W.’s U.N. Mandate

[igloo]

November 09, 2004, 7:53 a.m.

W.’s U.N. Mandate

Time to rethink this relationship.

By Anne Bayefsky

No faces were more sullen the day after the election than those of the diplomats and bureaucrats skulking around the halls of the United Nations. Secretary-General Kofi Annan eked out a brief statement last Wednesday in which he "warmly congratulate[d] President Bush on his re-election" and pledged his "commit[ment] to continuing to work with President Bush and his administration on the whole range of issues facing the United Nations and the world." Though such U.N. doublespeak rarely raises eyebrows anymore, one element of the "political capital" that the president received upon reelection warrants some plain language.

President Bush has a mandate to rethink American relations with the United Nations.

The campaign gave voters two clear alternatives. Senator Kerry's would-be foreign policy was based on a "global test" that involved dealing "at length with the United Nations," in marked contrast to the president's position that American interests diverge in important respects from U.N. proclivities. The president reminded voters of a decade of U.N. huffing and puffing on Iraq and of the dangers of political adventurism by the U.N.'s International Criminal Court. Then the American people chose.

The campaign also smoked out something more sinister than impotence or ineptitude at Turtle Bay, namely, a U.N. secretariat dedicated to undermining the president's success. Their tactics should not be forgotten in the wake of their ultimate failure. There was the U.N. refusal of American protection for U.N. officials in Iraq, minimal support for Iraqi-election preparation and institution-building, the venting of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's personal belief that the war on Iraq was illegal. And in the last weeks of the campaign, the director general of the U.N.'s Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El-Baradei, sought to draw as much attention as he could to weapons missing from the Iraqi facility at Al-Qaqaa for the last 18 months and representing a fraction of the munitions destroyed and secured since the fall of Saddam Hussein. With a Gallup poll on the eve of the election saying eight of ten Americans were following the issue of the missing explosives closely and that 58 percent were apportioning at least a moderate amount of blame to the president, a 6,200 U.N. staff in the middle of America's largest metropolis with a 3.16 billion-dollar biennium budget for 2004-05 is a force to be reckoned with.

The day of reckoning has come. In an election that turned so much on values, what values does the U.N. promote? To name a few, the U.N.'s primary human-rights body, the Commission on Human Rights, includes such role models as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Not surprisingly, of 86 separate votes held at the 2004 Commission, the U.S. was in the minority 85 percent of the time. Reports estimate that more than two million people have been killed in Sudan over two decades of conflict, 70,000 have been murdered in the Darfur region since March, and another 1.6 million persons are currently displaced. But there has been no U.N. General Assembly emergency session on Sudan, just as there wasn't for Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. That's because the Assembly's emergency sessions are reserved for denouncing Israel, the "tenth" emergency session having now been "reconvened" 13 times in the past seven years. Instead, the U.N. has sent a commission of inquiry to Sudan to "determine whether or not acts of genocide have occurred or are still occurring" and to report in three months. Zhila Izadi, a 13-year-old Iranian girl, is currently under a sentence of death by stoning for the crime of being raped and impregnated by her brother. But the U.N. response to a criminal "justice" system that stones, amputates limbs, and publicly hangs children was to abolish the post of U.N. investigator of human-rights violations in Iran in April 2002. So much for values.

In the past four years, largely as a result of the predilections of Secretary of State Colin Powell, American policy toward the U.N. has been inconsistent. Unfettered American handling of Arab-Israeli diplomacy has been modified by Powell, Annan, and the EU. They spawned the quartet with its promise to make the U.N. itself an indispensable player, despite its gross bias against Israel. The president told the U.N. in September 2002 that there had to be serious consequences for the failure of Iraq to abide by a decade of Security Council resolutions, but then spent six months lending credence to the view that the Council's approval for imposing those consequences was required.

The differences between the president's and the U.N.'s agenda should no longer be papered over. Success in the war against terrorism requires identifying the enemy. The U.N. has no definition of terrorism. Close to a third of its members actively participate in the Organization of the Islamic Conference and stand in the way of a comprehensive convention against terrorism or any resolution that would unequivocally condemn the use of all available means in the name of a struggle for self-determination.

Success requires an accurate assessment of priorities. The U.N. thinks the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the greatest impediment to world order — not a nuclear Iran, not a bellicose North Korea, not the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, and not violent Islamic fundamentalism.

