?
God knows the UN is just as corrupt as any other government, but I wouldn’t expect anyone in DC to resign for something comparable.
Well, they can’t ALL be Kennedys.
What part of ‘lower levels’ did you fail to parse? :lol:
Can’t parse unless it’s BNF. Sorry.
Let’s see who gets this…
I got it, I just want to give it back.
Let’s see who gets this…[/quote]
My temptation to rewrite it in BNF for him lasted all of 9 seconds.
Here’s a new twist:
The US and Britain have rejected allegations by UN chief Kofi Annan that they turned a blind eye to oil smuggling by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Mr Annan had suggested the two had inadequately policed UN sanctions against Iraq, enabling the regime to earn huge amounts in illegal deals.British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the charges were “inaccurate”, while Washington was also dismissive.
The UN has itself been under fire over the so-called oil-for-food programme.
The $60bn (£32bn) programme allowed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to sell oil in order to buy civilian goods - including medicine - and therefore ease the impact of UN sanctions imposed after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
US Senate investigators have alleged that the Iraqi regime received some $4bn (£2.13bn) in illegal payments from oil companies involved in the programme.
But this figure is dwarfed by the $14bn (£7.5bn) that allegedly came from “sanctions-busting” - illegally selling oil to neighbouring states such as Jordan and Turkey.
The ever delightful Molly Ivins evidently hit this theme a couple weeks ago as well. Nice illustration of the hypocrisy on the right.
The US turned a blind eye to the former Iraq regime’s $8bn trade in smuggled oil, a new US Senate report says.
The report says the US was well aware of both the smuggling and the kickbacks Iraq solicited from players in the UN’s oil-for-food programme.
Unlike the previous reports, which were backed by all the committee members, the fresh accusations are authored by staff of the minority of Democrats.
They are led by Senator Carl Levin, who has built his reputation on a series of follow-the-money investigations involving such subjects as Enron and money laundering.
The new report focuses on both the $228m Saddam Hussein’s regime is estimated to have made through illegal surcharges on the oil-for-food programme, and on the $8bn it made through sanctions-busting oil sales to Turkey, Syria, Egypt and Jordan.
Another article: US ‘backed illegal Iraqi oil deals’
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
“The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions,” the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.