Comments on: The inevitability of corruption (repost)

By: Crooked Timber » » AWB Overboard

Crooked Timber » » AWB Overboard — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:15:53 +0000

[...] I’ve always thought that the Oil-For-Food scandal and the parallel scandal (promoted mainly on the left of the blogosphere) about corruption in Iraq’s postwar reconstruction were overblown. Under the circumstances, corruption was inevitable in both cases. If you supported feeding Iraqi children or attempting to repair the damage caused by the war, you had to accept, as part of the overhead, the fact that those with power in Iraq would seek to skim money off the top, and that they would find willing accomplices in this task. Having said all that, corruption is a crime and those guilty of it should be punished. [...]

By: John Quiggin » Blog Archive » AWB Overboard

John Quiggin » Blog Archive » AWB Overboard — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:28:35 +0000

By: yabonn

yabonn — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:28:40 +0000

As it happens, one of the countries that has been mentioned on this thread (originally, it turns out, by none other than you, Yabonn) as a possible beneficiary of the corruption is France. Bold mine. There is corruption everywhere, everytime from eveybody in these types of deals. Focussing on the few french individuals in the lot and implying it explains something about france’s position about irak, as you do in your posts above, is simply raving wingnuttery. So please stop acting like the French version of the American superpatriot I saw the republican convention. There’s no french version of the american superpatriot. It’s not sophistication, it’s fear of ridicule. You have half a point, though, and i can imagine john quiggin moaning about another thread drowned into franco-flames. I think it’s your bit about policies on irak of “some nations” explained by corruption in u.n. as a mere aside, as a given, that did the trick.

By: No Preference

No Preference — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:12:54 +0000

dan simon, your characterization France’s behavior prior to the Iraq invasion as a “betrayal” of the US was silly and offensive. I don’t blame yabonn for objecting.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:50:47 +0000

BTW, a typical wingnut anti-French post (there aren’t any on this site) accuses France of both – benefiting from the oil-for-food and – trying to end the sanctions altogether. Isn’t it true that they led the effort in the UN to lift the sanctions? If it’s true, doesn’t it contradict the above theory describing Chirac’s motivations in opposing the Iraq war?

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:27:53 +0000

Yabonn: If you’d just calm down and understand that (as I’ve already made clear) my point is not to bash France, maybe we could return this discussion to (a) the original topic and (b) some semblance of coherence. To summarize: John Quiggin’s original claim was that both the “oil for food” program and the postwar reconstruction of Iraq were inevitably prone to corruption, and yet worth supporting regardless. My point was that the mechanisms for minimizing corruption in the latter—that is, those within the domestic American political system that are meant to prevent taxpayer funds from being squandered—were already in place, and empowered to do their job. The “oil for food” program was different, in that the money that was meant to be used to help the Iraqi people was being assigned by Saddam Hussein, under a UN bureaucracy loosely controlled by many countries, some of whom stood to benefit from Saddam Hussein’s diversion of the money away from those it was meant to help. Such an arrangement, I assert, virtually guarantees a high level of corruption, and it therefore clearly should never have been set up that way. As it happens, one of the countries that has been mentioned on this thread (originally, it turns out, by none other than you, Yabonn) as a possible beneficiary of the corruption is France. There’s reason to believe that France might indeed have benefited from this corruption, but saying so doesn’t turn my point into some kind of vile calumny against France. After all, every country in the world has done such things, and the vast majority (including France) have done much worse, at one time or another. All of this focus on whether France is culpable for this or that misdeed has distracted from my original point: that the “oil for food” program was completely devoid of serious, accountable oversight, and hence was doomed to be rife with corruption, in a way that the Iraqi reconstruction was not. If France, French corporations, or French individuals had not profited from it, then other countries, corporations and individuals would have—and, indeed, they most certainly did, in large numbers and on a large scale. So please stop acting like the French version of the American superpatriot so many people seem to have mistaken me for being, and turn your attention instead to the issue at hand: the fundamentally flawed structure of the “oil for food” program.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:51:15 +0000