Success depends on distinguishing causes from effects. The U.N. claims the root cause of militant Islamic terrorism the world over is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, while in fact the occupation results from failed (and continuing) Arab attempts to destroy the Jewish state.

And success depends on an accurate assessment of responsibility. The U.N. Arab Human Development Report says "Arab countries...evince the lowest levels of freedom among the world regions compared.... When it comes to voice and accountability, the Arab region still ranks lowest in the world." The report notes "the virtual absence of good governance," "the relative backwardness of the Arab region in this vital area" of "knowledge acquisition, absorption and use." But when it came to assigning responsibility, the report points a finger at "the severe impediment of human development" caused by "the Israeli occupation of Palestine" and explains that "the issue of freedom in Arab countries has become a casualty of the overspill from the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq."

On every one of these counts — the names of the terrorists and their state sponsors, renouncing terrorism and committing to democratic reform first, the refusal to answer the question of "why do they hate us?" by self-flagellation, and the placement of responsibility directly at the feet of the despots — President Bush has staked out a dramatically different course from that of the U.N. Therefore it is time that U.S. taxpayers had an in-depth accounting of the 22 percent of the U.N. budget that comes from their blood, sweat, and tears.

— Anne Bayefsky is an international lawyer and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

[jtk4]

except that bush did not get re-elected on this issue. The people in the red states could give a fuck about any of this un shit. Just keep the gay people away and they are happy.

atleast that is what the exit polls showed.(moral views)

[igloo]

except that bush did not get re-elected on this issue. The people in the red states could give a fuck about any of this un shit. Just keep the gay people away and they are happy.

atleast that is what the exit polls showed.(moral views)

First off, the article specifically said: The day of reckoning has come. In an election that turned so much on values, what values does the U.N. promote? . Don't dilute the relevant message or pertinent questions that this article brings up, or the importance of the topic by bringing into the mix "people voted for Bush because the gay boogieman is coming" bullshit.

BTW--morals is much, much more then just gay marriage. And let's not forget that John kerry was not for gay marriage either. And let's get off the bullshit that the GOP scared people with gay marriage, unless you want to list the bullshit scare tactics of the DNC (such as the draft or people will not walk out of their wheelchairs unless you vote for Kerry and a host of others as well) or discuss how the DNC harvests the African-American vote. Should the RNC complain about that, and single out that group for ridicule as the DNC singles out the "dumb, Southern vote".....fucking pathetic.

I am assuming you were just cracking a sarcastic comment and not acting like the ignorant morons on this board who continue to act in the very manner which lost the Dems the election.

[jtk4]

yep

really all i was saying that most people do not know the major issues including the un and voted because bush loves jesus. All you have to look at is the exit polls and the huge voter registration that happened through church voter drives in the south and midwest.

But the un is a joke right now.

[igloo]

yep

I am grump tonight

[jtk4]

check again i added shit that probably will not like.

hey if you are looking for a good read pick up the united states of europe.

[igloo]

yep

really all i was saying that most people do not know the major issues including the un and voted because bush loves jesus. All you have to look at is the exit polls and the huge voter registration that happened through church voter drives in the south and midwest.

But the un is a joke right now.

Some may say they voted for Bush simply because they love Jesus...others would simply say that they share the same values and morals, one that should not be mocked or ridiculed....and some may say they do not share the same moral compass with those who support the U.N.....and let's not forget that Kerry went with "I am a Catholic and was an altar boy"...

And as I mentioned, there are other "blocks" of voters that went for Kerry as well...should they be singled out?....or how about the huge voter registration drive led by those who had no stances others than "we hate Bush",.........or vote because Springsteen and P Diddy say so, .....

or even worse, Michael Moore

There are people on both sides of the fence who do not know the issues and casted votes,....it is not mutually exclusive to one party.......and the DNC and Kerry-whiners better get that through their heads instead of pointing a hypocritical finger of bullshit blame

ANd yes, the U.N. is useless.....United States of Europe--a book?

[sobeton]

take the 22% and withdraw from the UN. the UN is useless at this point. the super powers ,pretty much do whatever the hell they want anyway.

[obby]

The people in the red states could give a fuck about any of this un shit. (moral views)

Speak for yourself. The UN's failure is one of the reasons we are in Iraq. Many may turn their blind side to this but ma and along with many others won't.

The UN needs to be reformed ASAP !!!!!!!!

It took a Bush to put teeth to their bite which failed for yeeeeeears.

