| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
U.S. News and World Report has a detailed update on the U.N. oil-for-food scandal from Kit. R. Roane:
Desert desperadoes
How the United Nations’ oil-for-food program was transformed into a piggy bank for Saddam Hussein and the biggest financial scandal in the world body’s 60-year history
Fallen behind on your scandal news lately? Well, don’t look now, but the doozy the United Nations has brewed up in its Iraqi oil-for-food program is about to come to full boil. The Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, the Manhattan district attorney’s office, five legislative committees, at least three foreign governments, and, oh yes, the United Nations itself are asking who’s responsible for the more than $4 billion in illegal kickbacks on Iraqi oil sales and goods from suppliers exporting food, medicine, and other materials to Baghdad. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, who is heading the U.N.’s investigation of itself, is due to weigh in later this month with his findings and has already given a glimpse of the mess with a “provisional” assessment of a program plagued by sloppy, myopic management that may or may not turn out to have included criminal conduct. The Volcker report should be good reading, as the former Fed chief has had unfettered access to U.N. documents and personnel.
...there is abundant evidence of substantial fraud and mismanagement in the U.N. program. A Pentagon audit that examined just 10 percent of the oil-for-food contracts pending at the time of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 found that the costs of nearly half the contracts appeared to be inflated. On just the food contracts alone, Pentagon auditors found evidence of overpricing in 87 percent of them. The audit, reviewed by U.S. News , also found five contracts that included “after sales service charges” of between 10 and 20 percent. It is now believed that Saddam and his agents tacked on such surcharges to the aid contracts in order to siphon money out of the program and divert it to the regime’s purposes, using millions meant to buy food to instead shore up his army and construct lavish presidential palaces.
