The Oil-for-Food Programme (OIP) was established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security CouncilResolution 986)[1] to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to boost its military capabilities.
The programme was introduced by United States President
The programme was de facto terminated in 2003 and de jure terminated in 2010. Although the sanctions were effective, there were revelations of widespread corruption in the programme and abuse of its funds.
Background and design
The Oil-for-Food Programme was instituted to relieve the extended suffering of civilians as the result of the United Nations' imposition of
comprehensive sanctions on Iraq following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Security Council Resolution 706 of 15 August 1991 was introduced to allow the sale of Iraqi oil in exchange for food.[4]
Security Council Resolution 712 of 19 September 1991 confirmed that Iraq could sell up to US$1.6 billion in oil to fund an Oil-For-Food Programme.[5] After an initial refusal, Iraq signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in May 1996 for arrangements to be taken to implement that resolution.
The Oil-for-Food Programme started in December 1996, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1997. Sixty percent of Iraq's twenty-six million people were solely dependent on rations from the oil-for-food plan.
The programme used an escrow system. Oil exported from Iraq was paid for by the recipient into an escrow account possessed until 2001 by BNP Paribas bank, rather than to the Iraqi government. The money was then apportioned to pay for war reparations to Kuwait, ongoing coalition and United Nations operations within Iraq. The remainder, the majority of the revenue, was available to the Iraqi government to purchase regulated items.
The Iraqi government was permitted to purchase only items that were not
folic acid
, were reviewed in a process that typically took six months before shipment was authorized. Items deemed to have any potential application in chemical, biological or nuclear weapons systems development were not available to the regime, regardless of stated purpose.
Financial statistics
Over US$53 billion worth of
weapons inspection programme was also paid from these funds. Internal audits have not been made public.[6]
End of the programme
The bad news, therefore, is that the UN proved unequal to the task of preventing a rogue regime from stealing some of its own money. The good news is that this same UN machinery proved equal to the task of preventing that same regime from fielding WMD, developing nuclear weapons and reconstituting a military threat to its neighbours. Most observers would conclude that the UN, however inadequate its financial oversight, certainly got its priorities right.
The UN sanctions regime against Iraq, including the Oil for Food program, is worth close scrutiny not because it was a scandal, although scandal there was, but because taken as a whole, it is the most successful use of international sanctions on record. Documenting the why and wherefores of that success is as important as correcting the shortfalls that allowed a rogue regime, in connivance with unscrupulous international businessmen, to siphon funds from UN-administered Iraqi accounts.[7]
–Testimony on A Comparative Evaluation of United Nations Peacekeeping by James Dobbins presented before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2007
On 28 March 2003, Annan, the United States, and Britain asked the UN Security Council to ensure that nearly US$10 billion in goods Iraq had ordered and that were already approved—including US$2.4 billion for food—could enter the country once conditions allowed. The resolution under discussion made clear that the chief responsibility for addressing humanitarian consequences of the war would fall to the United States and Britain if they took control of the country. Under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention these are the responsibilities of the occupying power.
On 22 May 2003,
UN Security Council Resolution 1483 granted authority to the Coalition Provisional Authority to use Iraq's oil revenue. The programme's remaining funds, $10 billion, were transferred over a six-month winding-up period to the Development Fund for Iraq
under the Coalition Provisional Authority's control; this represented 14% of the programme's total income over 5 years.
The programme was formally terminated on 21 November 2003 and its major functions were turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority.[8]
Abuse
The programme also suffered from widespread corruption and abuse. Throughout its existence, the programme was dogged by accusations that some of its profits were unlawfully diverted to the government of Iraq and to UN officials. These accusations were made in many countries, including the US and Norway.[9]
Until 2001, the money for the Oil-for-Food Programme went through
Total S.A.
in 2003.