[bklynzzfinest]

Speak for yourself. The UN's failure is one of the reasons we are in Iraq. Many may turn their blind side to this but alond with many others won't.

The UN needs to be reformed ASAP !!!!!!!!

Thank you. Atleast everyone isnt stupid. The UN wouldnt enforce its own resolutions. 2 counntries on the UNs security council (France and Russia) where both involved with the Food for OIL scandle and where making MILLIONS off of it. As recently as 2002 France was selling missiles to Iraq, which broke the UN arms embargo as well...

Fuck the UN. In theory the UN is a great idea, but it needs a massive overhaul and dirt bags need to be weeded out of it.

[mursa]

yea sure , and american companies weren't making millions also off the Oil for Food program..........don't ya just love playing the victim ??!!

...WITH TIME ONE SEE'S WHO WAS RIGHT ....and in the case of Iraq that was certainly the case .... Bush rushed into war , no WMd's , no imminent danger , nuff said .. talk all you want about the UN and it's faults , but in the END they are the ones telling the US "told ya so " .

[bklynzzfinest]

yea sure , and american companies weren't making millions also off the Oil for Food program..........don't ya just love playing the victim ??!!

...WITH TIME ONE SEE'S WHO WAS RIGHT ....and in the case of Iraq that was certainly the case .... Bush rushed into war , no WMd's , no imminent danger , nuff said .. talk all you want about the UN and it's faults , but in the END they are the ones telling the US "told ya so " .

Actually, according to the Iraqi newspaper that broke the story the US had no involvment at all.

In fact I dont think the US was part of the oil for food program to begin with.

Plus it wasnt French and Russian companies making money on the scandle it was the contries governments and representitives.

Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth, and try to sound intellectual on the subject.

"Nuff said".

[jtk4]

Actually, according to the Iraqi newspaper that broke the story the US had no involvment at all.

In fact I dont think the US was part of the oil for food program to begin with.

Plus it wasnt French and Russian companies making money on the scandle it was the contries governments and representitives.

Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth, and try to sound intellectual on the subject.

"Nuff said".

wait who is in charge of the iraqi newspapers. lol

yeah igloo it is a a book talking about how the Eu will become a superpower.

[bklynzzfinest]

wait who is in charge of the iraqi newspapers. lol

yeah igloo it is a a book talking about how the Eu will become a superpower.

That, I honestly couldnt say. Id like to think they are being run by Iraqi's but who knows.

Even still, I dont believe the US had any involvment with the food for Oil scandle. Further more the US was selling Sadaam Missiles, and breaking the UN arms embargo either. That was Frances doing.

As for someones dumb comment about the US playing the victum... Who said anything about being a victum? My point was dont expect us to play nice with France and Russia when they are acting just as shady as the they claim we are acting.

Personally... My opinion is Fuck'em. Who needs France anyway? They havent made a viable contribution to the world at large since the 1800's.

[mursa]

Actually, according to the Iraqi newspaper that broke the story the US had no involvment at all.

In fact I dont think the US was part of the oil for food program to begin with.

Plus it wasnt French and Russian companies making money on the scandle it was the contries governments and representitives.

Please know what you are talking about before you open your mouth, and try to sound intellectual on the subject.

"Nuff said".

Yea sure, america always ethical and moral and never does anything for own personal gain ...

.. $$ and greed is the devils work and the US has no involvment in such dealings . lol

How big is the box your living in ?

Corruption is everywhere ! ..when you get that into your head ,thats a start for you .

[bklynzzfinest]

Yea sure, america always ethical and moral and never does anything for own personal gain ...

.. $$ and greed is the devils work and the US has no involvment in such dealings . lol

How big is the box your living in ?

Corruption is everywhere ! ..when you get that into your head ,thats a start for you .

I didnt say there is no corruption.

All i said was the US was not involved in the Food for Oil program. Please read before you talk.

[mursa]

..........don't ya just love playing the victim ??!!

.

bklfinest ,

Where in here do I say anything about the US playing the victim ? ? lol

Stop putting words in ones mouth ...I was refering to you and other like minded super citizens who believe the US represents the all mighty good and justness in the universe .

[mursa]

..........don't ya just love playing the victim ??!!

.

bklfinest ,

Where in here do I say anything about the US playing the victim ? ? lol

Stop putting words in ones mouth ...I was refering to you and other like minded super citizens who believe the US represents the all mighty good and justness in the universe .

