4-13-05, 8: 38 am

From Al-Hayat

I pick up from where I left yesterday; I insist that the oil-for-food 'scandal' is incomparable to the occupation's scandals in Iraq, and I also insist that I will not to defend any international official. What I am saying is that I think is that the campaign against the UN and its Secretary General only started when the latter declared the war against Iraq as illegitimate, and that the campaign's other goal is to divert attention away from the occupation's misconduct and crimes in Iraq.                Even if we assume that the U.S. right wing's accusations against the UN are accurate, they are still limited. Everyone takes advantage of his or her authority. There is theft in every government and organization. More importantly, Saddam 'stole' his country's money and not U.S. money. Moreover, the chief investigator in the scandal, Paul Falker, asserts that the primary source of money came from outside the program. It came from either smuggling or 'illegal' oil sales. What does the last phrase mean? It means smuggling Iraqi oil to turkey and Jordan after both countries complained that the embargo would damage their economies; and as a result, the United States decided to look the other way since 1991.

The U.S. knew, but ignored what was happening, because both countries are its allies, although U.S. law requires stopping aid to countries that do not obey international sanctions. And so, the American administration assessed that Saddam Hussein acquired 4.6 billion dollars from smuggled oil and then remained silent.

Numbers are worthless; a CIA team assessed the number at $8 billions last September; congress raised the number to $14 billions. Whether it was a billion dollars, 14 billions, or 40 billions, it remains Iraqi money that was stolen by an Iraqi president; something which is incomparable to the money wasted by the occupation forces. And both of those are much lager and more important than any money stolen by UN staff members.

The special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction said that the coalition provisional authority wasted $8.8 billion of Iraq's reconstruction funds between April 2003 and June 2004 when its mission ended. A British advisor to the CPA said on a BBC program last month that CPA officials requested $300,000 as a bribe for giving out contracts.

During the invasion tons of money were stolen; $800 million were delivered to U.S. military leaders, and $1.4 billion were transported to Arbiel and then disappeared. Spies and castaways entered Iraqi ministries in Baghdad with U.S. forces and looted it. U.S. officials were forced to pay more money to buy from companies connected to the occupation forces' entourage. U.S. newspapers told stories of suspicious deals. A book may as well be written on alleged misconduct by Halliburton, a company closely connected with leaders in the U.S. administration since Vice President Dick Cheney became its president. Even worse was stealing Iraqi oil after 'liberation'. Does the Arab reader believe that there were no meters on production, and therefore no one knew the exact size of imported oil, but we have to accept the numbers put forward by the occupation authorities? International observers admitted in published testimonies that they are incapable of assessing the size of smuggled oil.

I hope that the reader is confident that I am speaking based on pure Western sources, most of which is American, and that my friends working in Iraq corroborated the information and added to it. Among them is a person who bribed the Governorate for his private business in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

'Christian Aid' declared that the occupation forces violated UN resolutions, which required international supervision over income distribution in Iraq. However, appointing auditors was delayed until April 2004, meaning two months before the CPA left.

The CPA issued orders that gave away Iraq to foreigners under slogans of free trade. Paul Bremer, the CPA administrator, issued tens of orders in his last weeks; the Allawi government froze many of those afterwards. Bremer was not acting at his own behest; he received daily orders from the deputy defense minister at the time, Paul Wolfowitz, who has been recently transferred to the presidency of the World Bank by President Bush.

Furthermore, and more importantly, there is the death of more than 100,000 or 135,000 Iraqis since the war began (the two numbers are British), and that falls short of other war crimes. I limit myself to comparing the two corruptions: the limited corruption of some UN officials, and the enormous corruption of the occupation.

Neo-conservatives still demand the resignation of Kofi Anan, although his second term will end with the end of the coming year, no renewal. Arguably, if we accept that he is responsible for the mistakes of the UN, will the U.S. right accept the resignation of U.S. officials who are responsible for the corruption in Iraq, the thefts, and cover-ups? If the U.S. right accepts this treatment, will any important U.S. official remain in office?

Neo-conservatives have the nerve to see the others' faults but not their much bigger ones. I consider each one of them to be an accomplice in murdering Iraqi's, stealing from them, covering up for criminals, and diverting attention to the UN and its Secretary General.