Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

International-UN-NGOs

No testimony on Iraq oil probe: UN

2005-02-17

UNITED Nations officials would not be allowed to testify before US Congress hearings on the oil-for-food program in Iraq, the UN said in a letter released today.

"Nope. Nope. Can't do it."

The letter from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, said officials could brief privately but that diplomatic immunity kept them off-limits for public hearings. "As a matter of policy, the (UN) organisation does not waive such immunity in relation to testimony under oath before national legislative bodies," he said in a letter to Republican Senator Norm Coleman.

Mr Malloch Brown said UN officials would otherwise have to make themselves available to the legislatures of the UN's more than 190 member nations. Coleman is heading a US Senate panel looking into the scandal-plagued oil-for-food program and had wanted Dileep Nair, the head of the UN's internal watchdog, to testify. The letter, dated Monday, said Mr Nair could not testify at a hearing yesterday that saw complaints from senators about access to UN officials.

Posted by:tipper

#16 "According to Jed Babbin, in his book "Inside the Asylum" "accountability is unknown at the U.N. and he referred to the U.N. as the "U.N. crime family." He said "the biggest difference between the Mafia and the U.N. is that the Mafia holds its employees accountable for their performance." Babbin believes the U.N. rogues have gone beyond their entitlement immunities and that, under international law, those immunities could be stripped away. An alternative would be for the U.S. to change its laws to take away those immunities. Babbin also said the secretive Annan refuses to release the results of 55 audits of the Oil-for-Food money, is not cooperating in any of the investigations, and refuses to allow U.N. employees to be interviewed or questioned."

The above was posted on pelicanpost.blogspot on Feb. 2, 2005 "United Nations Whitewash:...."
The "news" that Kofi Annan would now not allow U.N. personnel to testify on the record under oath is not news. We've known that since before the impotent Paul Volcker Commission got off and creeping. The U.S. Dept of Justice should now rev up their criminal investigations; Congress should revoke diplomatic immunity; and Turtle Bay (U.N.) should go the way of the League of Nations---into oblivion. -Jacqueline

Posted by: Jacqueline 2005-02-17 9:56:30 PM

#15 First, lets have a banquet at the UN Building and fete all the wonderful folks there for their contributions to The Oil for Food Program. That should get most in not all in the building. Next, lock and guard the doors to prevent escape. Lastly, invite any all Iraqi poeple to stop by, hand each there own silver monogrammed UN commorative fillet knife and let them each have their choice of 1 lb of flesh. Gotta give everyone a chance. I feel justice would be served.

Posted by: BrerRabbit 2005-02-17 1:35:37 PM

#14 Just because they are U.N. officials and have diplomatic immunity doesn't mean we have to allow them all over the place. I'd restrict them to Manhattan and a corridor to the airport -- and jail anyone who is out of bounds.

Posted by: Tom 2005-02-17 12:49:04 PM

#13 The US contributes 22% of the UN general budget. The US often contributes more to specific activities, such as 33% to US peacekeeping (no including things we don't bill for such as logistics and US personnel). I remember reading that the US provided 40% of the funding to Jan (US is stingy) Eglund's Humanitarian Affairs group.

Instead I think the US sould reduce it's contribution to no more than 5% of any UN funding and opt out of any organization that is corrupt, misusing funds, or at cross purposes with US goals.

Posted by: ed 2005-02-17 12:30:27 PM

#12 I told you once...

entangling alliances with none.

Posted by: T. Jefferson 2005-02-17 11:20:52 AM

#11 Steve in #5-I like what you said about the UN being a big, big ship that we could move in a better direction. I immediately got a picture in my head of the Monty Python Crimson Assurance skit--a combination skyscraper/Winnebago lumbering through lower Manhattan, eventually to fall off a cliff.

Posted by: Jules 187 2005-02-17 9:46:06 AM

#10 Have the hearings in Monte Carlo or someplace like that. Throw in free airfare and tell them they can expense their food, booze, and barely legal hooker bills. They'll be lined up out the door to testify.

Posted by: tu3031 2005-02-17 9:40:56 AM

#9 SPoD-

What we need is some therapy. Just like they do for cancer, in fact. Radiation therapy. We do need to test those burrowing nukes, right? Let's dig all those 3rd world hellhole diplomats a hole in a desert somewhere and test the burrowing warhead.

Posted by: Jame Retief 2005-02-17 7:28:30 AM

#8 Actually, PBMcL, the official percentage of the UN budget contributed by the United States is 22%. Admittedly not as important as if it were 40%, but by far greater than anyone else, and wouldn't we freaking get better results out of them if it were?

Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-02-17 7:11:29 AM

#7 If they won't testify, make them persona non grata and revoke their visas, just like we do to Russian spies and other riffraff. If enough of them get themselves kicked out of the country, either the U.N. will have to restaff itself with people less to our disliking, or the whole thing will huffily move itself to somewhere more welcoming. Either way, we win.

Posted by: trailing wife 2005-02-17 6:44:52 AM

#6 I haven't changed my opinion. The US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. We are not going to heal this. The cancer at the UN can't be cured.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-17 3:54:00 AM

#5 We don't need to be blatant about punishing the U.N. Kofi is ruining his reputation far better than Karl Rove could ever mastermind (hmmm, wait a minute ...). More and more mainstream, moderate, middle-of-the-road Americans are coming to see that those UNICEF dimes they gave over the years are ending up in the hands of some rather odious people. There's a tipping point, and it's on the horizon.

We don't need to escort the UN out of New York or cut off our contributions to the General Assembly. We can deliver the message and at the same time keep the yammering yaps at the MSM from, well, yammering. Sorry Kofi, we'd generally put our tsunami relief money in your hands, but this time we're working with the Aussies. Sorry, Kofi, but if there's going to be a new multi-national force put into Insanistan, but it has to be American-led and be guided by a mission statement that we just happen to have right here.

And so on. The UN is a big, big, ship so it won't turn on a UNICEF dime, but we could start moving it in a better direction. Keeping a marginally-useful UN around might be handy.

Then again, oh hell, fuck 'em.

Posted by: Steve White 2005-02-17 2:06:41 AM

#4 Zero surprise. As it became apparent that the evidence was there to indict UN officials, you knew the UN's High Priest Vulture Elite would scramble to cover their corrupt asses.

Posted by: .com 2005-02-17 1:56:17 AM

#3 So far the MSM has ignored the fact the UN is exempt from US laws and has no laws of its own (unlike regular foreign embassies where the laws of the forieg country apply). The UN is literally the most lawless place in the world.

Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-17 1:50:41 AM

#2 Didnt Kofi (the lying SOB) say that immunity would be waved for anyone under investigation?

I say we stop giving them *ANY* money until they come clean. And if they dont is 6 months kick the bums out.

Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-02-17 1:27:00 AM

#1 Might not be a good idea to tick off the guys who can cut off 30 or 40 percent of your budget, Koaf...

Posted by: PBMcL 2005-02-17 12:35:59 AM

00:00