Misapplication of funding
According to information from Aqila al-Hashimi, who was senior bureaucrat with the Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq, of the programme's total of $60 billion, "roughly 65% was actually applied to aid".[11] Over 193 so-called electrical consultants each received $15,000 per month while the electricity only worked a few hours at a time.[12]
Louise Frechette, rejected any such investigation, claiming that it would be too expensive to be worthwhile. UN Chef de Cabinet Iqbal Riza ordered the shredding of years' worth of documents in his office concerning the programme. He said that they were from a working file that contained copies of documents received by his office, and were purged due to lack of space, and also that the originals were held elsewhere.[14]
In response to these criticisms, and to evidence acquired after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, accusations were made that skimmed profits were being used to buy influence at the UN and with Kofi Annan himself. An investigation cleared Annan of any personal wrongdoing.[15]
Adulterated foods
According to an interim report released on 3 February 2005 by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker's commission (see #Investigations below), much of the food aid supplied under the programme "was unfit for human consumption". The report concluded that Sevan had accepted nearly $150,000 in bribes over the course of the programme, and in 2005 he was suspended from his position at the United Nations as a result of the fraud investigation.[16]
Al Mada list
One of the earliest allegations of wrongdoing in the programme surfaced on 25 January 2004, when
Iraqi Oil Ministry
.
Named in the list of beneficiaries were
Daily Telegraph, which had reported the allegations.[20][21]
The president of Oilexco Ltd, Arthur Millholland, whose name also appeared on the al Mada list, denied wrongdoing but confirmed that illegal surcharges were being paid to the Iraqi government by contractors.[22] Few deny that in Iraq, like in many third-world countries, bribes and kickbacks were regularly paid to the leadership in order to get contracts; however, the al Mada list does not discuss bribes paid to Iraq – it discusses bribes paid to individuals to support Iraq.
Operation of the scheme
The scheme is alleged to have worked in this way: individuals and organizations sympathetic to the Iraqi regime, or those just easily bribed, were offered oil contracts through the Oil-for-Food Programme. These contracts for Iraqi oil could then be sold on the open world market and the seller was allowed to keep a transaction fee, said to be between $0.15 and $0.50/barrel (0.94 and 3.14 $/m³) of oil sold. The seller was then to refund the Iraqi government a certain percentage of the commission.
Contracts to sell Iraq humanitarian goods through the Oil-for-Food Programme were given to companies and individuals based on their willingness to kick back a certain percentage of the contract profits to the Iraqi regime. Companies that sold commodities via the Oil-for-Food Programme were overcharging by up to 10%, with part of the overcharged amount being diverted into private bank accounts for Saddam Hussein and other regime officials and the other part being kept by the supplier.
The involvement of the UN itself in the scandal began in February 2004 after the name of Benon Sevan, executive director of the Oil-for-Food Programme, appeared on the Iraqi Oil Ministry's documents. Sevan received vouchers for at least 11,000,000 barrels (1,700,000 m³) of oil, worth some $3.5 million in profit. Sevan denied the charges.
BNP Paribas
The sole bank handling funds transfers for the Oil-for-Food Programme was the New York branch of the Banque Nationale de Paris-Paribas, or
US House Committee on International Relations
found that BNP Paribas made payments for goods without proof of delivery and allowed payments to third parties not identified as authorized recipients. Investigators estimate that the bank received more than $700 million in fees under the UN programme, which began in 1996 and ended after the ouster of Saddam in March 2003.
Duelfer Report
The
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, found that OFF saved the Iraqi economy from decline after the imposition of sanctions. Furthermore, the Iraqi regime found that it could corrupt OFF to get hard currency that could be used to manipulate the Iraq Sanctions Committee and undermine sanctions as well as to obtain more weapons.[23]
The final official version of the Iraq Survey Group report, known as the Duelfer Report, cited only France, Russia and China (countries who were also strongly anti-war) as violators who paid kickbacks.[
On 5 June 2007, the German chapter of the anti-corruption organisation
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
(BMWi) against 57 German companies for allegedly paying $11.9m in kickbacks in the United Nations' Oil for Food Programme in Iraq.