[mursa]

..........don't ya just love playing the victim ??!!

.

bklfinest ,

Where in here do I say anything about the US playing the victim ? ? lol

Stop putting words in ones mouth ...I was refering to you and other like minded super citizens who believe the US represents the all mighty good and justness in the universe .

[mursa]

..........don't ya just love playing the victim ??!!

.

bklfinest ,

Where in here do I say anything about the US playing the victim ? ? lol

Stop putting words in ones mouth ...I was refering to you and other like minded super citizens who believe the US represents the all mighty good and justness in the universe .

[mursa]

..........don't ya just love playing the victim ??!!

.

bklfinest ,

Where in here do I say anything about the US playing the victim ? ? lol

Stop putting words in ones mouth ...I was refering to you and other like minded super citizens who believe the US represents the all mighty good and justness in the universe .

[mursa]

..........don't ya just love playing the victim ??!!

.

bklfinest ,

Where in here do I say anything about the US playing the victim ? ? lol

Stop putting words in ones mouth ...I was refering to you and other like minded super citizens who believe the US represents the all mighty good and justness in the universe .

[obby]

[sobeton]

interesting read:

U.N. Responds to Oil-for-Food Special

Saturday, October 02, 2004

NEW YORK — The United Nations has sent a letter to FOX News in response to the special Breaking Point investigation, "United Nations Blood Money," a special report about the Oil-for-Food scandal that appeared Sept. 19 on FOX News Channel and on FOXNews.com.

Shashi Tharoor, U.N. under-secretary-general for communications and public information, requested that a document, addressing what the U.N. says are "some fundamental points that the show either failed to make or made erroneously," be printed on FOXNews.com.

The U.N. document follows. To read FOX News' response, click here.

THE FACTS ABOUT OIL FOR FOOD

A response from the United Nations to allegations made on Fox Breaking Point (19 September 2004)

The program that aired Fox Breaking Point on 19 September concerning the Oil for Food programme contained a number of inaccuracies. As the United Nations Secretariat's offer to discuss the content of the documentary in a live studio interview immediately after its broadcast was not acceptable to Fox, we have chosen to put our observations in writing and have asked Fox to place it on its Oil for Food website. The program also raises allegations of impropriety about United Nations' administration of the Iraq Oil for Food program. The Secretary-General and senior UN officials take all allegations of impropriety very seriously. In order to determine whether there is any truth to these allegations, Secretary-General Annan asked the former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank, Paul Volcker, to lead an independent inquiry into the programme. In order to preserve the independence and integrity of that inquiry, the Secretary-General will not comment on these allegations.

Oil for Food — what did it achieve? Eric Shawn says the easing of sanctions which accompanied the creation of the Oil-for-Food Program was "a recipe ... for humanitarian calamity." The facts contradict this statement. The Oil-for-Food program achieved its core mission of providing relief to 27 million Iraqis. Caloric intake rose by 83 percent, while malnutrition rates in much of the country were cut by half, and some 76,500 mines were cleared. On the health front, the capacity to undertake major surgeries increased by 40 per cent in the centre and south of Iraq. Enough medicines and vaccines were imported to eradicate polio and drastically reduce other often deadly communicable diseases, including cholera, malaria, measles, mumps, meningitis and tuberculosis. These facts also contradict the unchallenged statement by Khudair Abbas that "mortality increased."

Oil for Food finances — what did the programme receive and what did it spend? Fox News alleges that the "Iraqi people ... received, by the U.N.'s estimate, $15 billion in aid from a total of $67 billion in oil sales." This wildly incorrect figure implies that the remaining $52 billion was somehow lost or stolen. The breakdown is as follows:

• $42.7 billion was allocated directly to the relief effort.

• The Security Council allocated the rest of the money to other activities, including $18.6 billion in war reparations to pay damage awards to claimants who suffered as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Of that figure, over $633 million was awarded to 95 US corporations.

• Some $500 million was spent on the UN weapons inspection program. (Although funded initially through contributions and frozen Iraqi revenues, this UN effort supervised the destruction of Saddam's arsenal. Since the inception of the Oil-for-Food program, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) destroyed dozens of Iraqi Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads, as well as launchers, shells filled with chemical weapons precursors and other arms.)

• The rest of the money was used to refund countries which advanced funds for relief pending the start of oil sales and to pay oil transportation costs.

• There was also interest earned of $2.9 billion and a $2.3 billion gain on currency exchange.