Are you serious? France’s diplomatic relationship with the US was rocky long before Iraq—there wasn’t much damage to do, really. I’m sure you can add by yourself here the examples of recent francophobia of your choice, proving there is a diplomatic damage due to the irak war. France’s betrayal of the US with respect to Iraq Are you aware that sentences mixing so well candor, assertiveness, arrogance, and self-righteousness are, ah, um, er, categorizing for who utters them? Have you never heard, for example, of trade disputes? Really planning to go along the “irak didn’t damage the u.s.-france diplomatic relationships, are you? Non-obstructionism was the most anyone really hoped for—and even that was not forthcoming. Obstructionism my foot. Not one day in the u.s. planning of irak war was changed because of france. This is all about the u.s. becoming all red in the face because it didn’t have the icing on the cake of the u.n. rubberstamping the invasion. Then, because it just doesn’t match the facts. Chirac was originally undecided about irak Well, I heard a different account, but I suppose we’ll never really know. May i advise you to file your account along with the wmd claims? The real point is that Jacques Chirac is accountable to the French people, who were probably, on the whole, net beneficiaries of the “oil for food” corruption, rather than net victims of it. That says all that needs to be said, really, about the kind of accountability problems that caused “oil for food” corruption to run rampant. Or : “I need france to be corrupt. Opposition to war in france was popular. Ergo, each french people was corrupted by saddam.” Simply weird.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:21:14 +0000

I seem to remember something being mentioned about ELF benefiting to no little degree from the oil-for-food programme. How could it be that everybody benefited so much? The oil was sold at a market price or very close to it, the buyer (let’s say the ELF) paid 10% over that price to Saddam and on the top of that the buyer benefited to no little degree – to the extent that it, supposedly, lobbied the government to screw the Americans when it was pretty clear that the Americans will do it anyway and will then punish the detractors by refusing to share the loot with them. Anything is possible, of course, but I don’t think it adds up, really.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:15:48 +0000

abb1 – ELF is the main connection – The pending corruption charges against Chirac involve ELF and so thats where the paper trail starts. But of course the matter isnt going to be proved untill he leaves office and looses his immunity.

By: No Preference

No Preference — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:04:27 +0000

I really don’t think I’m an ultra-nationalist—at least I’ve never heard any of my fellow Canadians accuse me of being one. An ultra-nationalist Canadian. There’s a thought to stop your mind.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:03:21 +0000

I seem to remember something being mentioned about ELF benefiting to no little degree from the oil-for-food programme. That doesn’t mean it’s true, but if it were, then given that ELF is a fairly large French company, there would be a pretty significant “French entity” which recieved benefits. Frankly, though, whether the French government opposed the war for the most self-serving reasons possible is irrelevant to me (or indeed anyone other than the French government): I have my reasons, which could only be self-serving in the very limited sense of providing schaudenfraude when it all goes predictably belly-up.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:49:07 +0000

Moreover, it appears that the Iraqi government in fact had not had any WMD or WMD programs after 1991, which means (unless you want to bring up the ‘WMD-program-related-activities’ and intentions) that the sanctions were illegitimate. So, what’s this whole fuss about, anyway?

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:41:06 +0000

…the amount of money allegedly siphoned out of the Oil-for-Food scheme by France… I thought those billions were allegedly siphoned by the Iraqi government, which maybe regrettable because it was a violation of the sanctions, but not particularly outrageous because the Iraqi government was still penalized by getting only ~~what? – 5~~10% of what would be 100% theirs without the sanctions. I also understand that some individuals in France, Russia and other countries recieved some kick-backs (allegedly) in the process; probably a lot of money for an individual but hardly something noticeable on a scale of a national economy. Is there any evidence or allegation that France as a whole or the French business community or, for that matter, any French entity that might’ve affected the foreign policy there received any significant benefits? Thanks.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:18:32 +0000

“And in what sense did France BETRAY the US?” Specifically De Villpain betrayed Powell – he said France wouldnt oppose a resoultion but then he did. Of course it may just have been a misunderstanding. But I expect that half the reason Powell left was in order to be able to write his memoirs and set the record straight.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:24:02 +0000

Shorter Dan Simon: Since even I have realised that I was being indefensibly foolish when I said’any corruption in the Iraq reconstruction effort is purely a domestic American issue’, I shall retreat behind a smokescreen of self-pitying and pompous phrases.