Oil coupons as bribes
The US-funded satellite network
Hamida Na'na [fr], a writer based in France known for her pro-Saddam positions. Two types of oil coupons were used: silver coupons that entitled holders to nine million barrels of oil, and gold coupons worth more.[vague] Hamida Naanaa is said[who?] to have received a gold coupon.[28]
Ingersoll-Rand pays $2.5m in fines for kickbacks
In October 2007,
ABG, subsidiary I-R Italiana and the Irish subsidiary Thermo King paid "after-sales service fees" (ASSFs), although no bona fide services were performed. Ingersoll-Rand, without admitting or denying the allegations in the commission's complaint, consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining it from future violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ordering it to disgorge $1,710,034 in profits, plus $560,953 in pre-judgment interest, and to pay a civil penalty of $1,950,000. Ingersoll-Rand was also ordered to comply with certain undertakings regarding its compliance program for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
, and to pay a $2,500,000 fine pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Fraud Section.
Complaints by Kurds
The
Sulaymaniya, even though the funds for the project had been available since 1998.[citation needed
]
Potential Annan link
On 14 June 2005, two 1998 memos surfaced that appeared to link Kofi Annan to Cotecna Inspection S.A. The first one described a meeting between Annan and Cotecna while the company was bidding on the programme, after which the company raised its bid. A second one mentioned that Cotecna was confident that they would get the bid due to "effective but quiet lobbying" in New York diplomatic circles. The source of the documents was a Cotecna executive.[citation needed]
The Second Interim Report by the IIC confirmed that Cotecna won the Oil for Food contract fairly and based on merit. The Committee concluded that there was no link between Kofi Annan and the award of Cotecna's contract, and Cotecna has been transparent and cooperative through this investigation.[citation needed]
Alleged involvement of Russian intelligence
According to high-ranking Russian
Alexander Voloshin and Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Sergei Isakov, a friend of Voloshin, carried "bags with money" from Moscow to Baghdad taking the "earned" money as kickbacks to Saddam.[31]
Alleged use for financing of Saddam Hussein regime
Fox News broke the story that Alexander Yakovlev, a Russian official in the UN Procurement Department, was involved; he later resigned and pleaded guilty to corruption charges. The program was also linked to Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, designated as a terrorist financier by Britain, the US and according to the UN "belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda." Nasreddin was removed from these lists in 2007 after he demonstrated that he had severed all business ties with Youssef Nada, who co-founded the Al Taqwa Bank with him, and pledged to have no further dealings with either Nada or the bank.[32] Petra Navigation Group was a company that was on the blacklist of firms blocked from doing business with the U.S. for sanctions-busting activities designed to help Saddam's regime.[33]
According to some sources, Saddam provided millions of dollars from the Oil-for-Food program to the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Australian Government commissioned judge Terence Cole to further investigate whether Australian companies had indeed paid kickbacks to the Saddam regime. The Cole Inquiry
commenced in December 2005.
The Cole Inquiry has received testimony from senior Australian Government officials, including Prime Minister John Howard, Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and various officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. During the course of the inquiry numerous AWB officials have resigned, including managing director Andrew Lindberg.[36][37][38][39][40] In 2009, the Australian Federal Police ended the investigation related to the scandal.[41]
Investigations
GAO investigation
After the
Iraqi Army, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) was given the task of finalizing all Oil-for-Food-related supply contracts made with the now-defunct regime and of tracking down the personal fortunes of former regime members.[42] During the execution of this task, the GAO found weaknesses in the programme that allowed kickbacks and other sources of wealth for Saddam Hussein. The GAO estimates that the Saddam Hussein regime generated $10.1 billion in illegal revenues. This figure includes $5.7 billion from oil smuggling and $4.4 billion in illicit surcharges on oil sales and after-sales charges on suppliers. The scale of the fraud was far more extensive than the GAO had previously estimated. A U.S. Department of Defense study, cited by the GAO, evaluated 759 contracts administered through the Oil-for-Food Programme and found that nearly half had been overpriced, by an average of 21 percent.[43]
Unlike the 661 committee, members of the Security Council had the authority to launch investigations into contracts and to stop any contract they did not like. The British and the Americans had turned down hundreds of Oil-for-Food contract requests, but these were blocked primarily on the grounds that the items being imported were dual-use technologies.