• More than $8 billion left over at the end of the program was transferred to the coalition-run Development Fund for Iraq.

The UN and terrorism: While it is impossible to categorically refute the nebulous and unproven — even by your own account — charge that "Oil for Food money ended up in the hands of those terrorists looking to strike here, particularly al Qaeda," it is critical to point out that the United Nations was moved to act against Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban long before September 11, 2001. They were all declared international outlaws by the UN after the 1998 terrorist bombings of United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. Immediately after September 11th, the UN set up a Counter-Terrorism Committee as part of its ongoing efforts to combat the scourge.

Is the UN cooperating with investigators? Fox News quotes Rep. Representative Christopher Shays expressing concern that Paul Volcker's panel may not get "the cooperation he wants." However, the Security Council itself adopted a resolution requiring all UN member countries "including their national regulatory authorities, to cooperate fully by all appropriate means with the inquiry." For his part, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued instructions to all staff to do the same, and publicly declared that those who fail to cooperate will be fired. Mr. Volcker has stated a number of times that he is committed to cooperating with other on-going investigations. Furthermore contractors working for the Oil for Food Programme have been urged by the UN to cooperated with subpoenas and are in fact doing so. For his part, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued instructions to all staff to do the same, and publicly declared that those who fail to cooperate will be fired.

The Al-Mada list and the UN response: Fox News refers to the Al-Mada list which "sent a lot of people scrambling at the U.N.," implying that they feared the truth. In fact, the UN was scrambling to get copies of the documents that allegedly formed the basis for the list so as to investigate further, but repeated requests have still yielded nothing. The matter is now in the hands of the Volcker inquiry.

The Oil for Food programme and expenses: Fox News erroneously refers to the UN's "2.2 percent commission on every oil sale." The UN never collected "commissions" on Iraqi oil. The 2.2 percent figure cited was used to pay for administrative costs and staff salaries — the majority of which went directly to Iraqi employees. Had this arrangement not been in place, funding would have come from taxpayers — including Americans — in countries which support UN relief agencies.

But it also must be pointed out that when the UN brought its own expenditures in under budget, surpluses totalling $272 million were transferred to the humanitarian relief effort, and an additional $100 million in savings was later transferred to the coalition-managed Development Fund for Iraq.

Oil for Food contracts — who knew what? Fox News makes much of the UN's supposed "secrecy" when in fact all contracts had to be submitted to the UN for approval via the national authorities of each supplier. All details of every contract were known not only by the national authorities of each supplier but also by the members of the Security Council 661 Committee — including, of course, the US — who had the power to approve or hold any contract. Further, on November 23, 2003, the UN provided the Coalition Provisional Authority with its entire database. Simultaneously, thousands of copies of Oil-for-Food contracts were placed on CDs and transferred to the Iraqi authorities and the CPA (which had requested copies of all active contracts).

Eliminating oil overpricing — whose idea? Fox News credits the US with "put[ting] an end to Saddam's oil pricing scam in 2001" without conceding that it was UN oil overseers who first alerted the Security Council to Saddam's illegal surcharges on oil sales. Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself raised the issue in a public report in 2000. Based on this information, the Council instituted a "retroactive pricing" mechanism which served to curb the practice.

Stopping kickbacks — who had the power and what did they do? Concerning kickbacks, Fox News conveniently ignores the fact that the UN responded to the problem by strengthening contract review procedures when reports of the problem emerged. From 2001 onwards, hundreds of contracts were queried for pricing, some were held back indefinitely and many were specifically flagged by the UN to the Security Council. Not once did the members place any of them on hold for pricing reasons.

Smuggling and Oil for Food: Fox News also refuses to acknowledge the fact that Saddam Hussein's illegal smuggling started long before the Oil-for-Food program was put in place, and that the Security Council mandated a Multinational Interception Force (not administered by the UN) to prevent it. The UN Oil-for-Food staff had not been given the authority by the Security Council to prevent smuggling. As the GAO reported, "Under Security Council resolutions, all member states were responsible for enforcing the sanctions and the United Nations depended on states bordering Iraq to deter smuggling."

