Keith Suter: More to oil-for-food shenanigans than meets the eye

Keith Suter

Opinion

The United Nations is in hot water. There have been allegations that the Iraq oil-for-food programme enabled Saddam Hussein to acquire money for weapons and that some UN officials did well out of the operation. But how much truth is there in the accusations?

Sanctions were imposed on Iraq after its August 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It was assumed that the sanctions would be lifted soon after it lost the 1991 conflict and Saddam Hussein abided by the demands to destroy his weapons of mass destruction.

Instead he refused to co-operate. The sanctions remained in place and many Iraqis suffered.

In 1996, it was agreed that Iraq could sell oil (worth eventually about US$46 billion) to buy humanitarian supplies and food. The programme ended in May 2003, when the United States took over running Iraq.

Both the sanctions and the oil-for-food programme were UN successes.

The sanctions, as we now know, did stop Iraq from acquiring additional weapons of mass destruction.

(We may find out at Saddam's trial later this year why he failed to come clean about their destruction; perhaps, given his paranoid state, he feared that if the neighbours knew he really did not have the weapons, they might attack him.)

Meanwhile, the oil-for-food programme provided essential food and medicine to about 60 per cent of Iraq's 27 million people. It was one of the largest relief projects in the UN's history.

Paul Volcker, the former head of the US Federal Reserve, has been heading an international inquiry into allegations of irregularities in the oil-for-food programme.

His interim report has just been published, and the final report will be issued by June.

His interim report accuses the UN of failing to abide by the rules to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability. But he did not find any evidence of systematic or widespread abuse.

Two men have attracted particular corruption allegations. Benon Sevan, a Cypriot national, who has worked for the UN for about 40 years, had some executive responsibility for the oil-for-food programme.

Kojo Annan, the son of the UN Secretary-General, worked for a Swiss company that won a contract to monitor imports under the programme.

Volcker's interim report does not specifically accuse either person of any illegal behaviour. It remains to be seen what appears in the final report.

The oil-for-food programme has been the biggest UN story in the American media for months. Various congressional inquiries are also under way.

What is going on? The Bush Administration needs the UN to take on some responsibility for Iraq's rebuilding so it is odd that Republicans should be so critical of the organisation that is going to be landed with the responsibility for clearing up the Iraq mess.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan has only about two more years to run as Secretary-General. He is not eligible to stand for an additional term. Why go after him through his son?

First, the US has changed its policy towards the UN.

Sixty years ago this year it hosted many of the crucial meetings for the UN's creation and it was a leading supporter for the UN's first four decades.

The Reagan Administration (1980-88) was much more hostile to the UN and it stopped paying its dues on time. The previous Bush and Clinton Administrations were almost as hostile.

This Bush Administration suddenly found a need for the UN after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and the US paid its back dues after a congressional debate of only a few minutes. But some politicians still dislike the UN and so look for ways to criticise it.

Secondly, last September Kofi Annan said that the US-led attack on Iraq was contrary to the UN Charter. This was a point of view shared by many international lawyers (including some Americans). Annan has angered the Bush Administration.

Thirdly, focusing attention on the UN has been a diversion from so many other aspects of Iraq that have gone wrong. More than 1000 Americans have been killed, the car bombings have continued and the January election process could result in a pro-Iranian fundamentalist Shia regime in Baghdad.

Finally, there has not been enough attention to one form of oil smuggling - one that the US knew about. Alongside the UN programme, Iraq also sold oil illegally via Jordan, Turkey and Syria.

American spy satellites would have tracked the oil vehicles crossing the boundaries. Jordan and Turkey are American allies, so presumably the US did not want to annoy them.

Iraq is not just a military and political nightmare - it has also become an auditing one.

* Keith Suter is a former national president of the UN Association of Australia.