The campaign organised by the
White House to force Kofi Annan to resign started with a network
of newspapers in Iraq, the United Kingdom, and in the United States.
Then it mobilized the CIA, Republican congressmen and organizations.
Suspected of corruption, the UN’s Secretary General was paralysed.
But, once again, the White House managed to unite everyone against
it, involuntarily reinforcing Mr. Annan’s authority.
The General Assembly of the United Nations gave Kofi Annan a standing
ovation on December 8, 2004. Only the US delegation remained still
during the thunder of the long applause. Diplomats from 190 delegations
displayed their support for the Secretary General who had been subjected
to a slanderous media campaign demanding his resignation.
It all began on January 25 when the Iraqi daily Al Mada affirmed
that Saddam Hussein had misappropriated money from the “Oil
for Food” programme in order to buy off 270 personalities
across the world, in order to obtain their support on the international
stage, and in order to attempt to obtain the materials necessary
for the construction of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Those who opposed
the war were no more than “clients” of the tyrant of
Baghdad. We have demonstrated the absurdity of these allegations
in these pages [1]. Our investigation was largely taken up by the
international press [2].
A month later, the neo-conservative journalist Claudia Rosett,
writing in the Wall Street Journal, accused Kofi Annan of complicity.
The Secretary General of the UN supposedly allowed Saddam Hussein
to make off with considerable amounts from the “Oil for Food”
programme, and it was this money that was given to the individuals
identified by Al Mada. Mrs Rosett is, by the way, paid by Richard
Perle’s Hudson Institute (while Perle was the chairman of
the Pentagon Defence Commission) and by James Woolsey’s Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies. Woolsey is a former director of
the CIA.
On February 29, the New York Times published a long investigation,
based upon documents furnished by the Provisional Authority of the
Coalition and the Treasury Department, and corroborated by witnesses
that attested to the misappropriation of funds [4]. On March 3,
Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a friend of Ahmed Chalabi and consultant
for the Council of the Iraqi government, the body that had been
cited as the likely informant for Al Mada, ordered an audit from
KPMG International. A week later, audit leaks, published by Claudia
Rosett in the National Review, revealed that Kojo Annan, the Secretary
General’s son, received a salary from Cotecna, a company in
the “Oil for Food” programme [5]. Kofi Annan was therefore
not only an incompetent bureaucrat, he was himself corrupt.
On March 18, the US House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations got involved [6]. Confronted with this campaign,
Mr. Annan ordered an internal investigation. He did so with serentity
because the programme was not under his jurisdiction, but was under
the authority of the Security Council and a Sanctions Committee
named by the former.
The affair came back into the headlines on April 7 with the hearings
organized by Richard G. Lugar before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations. The honourable Senator accused the UN of having,
through either negligence or corruption, increased the suffering
of the Iraqi people, of having financed arms purchases by Iraq,
and finally, of having increased US losses during the “liberation”
of Iraq. The director of the General Accounting Office (GAO) deposited
a report that established that, from 1997 to 2002, Iraq had received
5.7 billion dollars in illegal oil sales and 4.4 billion dollars
in overbilling, for a total of 10.1 billion dollars [8]. The GAO
claimed to have obtained this information its study of contracts
transmitted to the Provisional Authority of the Coalition (represented
at the hearings). The report gave no precise indication on the modalities
of this misappropriation nor on the use that was made of this money.
On April 16, Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee,
published a long study by Claudia Rosett presenting the neo-conservative
version of the affair [9]. In spite of the obvious errors in its
analysis, this work became the neo-conservative reference. It was
not the object of discussions but rather an object of developments.
The same day, Kofi Annan made public the composition of the independent
inquiry commission. It was chaired by a former boss of the US Federal
Reserve, Paul Volker. Then, on April 21, the US House Government
Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations organized new hearing, not so much to throw light on the
events but rather to confuse things by trying to prove that foreign
leaders who opposed the invasion had been bought off by Saddam Hussein
[10]. Other than US officials (such as ambassador John Negroponte),
the Congressmen heard from the inevitable Claudia Rosett, as well
as Dr. Raphaeli from MEMRI (a propaganda outlet created by officers
of Tsahal and which had distributed the articles published by Al
Mada), Nile Gariner of the Heritage Foundation, and Dr. Edward C.
Luck of Columbia University’s Center for the Study of International
Organisations [11].
It so happens that some of the Iraqi documents cited during the
hearings had been published by the Daily Telegraph of London, owned
by Hollinger Group on whose Board we find Richard Perle (employer
of Claudia Rosett at the Hudson Institute). They asserted that the
Labour MP George Galloway, leader of the anti-war movement, had
been bought off by Saddam Hussein for at least 375,000 pounds sterling.
Other documents from the same source had been published in the Christian
Science Monitor, also throwing suspicion on George Galloway who
was immediately suspended from the Labour Party. He claimed he was
innocent and that there was a plot to get him [12].
On July 8, 2004, it was the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality that opened new hearings, once more with
Claudia Rosett [13]. The GAO used the occasion to depose another
report [14]. The affair was back in the news on September 30 with
the publication by the CIA of Charles Duelfer’s report on
the hunt for weapons of mass destruction [15]. There we learned
that if the weapons didn’t exist, they could have existed
because Saddam Hussein tried to procure them with money taken from
the “Oil for Food” programme. The cherry on the cake
was the CIA’s confirmation and completion of the list originally
published in Al Mada. The vice was closing.
On November 17 the US House International Relations Committee narrowed
in on the target. It heard representatives from BNPParibas [16].
In fact, according to Ms. Rosett, the French bank managed the programme
[17]. Then, the dossier was sent to the US House Government Reform
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations to be finalized.
