Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.N.'s good name tarnished

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.N.'s good name tarnished

    Washington Times, DC
    Feb 7 2005

    U.N.'s good name tarnished
    By Philip Sherwelland, Charles Lawrence
    LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH


    LONDON - Is the United Nations damaged beyond repair? Evidence of
    double-dealing in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal is stacking up by the
    week, and more and more of the organization's officials are being
    implicated.
    It was just two weeks ago, in a rented suite of offices on the
    15th floor of an anonymous Manhattan office block, that Benon Sevan
    finally discovered that his story would not hold. For months, the
    burly, bristling Armenian-Cypriot, known within the United Nations
    for both his bonhomie and bad temper, had insisted that the talk of
    oil deals with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and strange petroleum
    companies in Panama had nothing to do with him.

    On Jan. 21, however, the former head of the U.N. oil-for-food
    program in Iraq was confronted by proof of his deception by Paul
    Volcker. The former Federal Reserve chairman is leading the U.N.
    investigation into a scheme from which Saddam skimmed off about $2
    billion and bribed foreign allies.
    Mr. Volcker's interim report, delivered last week, not only
    contained a damning verdict on the behavior of Mr. Sevan, an official
    long defended by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, it also threw an
    unexpected new focus on the role of Mr. Annan's predecessor, Boutros
    Boutros-Ghali, as the unraveling scandal dragged in new names.
    The meeting was the 13th between Mr. Sevan and the investigators
    since accusations of financial abuse were first raised by Claude
    Hankes-Drielsma, a British banker who was advising the interim Iraqi
    government in Baghdad. Although it was an open secret at the United
    Nations that the oil-for-food scheme had been subject to surcharges
    and kickbacks for years, Mr. Annan initially refused to order an
    investigation.
    On his first 12 visits, Mr. Sevan refused to discuss the
    specifics of the accusations against him. But by this trip, the
    investigators had obtained his full telephone records after clearing
    his office files and computer disks. (Mr. Sevan already had provided
    the "clean" telephone data from his home). These records proved that
    Mr. Sevan's claim to have spoken with Fakhry Abdelnour, the man who
    ran the African Middle East Petroleum Co. (AMEP), the Panamanian oil
    dealership, only once, by chance at an Organization of Petroleum
    Exporting Countries (OPEC) meeting in Vienna, Austria, in 1999, was
    false.
    Senior former Iraqi officials already had told the commission
    that Mr. Sevan had solicited contracts for AMEP — statements Mr.
    Sevan denied, saying he barely knew Mr. Abdelnour, who is a nephew of
    Mr. Boutros-Ghali. This new set of telephone numbers showed several
    calls between the two men, who sometimes conducted back-to-back
    conversations with Fred Nadler, Mr. Boutros-Ghali's brother-in-law.
    Relative trouble
    The spotlight thrown on the relatives of Mr. Boutros-Ghali was
    one of the surprises of the report released Thursday. The former
    secretary-general's role in pushing the French bank preferred by the
    Iraqi authorities to administer the program's accounts also comes in
    for close scrutiny.
    But Mr. Volcker and his fellow commissioners have become
    accustomed to digging into the activities of secretaries-general and
    their relatives. Their second report, due next month, will focus on
    the business links of Mr. Annan's son Kojo with Cotecna, the Swiss
    company that won the U.N. contract to oversee oil-for-food imports
    into Iraq in 1998.
    Kojo Annan has said he played no part in Cotecna's Iraq work, and
    his father said he had no idea that Kojo Annan remained on Cotecna's
    payroll until a year ago.
    Although the secretary-general had avoided ordering an inquiry,
    the Volcker findings might help save his job — for now, at least. The
    United Nations is not a body in which the buck stops with the boss,
    and now, in Mr. Sevan, there is a senior official to blame.
    Defiant diplomats
    He was not, however, the only U.N. official singled out for
    criticism in the report and now subject to disciplinary proceedings.
    So was Joseph Stephanides, a fellow Cypriot who oversaw the selection
    of the program's major contractors. The report said the United
    Nations broke its own competitive-bidding rules when it chose Lloyd's
    Register of London, the French Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP) and
    Saybolt, a Dutch company, to implement the program.
    In particular, Mr. Stephanides is criticized for cooperating with
    British diplomats at the United Nations to ensure that Lloyd's
    Register, the 245-year-old inspection and risk-management group, won
    the contract to oversee imports into Iraq. A lower bid was submitted
    by a French rival, but the United Nations decided the deal should go
    to Lloyd's because BNP had been awarded another key contract.
    John Weston, then head of the British mission, said Friday that
    he had been operating under "ministerial instructions" from London
    when he advised Lloyd's on the best tactics to win the contract.
    Suggestions that there was any improper behavior are based on
    "ignorance of the practices of diplomatic missions," he added.
    Lloyd's is furious that it has been dragged into the row and says
    its reputation has been badly damaged by the release of U.N. audits
    that suggested it overcharged. David Moorhouse, executive chairman of
    the group, also said it was customary for British diplomats to be
    helpful to British companies seeking overseas contracts.
    Carne Ross, the British diplomat in charge of Iraq policy at the
    United Nations at the time, said the program was "deeply politicized"