To quote the GAO report, in its summary:
Both the UN Secretary-General, through the Office of the Iraqi Programme (OIP) and the Security Council, through its sanctions committee for Iraq, were responsible for overseeing the Oil-for-Food Programme. However, the Iraqi government negotiated contracts directly with purchasers of Iraqi oil and suppliers of commodities, which may have been one important factor that allowed Iraq to levy illegal surcharges and commissions.
Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the General Accounting Office, told a House hearing that UN auditors had refused to release the internal audits of the Oil-for-Food Programme.[44]Benon Sevan, with support from Kofi Annan, had written letters to all former Oil-for-Food contractors asking them to consult Sevan before releasing any documents to GAO or US congressional inquiry panels.[45] Throughout its history, the programme had received both complaints from critics saying that it needed to be more open and complaints from companies about proprietary information being disclosed.
The United Nations has denied all requests by the GAO for access to confidential internal audits of the Oil-for-Food Programme.
While attempting to determine the complexity of the Oil-for-Food Programme for articles in
investigative journalist Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies and the Hudson Institute discovered that the UN treated details such as the identities of Oil-for-Food contractors; the price, quantity and quality of goods involved in the relief deals; and the identities of the oil buyers and the precise quantities that they received as confidential. The bank statements, the interest paid, and the transactions were all secret as well.[46] Rosett has come under harsh criticism from Denis Halliday[47] and Benon Sevan,[48]
who have claimed that many of Rosett's claims (such as Oil-for-Food funding the approval of an Olympic stadium, and where responsibility for various issues lay according to the UN resolutions) were incorrect.
The US House Committee on International Relations investigated the Oil-for-Food Programme and discovered that money was provided by Sabah Yassen, the former Iraqi ambassador to Jordan, to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers between $15,000 to $25,000. From September 2000 until the invasion of Iraq, the families of Palestinians killed or wounded in the conflict with Israel (including 117 responsible for suicide bombings in Israel) received over $35 million. It is alleged that this money came from the UN Oil-for-Food Programme.[49]
Independent Inquiry Committee
After initial opposition to an investigation, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated on 19 March 2004 that a full independent investigation would be launched. In an official press interview, Annan said "[...] it is highly possible that there has been quite a lot of wrongdoing, but we need to investigate [...] and see who was responsible." "00:00:03". (audio clip, @5:56) However, Annan was emphatic that most of the claims were "outrageous and exaggerated",[50] and that most of the criticisms had to do with things over which the programme had no authority.
On 22 April 2004, the United Nations Security Council passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the Volcker inquiry into corruption in the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme for Iraq, calling upon all 191 member states to cooperate.[52]
The definitive[53] report was presented by Paul Volcker to the Security Council on 7 September 2005.[54]
A leaked internal UN audit, which surfaced on mineweb.com, shows massive discrepancies between Cotecna reports and UN agency reports for the value of the shipments into northern Iraq. The audit found that Cotecna did no "value" inspections on nearly US$1 billion worth of aid shipments for the Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme into northern Iraq. However, in a subsequent report published by the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) (27 October 2005) it was concluded that "there were no major complaints by the United Nations or its member states about Cotecna's performance"[55] and that "the audit did not report any deficiencies in Cotecna's inspections".[56]Benon Sevan was briefed in December 2002 on the findings of the audit.[57]
The audit is available here.[58] Its summary states:
OIOS' overall conclusion is that the management of the Contract has not been adequate and certain provisions of the Contract had not been adhered to. In addition, the incorporation of additional costs, such as rehabilitation of camps in the man-day-rate was an unacceptable arrangement. Also, the contract had been amended prior to its commencement, which was inappropriate. OIP needs to strengthen its management of contracts and the Procurement Division (PD) should ensure that the basis of payment is appropriate in order to avoid additional costs to the Organization
After reading the leaked audit, congressman Henry Hyde wrote to Kofi Annan wondering why "The U.S. Congress – which provides 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget and which has publicly requested copies of the 55 internal audits – should be required to depend on media leaks for source documents."
