BBC World News

US senator calls on Annan to quit


It is the first time a senior politician has called on the UN head to quit
A US senator has called on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to quit over alleged corruption in the oil-for-food programme in Iraq.

Norm Coleman alleges ex-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was allowed to profit from the UN-backed scheme and that Mr Annan is ultimately responsible.

The Republican senator is conducting a congressional probe of the allegations.

Correspondents say dissatisfaction with Mr Annan is rife among US Republicans, and is shared by the White House.

This is the first time a senior politician has called in plain terms for the secretary general to go.

Mr Coleman, who is chairman of the Senate investigations sub-committee and a member of the Senate foreign relations committee, claims Saddam Hussein personally made more than $20bn in illegal profit from the scheme.

"The decision to call for Mr Annan's resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the UN occurred on his watch," Mr Coleman said in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

He added Mr Annan was "at the helm of the UN for all but a few days of the OFF (oil-for-food) programme, and therefore, must be held accountable for the UN's utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses".

Senator Coleman says the UN cannot root out corruption while Mr Annan is in charge.

No confidence

The attack follows the disclosure earlier in the week that Kofi Annan's son had received money from a company under investigation in connection with allegedly corrupt oil-for-food payments.

The UN says there is no evidence of wrongdoing, but asked if the Bush administration still had confidence in the secretary general.

US ambassador to the UN John Danforth pointedly avoided saying yes, thus giving the green light for Senator Coleman to lead this effort to have Mr Annan sacked, says the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.

The UN's Iraq oil-for-food programme allowed Baghdad to sell oil in exchange for civilian food and supplies between 1996 and 2003 to ease the effects of the international sanctions.

Oh, the irony

If the Secretary General is even remotely aware of the situation he has gotten himself into he will resing.

I think this could be a good thread to discuss our current stance on the UN, its importance or irrelevance, and what should be done to either fix it or berid of it.

I think the UN can play a valuable role as a diplomatic outlet to increase communication between countries.

However, I'm worried that it is proceeding down the lines of a bloated world bureaucracy. If the oil-for-food accusations are true, then this will confirm my worries.

I agree. It has the potential of being a body which can promote discussion and diplomacy, but changes obviously need to be made. I would say that financing such a body is one place to look first. The US certainly bears most of the burdon and I think it would be in our best interest to see how and where that money is spent. I think you are onto something regarding the massive bureaucracy that it has become and its effectiveness and efficiency has been pretty much neutered as a result.

I agree, it is a good idea that needs restructuring and rethinking.

should Cheney resign as well? Cos when Halliburton was under his leadership they were also involved in the oil for food program...as well as breaking US law to do business with our enemies like Iraq, Iran, Libya....

my thoughts on the UN ...

I'm all for working with other nations, or a collection of nations. but recent events at the UN cause me to seriously question its credibility and even its allegiances ...

the oil-for-food scandal is one of the biggest scandals in the history of the world. why the US press barely reports on it is beyond me. yet if someone from Enron takes a shit, it's all over the front page (well, not literally).

not to mention the U.N. is pretty ineffectual, awash in red tape, and bordering on anti-Semetic.

I think it's a fine organization to bounce ideas off of and *try* to elicit support from. But I wouldn't trust important policy decisions to these corrupt chuckleheads.

we've got our own corrupt chuckleheads for that

Well, you've got a point. It is a good idea and it never hurts to get nations together to discuss things. But the status quo of muddy bureacracy and corruption needs to be changed. It is slipping into irrelevance.

It is a bloated world bureaucracy by definition, Nick. No revelations from the Oil-for-food program are necessary to either confirm or deny this. You bring 191 states together to discuss things, you end up with a bureaucracy. Pure and simple.

All this "hey let's start talking about changing the UN"-- not unlike this thread-- is usually marred by complete misunderstandings of how the UN works. I'm not accusing you of this per se. Your understanding is better than most, and where you don't understand, you don't make wild assumptions... but it does apply to a disproportionate number of people on this forum.

I'm willing to bet a lot of these people don't know the difference between the General Assembly and the Security Council. The nature of the resolutions passed by either body, or their mandates. Or the difference between those two bodies and the Secretariat. What powers the Secretariat's office holds. How they are different from the GA and SC. I'm willing to bet these people who think they can have intelligent discourse on reforming the UN don't understand the difference between the ICC and the ICJ. Which one is a UN body, which one isn't. What their respective jurisdictions are. What their mandates are.

Etc.

Anyone who wishes to talk about the UN seriously and can't answer these basic questions is beneath my time and energy.

"Let's talk about the need for the UN..."

pffft

has andrew fastow gone to jail yet?

maybe the press doesn't report it because it might bring up halliburton being involved. The same way ppl like to talk about france, germany and russia doing business with saddam but don't like to talk about halliburton doing business with iraq, iran and libya among other hostile nations.

The national SUpressAGE is just there to keep us stupid, ignorant, docile and apathetic.

<cough>According to an oil industry trade publication, "Under the United Nations oil-for-food program, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and Valero, an independent refining company, were among the biggest American buyers of Iraqi oil through international traders." <cough>

Thanks, Sen. Coleman. Now you and the Republifucks are finally saying what progressives have been saying for years... that the oil-for-food program only made Saddam richer while causing his people to starve. Great, thanks for waiting until after we invaded the country to point this out, fucker!

Hey, yeah, the UN is corrupt! Of course it is... most governments are corrupt... and the UN is a collection of governments! Shock! Horror!

So much nicer for us Americans to pry into the corruption of foreign institutions. Kofi Annan getting favors for his son? As if George W. Bush, Michael Powell and Al Gore (who's dad, Al Gore the 1st was also a Senator from Tenn) never got specials favors... and it was only $30,000 a year for Kofi's son... that's a pretty damn weak scandal. The Saddam Hussein thing is much worse, but why did it take this long to become news?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the specific functions of the UN. That's probably why I made such a general statement in the first place.

Guess who else made big $$$ from the Oil for Food Program?

http://www.truthout.com/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm

It has already established itself as such, this necessitates a complete restructuring of the UN to make it a viable diplomatic organ once more.

Also Kenny, seriously do you believe every liberally biased news story? And even if Halliburton had ties to this scandal I want to see some empirical evidence and solid facts regarding the vice presidents involvement. Hes fucked up enough that you can nail him on the issues and yet half of you give credence to this libel.

did you see my post on US involvement in the oil for food program??

Actually, there is wide support among the UN to remove Kofi period. And if I recall my recent news lately, they aren't going to remove because he did nothing about Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Sudan, the war in the Balkans, the oil for aid scandal, but because he lied about a sexual affair he had.

Stupid UN.

Oh, the money involving Kofi's son Kojo is not 30 grand a year, it's more like 4 billion.