    and "carved up" between member states.
    "It was our job to lobby for British companies, and we did so
    extremely vigorously. Nobody in Britain would have expected any less
    of us," said Mr. Ross, who resigned from the diplomatic service last
    year. "That is the way the U.N. operates, and it seems a little harsh
    if Joseph Stephanides is carrying the can for this as a U.N.
    official."
    Missing money
    The Volcker committee's criticism of Mr. Sevan was scathing. It
    concluded that he had solicited and received oil allocations of
    several million barrels on AMEP's behalf, helping the company earn
    about $1.5 million. Saddam's regime apparently thought Mr. Sevan
    would help ease economic restrictions in return.
    The committee also said Mr. Sevan failed to adequately explain
    the source of $160,000 of extra income from 1999 to 2003. He had told
    the panel that he was given the money by an aged aunt who died in
    Cyprus last year after falling down an elevator shaft.
    The committee said it "continues to investigate" whether he
    "received personal or financial benefits" for soliciting the oil
    deals for AMEP.
    Even after the publication of the interim report, Mr. Sevan's
    status with the United Nations remains strangely blurred, and U.N.
    officials seem to have remarkable trouble defining it:
    Does he still have diplomatic immunity? Yes. Has he retired? Yes,
    but he still has the status of a contract employee, at $1 per year,
    maintaining his immunity. Does he have a pension? Yes, but it is not
    yet being paid.
    The U.N. press office had been speaking on Mr. Sevan's behalf
    until last week, when calls were referred to Eric Lewis, a Washington
    lawyer who issued a spirited defense. He said, "Mr. Sevan never took
    a penny," adding that the inquiry committee "succumbed to massive
    political pressure" to find a scapegoat.
    There was no sign of Mr. Sevan at his Manhattan apartment block
    on Saturday. When the Sunday Telegraph tracked him down last year
    during a visit to see his aunt in hospital in Cyprus, he defiantly
    rejected all suggestions of impropriety against him and said he would
    be vindicated by the report.
    Future fights
    Even if Mr. Annan escapes censure in Mr. Volcker's next report,
    he is not out of the woods. There are five U.S. congressional
    investigations into the oil-for-food scandal and U.N. mismanagement,
    as well as two criminal inquiries being conducted by federal and New
    York prosecutors. And in Republican-controlled Washington, where many
    politicians consider "United Nations" to be dirty words, the
    secretary-general's role still faces intense scrutiny.
    Nile Gardiner, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who has
    studied the scandal, said: "The U.N. continues to display
    breathtaking arrogance with regard to the oil-for-food scandal. The
    organization does not seem to recognize the extent to which it has
    been damaged by this. Five major congressional investigations are
    looking at the role of Kofi Annan, and any of them have the potential
    to force his resignation."
    The Volcker findings have provided fresh ammunition for prominent
    U.S. critics of the United Nations.
    "I am reluctant to conclude that the U.N. is damaged beyond
    repair, but these revelations certainly point in this direction,"
    said Rep. Henry J. Hyde, the Republican chairman of the House
    International Relations Committee, one of the investigating panels.
    At the United Nations, the defense is being led by Mark Malloch
    Brown, the eloquent British official whom Mr. Annan recently promoted
    to chief of staff, with a brief to "renew" the organization.
    "Benon Sevan has been a lifelong colleague and a dear, dear
    friend," he said. "But these are extremely serious charges of
    wrongdoing, and no one will be shielded from prosecution. If there
    are criminal charges, the U.N. will fully cooperate and waive
    diplomatic immunity of staff members, whoever they are."
    Mr. Malloch Brown said the Volcker report was "encouraging" and a
    "step in the right direction."
    But, he continued, the report showed that the U.N. bureaucracy
    would have done better at controlling Saddam's oil-for-food schemes
    if it had been allowed to do its jobs without the interference of the
    "member nations," particularly those on the Security Council.
    The report also said the major source of Saddam's illicit money
    was not kickbacks but oil smuggling to Jordan and Turkey, to which
    the United States and Britain turned a blind eye because the two
    countries were allies.
    "Back off — that's the message to the member states," Mr. Malloch
    Brown declared boldly. "They should look to the mote in their own
    eye, because what has been revealed is a process of politicization."
    Mr. Boutros-Ghali was even blunter in his response after the
    report detailed how he "acquiesced" to the Iraqi authorities in the
    choice of BNP as the program's banker, despite apparently stronger
    bids from others. Mr. Weston said Mr. Boutros-Ghali did not get a
    second term because he was not regarded as good enough to deserve it.

    Mr. Weston said of Mr. Boutros-Ghali: "I think he was an
    honorable public servant. But he had a number of shortcomings. One of
    them was that he was a singularly poor manager."
    The former secretary-general, reached by telephone at his Paris
    apartment shortly after the interim report was published, insisted
    that he had done nothing improper. He called the accusations "silly"
    and dismissed the Volcker investigators as "ignorant" about the U.N.
    system.
    In fact, the investigators have become well-informed about how
    the U.N. system operated, and the rest of the world is now learning
    fast.
    • Mr. Sherwell reported from Washington and Mr. Lawrence from New
    York, with additional reporting by Ed Simpkins and Damien McElroy in
    London.

    --Boundary_(ID_ELrctpUuTERSvtKoXyDBYw)--
Working...
X