Interim report results
In a 219-page initial report, the Volcker Commission documented how OIF chairman Benon Sevan used his position to solicit and receive allocations of oil from Iraq during the years he oversaw the humanitarian relief programme. Internal records from SOMO (Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization), as well as interviews with former Iraqi officials involved in illicit oil deals, show that Sevan had requested and received allocations of 7.3 million barrels (1,160,000 m3) of oil on behalf of a Panama-registered trading company called African Middle East Petroleum Co.
Although the report makes no specific allegations of criminal activity by Sevan, Volcker does not rule out the possibility that charges might be filed by authorities in countries with relevant jurisdiction. The report called Sevan's conduct "ethically improper", noting that Sevan had received large cash payments totalling $160,000 each year he had headed the programme. Sevan claims the money came from an aunt in Cyprus who has since died, but the panel found no evidence to back this claim.
Volcker also reported in January that a review of 58 confidential UN internal OIF audits showed UN officials ignored early signs that humanitarian goods shipped to Iraq before the 2003 Invasion war were given little if any inspections by the Swiss company Cotecna. However, Volker concluded on 27 October 2005 IIC report that "the audit did not report any deficiencies in Cotecna's inspections".[56] Cotecna paid Kojo Annan, Kofi Annan's son, consulting fees until November 2003. Volcker said that future reports would deal with questions regarding Kojo Annan.[59]
Investigations by Iraqi Governing Council
International accounting firm KPMG had been selected by the Iraqi Governing Council to investigate the al Mada claims, along with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. It was due to release its findings to the Iraqi Governing Council in May 2004. However, in June 2004, KPMG stopped working on the project because it was owed money by the IGC.[60]
The US has been harshly critical of the KPMG probe led by associates of Ahmed Chalabi, accusing it of undermining the main probe established by Paul Bremer. That probe had been run by the head of Iraq's independent Board of Supreme Audit, Ehsan Karim, with assistance from Ernst & Young. The Board of Supreme Audit is within the Iraqi Finance Ministry. In June 2004, Karim's investigation agreed to share information with the Volcker panel. However, on 1 July 2004, Karim was killed by a bomb magnetically attached to his car.[61]
Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British national and long-time friend of Ahmed Chalabi, was appointed by the IGC to coordinate its investigation of the Oil-for-Food Programme. Drielsma testified in front of the US Congress (on 21 April 2004) that the KPMG investigation "is expected to demonstrate the clear link between those countries which were quite ready to support Saddam Hussein's regime for their own financial benefit, at the expense of the Iraqi people, and those that opposed the strict application of sanctions and the overthrow of Saddam". He also testified that Chalabi was in charge of the investigation for the IGC.
In late May 2004, on the same day that Chalabi's offices at the Iraqi National Congress were raided by coalition forces, Drielsma claimed that an individual or individuals hacked into his computer and deleted every file associated with his investigation. He also claimed that "a back-up databank" was also deleted.[62] When asked by Claudia Rosett if he had been physically threatened as well, Drielsma replied with "no comment". Drielsma has also been an outspoken critic of the UN's refusal to release any internal Oil-for-Food audit information to the IGC.
Beneficiaries
Russia
According to the paper The Beneficiaries of Saddam's Oil Vouchers: the List of 270, included many Russian beneficiaries.[63][64]
The French-Arab Friendship Association – 15,100,000 barrels (2,400,000 m3)
Former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua – 12,000,000 barrels (1,900,000 m3)
Patrick Maugein, the Trafigura company – 25,000,000 barrels (4,000,000 m3)
Michel Grimard, "founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club" – 17,100,000 barrels (2,720,000 m3).