During this time, the organization Move America Forward broadcast
ads on US television networks calling for the UN to be kicked out
of the country [19]. December 1, Senator Norm Coleman came right
out and said it: in the Wall Street Journal, he called upon Kofi
Annan to resign [20]. According to Coleman, even if the Secretary
General is innocent of the suspicions, he should resign during the
investigation. Fox News joined in on the campaign. On the air, Bill
O’Reilly spoke of a “criminal enterprise” that
brought in 20 billion dollars to Saddam Hussein (the double of the
amount evaluated by the GAO) [21]. Heritage Foundation analyst Nile
Gardiner pushed it up to 21 billion [22]. President Bush declared
he was “troubled”. Other members of Congress added their
support to Coleman’s appeal. Others wrote up a proposed law
making US payment of funds to the UN conditional on a clarification
of the scandal. The New York City Senate opposed a project for an
extension to the UN buildings, this now unwelcome guest.
However, this entire campaign is slanderous. The “Oil for
Food” programme was supervised by the Security Council. No
operation could have taken place without the knowledge of the Anglo-Saxons.
The commissions versed out were done with the backing of the United
Kingdom and the United States. These countries themselves designated
the beneficiaries which shows that at least a part of the operations
were legal. The system didn’t pass uniquely through a single
French bank, the BNP, but half of the funds went through the Chase
Manhattan Bank. If the integrity of one high-level bureaucrat in
the UN, the Chyprian Benon Sevan, is perhaps in doubt, that of Mr.
Annan is not. The sums paid to his son were part of a non-competition
clause signed when he left the company.
Some of the documents cited are fakes, as the High Court of London
admitted when it convicted the Christian Science Monitor and the
Daily Telegraph for their accusations against George Galloway. However,
it took over a year for the MP to see justice done, and the Anglo-Saxons
don’t wish to give this time to Mr. Annan. The campaign has
several objectives.
In the first place, to rewrite history. The “Oil for Food”
programme was forcibly obtained from the Anglo-Saxons, who didn’t
want to lift the embargo, by the international community in order
to stave off famine. It was largely insufficient. Maintaining the
embargo cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Secondly, to justify the invasion of Iraq a posteriori. Sure, there
were no weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam Hussein wanted to
buy them by embezzling the money targeted for feeding his people.
However, this money wasn’t spent on arms but on goods of primary
necessity.
Thirdly, the opportunity was too good to pass up to get rid of
a Secretary General who had been elected with the support of Washington
and who nonetheless declared the invasion of Iraq “illegal”.
After having tapped his phones [23] and having vainly attempted
to catch him in a scandal, the scandal had to be manufactured. To
eliminate Kofi Annan is to put into question the UN itself. It is
to affirm that the law of the strongest predominates over international
law.
The international community was not fooled by this mystification.
States, intergovernmental organizations, and personalities all supported
Kofi Annan, leading to the standing ovation at the General Assembly.
Immediately, the White House retreated. Ambassador Danforth assured
the press that Washington never intended to put pressure on Mr.
Annan.
[1] « L'Intox des barils irakiens »,
Voltaire, 30 January 2004.
[2] See for example the article by Abdulmajid Attar, former CEO
of Sonatrach, published in
Dar Al-Hayat and summarised in Voltaire, 6 February 2004 : «
Offrir des barils de
pétrole secrètement ? ! ».
[3] « The Real World : Fishy Accounting Over Iraq »
by Claudia Rosett, The Wall Street
Journal, 25 February 2004.
[4] « Hussein's Regime Skimmed Billions From Aid Program »
under the direction of Susan
Sachs, The New York Times, 29 February 2004.
[5] « Kojo and Kofi » by Claudia Rosett, National Review
Online, 10 March 2004.
[6] The Hunt for Saddam's Money : U.S. and Foreign Efforts to Recover
Iraq's Stolen
Money,US House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, 18
March 2004.
[7] A review of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program, US Senate
Committee on
Foreign Relations, 7 April 2004.
[8] Observations on the Oil for Food Program, Statement of Joseph
A. Christoff, Director,
International Affairs and Trade, GAO n° 04-651T, 7 April 2004.
[9] « The Oil-for-Food Scam : What Did Kofi Annan Know, and
When Did He Know It ? »
by Claudia Rosett, Commentary, 16 April 2004.
[10] « L'intox des barils, suite et fin ? », Voltaire,
19 April 2004.
[11] The Iraq Oil-For-Food program : Straving for Accountability,
US House Government
Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations, 21 April 2004.
[12] « Qui veut la peau de George Galloway ?, Voltaire, 17
July 2003.
[13] Unites Nations Oil For Food Program, US House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, 8 July 2004.
[14] Observations on the Oil for Food Program and areas for Further
Investigations,
Statement of Joseph A. Christoff, Director International Affairs
and Trade, GAO, 8 July
2004.
[15] Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the Director
of the Central
Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, CIA, 30 September
2004.
[16] The Oil For Food Program : Tracking the Funds, US House International
Relations
Committee, 17 November 2004.
[17] « La campagne anti-française de la Chambre des
représentants », Voltaire, 18
November 2004.
[18] The U.N. Oil for Food Program : Cash Cow Meets Paper Tiger,
US House Government
Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International
Relations, 5 October 2004.
[19] « Qui veut bouter l'ONU hors des États-Unis ?,
Voltaire, 23 November 2004.
[20] « Kofi Annan Must Go » by Norm Coleman, The Wall
Street Journal, 1 December
2004. Article summarised in Voltaire 2 December 2004.
[21] « The O'Reilly Factor » Fox News, 6 December 2004.
[22] « Kofi Annan Must Go » by Nile Gardiner, Human
Events, 10 December 2004.
[23] « Washington et Londres placent l'ONU sur écoutes
», Voltaire, 4 March 2003.
Translated by Signs of the Times
|