Why did Saddam pick his business partners? Claudia Rossett notes that Saddam "got to pick his own business partners" without acknowledging that the Security Council, by unanimous decision, including the veto-wielding United States, did agree to let Saddam choose who could buy Iraqi oil, and from whom Iraq would import humanitarian supplies — because otherwise he would not have allowed humanitarian goods to enter Iraq at a rate high enough make a difference to the daily lives of the Iraqi people. (see para. 3)

Dubious suppliers — who blew the whistle? Fox News also refers to the Al Wasel and Babel General Trading Company without reporting that, as the GAO testified before the House Committee on Agriculture on 16 June, UN experts in October 2001 alerted the Sanctions Committee that the prices in a proposed contract between that company and Iraq appeared high. The members of the Security Council nevertheless unanimously approved the contract. It was only in April 2004 that the US Treasury Department identified this company as a front for the regime. This example demonstrates that the UN did report suspicious cases and that while the UN was not mandated or equipped to check the backgrounds of all suppliers, even those who could, such as the US Government, did not have all of this information until after the Oil-for-Food program ceased to operate.

Did Mr. Conlon work for Oil for Food? Paul Conlon, according to Fox News, left the UN in 1995. It is worth noting that the UN didn't conclude a Memorandum of Understanding on Oil-for-Food with the intransigent Iraqi regime until 1996, so pumping didn't start until December of that year. The first humanitarian relief goods arrived in 1997.

Before 1997, those interested in exporting humanitarian goods had to obtain approval from Security Council members without input from UN secretariat experts, without using a UN escrow account and without a formal contract. Fox News's [sic] falsely implies that Johnny Walker whiskey was imported under the Oil-for-Food program when in fact no contracts for whiskey have ever been submitted or approved under it.

Assessing the quality of products entering Iraq: Fox News quotes Kamil Al-Gailani as charging that "UN inspectors let shipments of spoiled food and expired medicine get through." The World Health Organization (WHO) found only 0.4 per cent of shipments of medicines unfit for use. Further, under the Oil-for-Food program, there was a system for conducting complete checks when requested by a member of the Sanctions Committee. In such cases, each box and container for a given contract would be opened and the contents photographed. The US exercised this option on dozens of occasions. All Committee members had access to a database containing reports on such cases.

The Olympic Stadium myth: Fox News also implies that the UN somehow endorsed "the Olympic program run by Saddam's notorious son, Uday" where athletes were tortured and killed. Wrong. The Iraqi regime did indicate its desire to fund the construction of an Olympic stadium on the distribution plan — a "wish-list" of sorts — but that document in no way implied automatic approval of any listed goods, and no money for the stadium was ever approved or paid. Further, the UN expert tracking rights abuses in Iraq publicly decried Uday's atrocities (see document A/53/433) as part of his sustained campaign to shed light on the heinous practices of the regime — a campaign which bolstered the adoption by the General Assembly, year after year, of resolutions condemning Iraq's rights abuses in the strongest possible terms.

Which companies sold goods to Iraq? Fox News suggests that US and UK companies earned far less than their French or Russian counterparts without taking account of the fact that numerous US companies earned revenues through their foreign subsidiaries. This information is a matter of public record; The Washington Post (20 Feb. 2000, page A23) reported that, "Though perfectly legal, the growing U.S.-Iraqi commerce has been kept quiet by both sides because it seems to fly in the face of Washington's commitment to 'regime change' in Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's claim to be defying the world's lone superpower." The article goes on to state that "Placing bids through overseas subsidiaries and affiliates, more than a dozen U.S. firms have signed millions of dollars in contracts with Baghdad for oil-related equipment."

It is also a matter of public record that Americans were the chief consumers of Iraqi oil — at one point consuming 75 percent of all exports under Oil-for-Food — to the degree that some US lawmakers were prompted to try to introduce measures banning its import.

Why the UN would only appear on Fox News live: Fox News notes that the UN "would not do a taped interview for 'Breaking Point'" but conceals the reason why: UN officials have in the past cooperated with Fox only to see their comments grossly distorted through selective editing. Fox also fails to mention that UN officials were quite willing to appear on 'Breaking Point' live, where they could communicate directly with viewers.

[vicman]

the UN sux plain and simple, and everyone, including the US, has contributed to the UN sucking. well, lets say all the diplomats have contributing to the UN sucking, and the security council is a friggin' joke. 95% of everything discussed is vetoed by one SC member or the other, THEY ARE ALL USELESS.

they do have a very mean buffet table in their cafeteria though, damn thing is $$$$.

and US companies involved in the Oil for food pgm. w/o the administration knowing about it? bahahahaha . . . the govmn't knows all of this and probably gave the green light.