Egypt:
Khaled Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, "son of the late Egyptian president" – 16,600,000 barrels (2,640,000 m3)
Imad Al-Galda, "a businessman and a member of the Egyptian parliament from President Mubarak's National Democratic Party" – 14,000,000 barrels (2,200,000 m3)
Abd Al-Azim Mannaf, "editor of the Sout Al-Arab newspaper" – 6,000,000 barrels (950,000 m3)
Muhammad Hilmi, "editor of the Egyptian paper Sahwat Misr" – an undisclosed number of barrels.
The United Arab Company – 6,000,000 barrels (950,000 m3)
The Nile and Euphrates Company – 3,000,000 barrels (480,000 m3)
The Al-Multaqa Foundation for Press and Publication – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3).
Libya:
Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3)
Qatari Horseracing Association Chairman Hamad bin Ali Aal Thani – 14,000,000 barrels (2,200,000 m3)
Gulf Petroleum – 2,000,000 barrels (320,000 m3)
Spain:
Basem Qaqish, "a member of the Spanish Committee for the Defense of the Arab Cause" – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3)
Ali Ballout, "a pro-Saddam Lebanese journalist" – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3)
Javier Robert – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3)
Syria:
Farras Mustafa Tlass, "the son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass" – 6,000,000 barrels (950,000 m3)
Audh Amourah – 18,000,000 barrels (2,900,000 m3)
Ghassan Zakariya – 6,000,000 barrels (950,000 m3)
Anwar Al-Aqqad – 2,000,000 barrels (320,000 m3)
Hamida Na'Na', the owner of the Al Wefaq Al-Arabi periodical – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3).
Switzerland:
Glencore, the largest commodity trader in Switzerland – 12,000,000 barrels (1,900,000 m3)
Taurus Petroleum – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3)
Petrogas, which is "listed under three sub-companies – Petrogas Services, Petrogas Distribution, and Petrogas Resources – and is associated with the Russian company Rosneftegazetroy" – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3)
Alcon, "listed in Lichtenstein and associated with larger oil companies" – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3)
Finar Holdings, which is "listed in Lugano, Switzerland, and is under liquidation" – received 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3)
Samir Vincent, "organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet with former president Jimmy Carter" – 10,500,000 barrels (1,670,000 m3)
Shaker Al-Khafaji, "the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates" – 1,000,000 barrels (160,000 m3).
Other beneficiaries were companies and individuals from the Sudan, Yemen, Cyprus, Turkey, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, the UAE, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Panama, Thailand, Chad, China, Nigeria, Kenya, Ireland, Bahrain, and the Philippines as well as two Saudi Arabian companies.[63]
Criminal investigation in France
The French criminal justice system is investigating the alleged involvement of two former officials from the
investigating magistrate Philippe Courroye, a famous specialist in cases of corruption and other financial dealings. Both men had retired at the time of the alleged crimes and acted in their personal capacity, not as official envoys of the French government; however, Boidevaix claims that he kept the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed of his actions in Iraq. The Ministry claims to have warned both men formally in 2001 (during the administration of Lionel Jospin
).
Some other people, including Bernard Guillet, an aide to French senator Charles Pasqua, are also under formal investigation. Guillet and Pasqua deny any wrongdoing.
US Senate investigations
US SenatorNorm Coleman called for Kofi Annan to resign over the scandal and held a number of hearings on the matter. The most spectacular of these hearings occurred after the subcommittee released a report that accused (then) British Member of Parliament (MP) George Galloway, Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua of receiving oil allocations from Iraq in return for being political allies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Galloway, in an unusual appearance of a British MP before a US Senate subcommittee, responded angrily to the allegations against him in a confrontational public hearing which drew much media attention in both America and Britain.[65] Galloway denied the allegations.
