I realized the "oil-for-food scandal" was going into hyperdrive while watching CNN today, when Wolf Blitzer wondered - to no one in particular - whether the most recent developments could spell the end of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's career.
The allegations of corruption and cronyism within the humanitarian oil-for-food program have dogged the United Nations this year. Considering how little Americans care about the United Nations, this "scandal" sure has legs! In fact, the recent revelation, that Annan's son Kojo received payments from an oil-for-food contractor as late as February of this year, provides more evidence that Karl Rove is playing the international media like a pan flute.
Having consolidated power at home, the Bush administration's political hit squad is now going after International targets. Kofi Annan is not his son, and the allegations of corruption have precious little to do with him. As a report by The Nation notes, corruption in oil-for-food occurred in direct violation of the secretariat's policies. In fact, every oil-for-food contract went before the U.N. Security Council before approval.
The United States, and indeed the entire Security Council, is to blame for this scandal. For example, $4.5 billion in kickbacks flowed to Saddam's coffers between 1996 and 2003 through trade with Jordan. The United States, far from attempting to stop the illegal money flow, continuously supported a 1991 Security Council resolution not to interfere with Iraqi-Jordanian trade. The cash-money funneled to Hussein wasn't intercepted because no Security Council member deigned to upset the tenuous web of political allies who were feeding fat on Iraqi oil. This goes for the United States and Great Britain as much as France. Given the structure of the United Nations, the buck stops at the Security Council, the only body which could have interdicted Iraqi oil, blockaded trade, and regulated oil-for-food contracts. Mr. Annan's responsibility was to monitor all oil-for-food contracts and and submit them to the Security Council. He did so, and they did nothing.
And while both Bushes and President Clinton should share the blame for the diplomatic blundering of the 1990s, Dubya is by far the weakest link. His own vice president was the CEO of one of the largest companies rebuilding the oil infrastructure that made oil-for-food possible. In fact, Cheney made a habit of blasting a "sanction-happy" United States to his petro-buddies in the 1990s.
Ironically, most of the damning new info on oil-for-food comes from the Deulfer report, which authoritatively negated claims of Iraqi WMD. So which is the bigger story - Kofi Annan's constitutional inability to make the Security Council enforce its own regulations, or the fact that Iraq was invaded based on a lie of global proportions? I bet I know what Karl thinks the headline is. Of course, the fact that the inspections regime for which Annan was responsible turned out to be successful can't possibly be news. Anyone who accuses the Bush administration of violating international law must be too corrupt to be credible.
Step back, and you'll see a pattern. A prominent political figure or institution is set on the defensive by a well-orchestrated, seemingly endless and ultimately baseless campaign to destroy his credibility and distract from the accusations he is leveling at the Bush administration. Kofi Annan, meet John Kerry.
