Threatening 60 years of 'slow, painful progress'

by Michael Jansen

It is clear that the Bush administration's campaign to unearth corruption at the UN is not targeted only at Secretary General Kofi Annan but at the world organisation itself. Annan's predecessor, Butros Ghali, has also been brought into the circle of accused, and two unidentified high ranking UN officials have recently been mentioned in connection with the awarding of sweetheart contracts for the purchase of Iraqi oil.

The campaign began in the media and conservative congressional circles last week spread to the courts which have issued indictments against several businessmen who are alleged to have taken bribes or "kickbacks" to arrange deals with companies prepared to pay surcharges on discounted oil to the Iraqi government in violation of the UN sanctions regime.

The oil-for-food programme was the world organisation's largest and most successful humanitarian enterprise. It provided basic rations to 24 million Iraqis and enabled the government to buy medical supplies at a time the country was suffering a humanitarian disaster due to the punitive sanctions regime. It was estimated that at least half a million Iraqi children died of malnutrition and lack of medicine between the imposition of sanctions in August 1990 and the start of oil-for-food five years later.

The programme provided the Iraqi government with $63 billion in revenue to meet the needs of the Iraqi people. Of this amount, it is estimated that $100 million was spent in kickbacks and bribes and was, therefore, lost to the relief programme. If this sum represents true losses, it is very modest.

What really upsets the US and Britain is that Saddam Hussein earned $2-4 billion by selling its oil cheap to buyers who were ready to pay the difference directly into government coffers. This amount was also lost as far as relief to ordinary Iraqis was concerned.

US politicians and officials who are levelling the allegations against the UN do not mention that the bulk of the discounted Iraqi oil ended up in the petrol tanks of US gas-guzzling vehicles.

In addition to corruption, allegations are being made about UN toleration of the smuggling of Iraqi oil, which enabled the Baathist regime to bank $11-$14 billion outside the oil-for-food programme.

Under sanctions, Iraq was prohibited from selling its oil. However, exceptions were made. Jordan and Turkey were permitted to purchase Iraqi oil and the Kurds living in the US/UK-protected "safe haven" in northern Iraq gained a substantial income from transport earnings and transit dues.

Jordan and Turkey were exceptions because the sanctions created great economic hardships for these countries. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Jordan was receiving all its oil from Iraq, half free and the other half bartered for Jordanian produce and manufactured goods. When sanctions were imposed, Jordan also lost revenues from Iraqi transit dues and transport earnings. Turkey, Iraq's major trading partner, was also allowed to continue importing Iraqi oil after the 1991 US-led war. While Jordan lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to sanctions, Turkey estimated its losses at $12-$30 billion.

Of course, Washington and London make no complaints about the Kurds who almost certainly earned as much as Turkey did out of what can be called "blind-eye oil trading".

The oil-for-food front is just one in the campaign being waged by the Bush administration and its loyal acolytes in London. The allies are opening up other fronts all the time: the sexual exploitation and abuse inflicted on African women and children by UN peacekeepers and, most recently, corruption in a contract for refurbishing a UN building in Geneva.

The administration is determined to name neoconservative hardliner John Bolton, formerly in charge of arms control, to the post of US ambassador to the UN. Bolton is likely to be wrecker rather than a reformist. Perhaps he will knock off the top ten floors of UN headquarters to prove his contention that their absence would not make any difference to the organisation as far as usefulness and efficiency are concerned.

It is no coincidence that George Bush seeks to introduce the bullish Bolton into the china shop of the UN just at a time that Annan is formulating his proposals for reform and expansion of the Security Council and restructuring the secretariat.

US conservatives have always hated the UN. They succeeded in undermining the League of Nations formed after World War I. They reject any international constraints on the exercise of US economic, political and military power. Now neoconservatives and conservatives are in charge in Washington and they are determined to force the world body to submit to their dictat. If it resists, they are prepared to destroy it. Not to build something new, but to end the fledgling international order established after World War II, which the UN and its agencies embody.

If the Bush administration is successful, 60 years of slow, painful progress towards the creation of a world order will be lost.

This article was published in the Thursday, April 21, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.