It is estimated that as much as $10 billion to $21.3 billion went unaccounted for and/or was directed to Saddam Hussein and his government in the form of kickbacks and oil smuggling. Record keeping of illegal behaviour is hard to come by and rare at best. To date, only 1 of 54 internal UN audits of the Oil-for-Food Programme has been made public. The UN has refused all requests for its audits.[citation needed]
Warren Hoge alleged that the American government was aware of the scandal and chose to not prevent the smuggling because their allies Turkey and Jordan benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil. US Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) is quoted in an interview for the New York Times as saying, "There is no question that the bulk of the illicit oil revenues came from the open sale of Iraqi oil to Jordan and to Turkey, and that that was a way of going around the Oil-for-Food Programme [and that] we were fully aware of the bypass and looked the other way."[66]
Indictments
On 6 January 2006, South Korean businessman Tongsun Park was arrested by the FBI in Houston after he was indicted for illegally accepting millions of dollars from Iraq in the UN Oil-for-Food Programme. The criminal charges against him were unsealed in a U.S. District Court in Manhattan.[67]
After an investigation by the
Interpol for the arrest of Sevan at his home in Cyprus, as well as a warrant for Efraim "Fred" Nadler, a New York businessman who was indicted on charges of channelling the illegal payments to Sevan. Nadler's whereabouts are unknown.[70]
Daimler AG Kickbacks Case
Main article:
Daimler AG § Bribery and corruption
On 1 April 2010,
U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and will pay $185 million (US) as settlement, but remains subject to a two-year deferred prosecution agreement and oversight by an independent monitor. The German automaker of Mercedes-Benz vehicles was accused of violating the terms of the United Nations' Oil for Food Program with Iraq by including kickbacks 10 percent of the contract values to the Iraqi government. The SEC said the company earned more than $4 million from the sale of vehicles and spare parts.[71]
The SEC case was sparked in 2004 after David Bazzetta, a former
government officials
", though the company knew the practice violated U.S. laws.
The investigation for the case also revealed that Daimler made some $56 million in bribes related to more than 200 transactions in 22 countries that earned the company $1.9 billion in revenue and at least $91.4 million in illegal profits. "Using offshore bank accounts, third-party agents and deceptive pricing practices, these companies [Daimler AG and its subsidiaries] saw foreign bribery as a way of doing business", said Mythili Raman, a principal deputy in the Justice Department's criminal division.[73]
"It is no exaggeration to describe corruption and bribe-paying at Daimler as a standard business practice", Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC's enforcement division, said in a statement.[74]
Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court in Washington, approved the plea agreement and settlement, calling it a "just resolution."
Vremya novostei" interview with "Al-Mada" Editor Karim, an unspecified company connected to the Russian Orthodox Church received two donations of oil, one in the amount of 3 million barrels, the second of 10.2 million barrels. The dates of those purported transactions were not provided. (It is worth noting that this combined total does not jibe with the figure of 5 million barrels allegedly given to the Russian Orthodox Church that was published in "Al-Mada" on 25 January.) / Russian Orthodox Church delegations visited Baghdad often, and one such delegation delivered a message of support for the Hussein regime from the head of the church, Metropolitan Aleksii II
. The metropolitan, it should be noted, had issued a number of statements supporting Hussein over the years.
^Duelfer, vol. 1, ch. "Regime Strategic Intent", p. 1.
^Duelfer, vol. 1, ch. "Regime Finance and Procurement", p. 31.
^Otterman, Sharon (28 October 2005). "IRAQ: Oil for Food Scandal". Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on 3 December 2011. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
^Bravin, Jess; John D. McKinnon; Russell Gold (11 October 2004). "Iraq Oil-for-Food Probe Hits U.S. --- Exxon, Chevron and El Paso Are Named in CIA Report on Hussein-Era Program". The Wall Street Journal. New York.
Russia
France
China
Switzerland
Malaysia
Syria
Jordan
Egypt