Members of the United Nations Security Council have agreed to hand over documents requested by the investigator of the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, Paul Volcker.
The documents date from 1992 and are believed to be notes made at private meetings of the panel that was responsible for the scheme.
The former head of the UN's oil-for-food program, Benon Sevon, who is alleged to have received oil allocations, last year accused the Security Council of preventing him from administering the program effectively.
Mr Volcker asked for all the documents, but the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who supported the request, had to secure the approval of all the member states.
It is unclear if the investigation is seeking the documents in order to investigate others, or the deliberations of the committee itself.
In any case, the documents may reveal the politics behind the program: which countries advocated for their nationals to win contracts.
At issue is what members of the Security Council knew about the corruption of the scheme, which was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil to buy humanitarian goods.
Saddam Hussein subverted the program by allocating oil contracts to those he wanted to influence or reward.
It has long been rumoured that members of the Security Council ignored the complaints about kickbacks and pay-offs as their countries' companies profited from the scheme.
The investigating committee already has some documents relating to the scheme. It has obtained, through US congressional committees, some of the United States' records of meetings, as well as records held by individual UN officials.
They are reported to show council members were aware of numerous irregularities in oil contracts, but often could not agree on a course of action.
The inquiry will now examine one of the central dilemmas of the administration of the UN - how to balance national concerns with merit appointments and the awarding of contracts.
An earlier Volcker report detailed how Lloyd's was awarded a contract to inspect goods going into Iraq because it was felt that a French firm could not be appointed because two French firms had already won contracts.
Read the article here *click* (looks like you have to sign in so the artical is all here at this blog)
No comments:
Post a Comment