The inevitability of corruption (repost)

I’m not sure neither are legitimate points because, even if some corruption is inevitable, the degree of corruption is not. To take the reconstruction projects, there are presumably different ways of designing the bidding process so as to make the outcome more or less corrupt. The degree to which the process allows corruptin presumably then stands as some kind of indicator of the concern for the wellbeing of the Iraqi people, on the assumption that corruption harms them. If the design of the process shows little or no concern for reducing corruption, then it is therefore showing little or no concern (in this respect) for the Iraqi people. That surely reflects badly on the war and its desirability. I’m sure that similar points can be made about the construction of the sanctions regime.

So you are saying that the excessive amounts of corruption in the UNSCAM did not effect the goals of the sanctions and could not have been avoided by the UN?

Because I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that 1-2 billion a year would have fed a lot of starving children. And if UNSCAM wouldn’t have happened, Saddam would have been forced to take payment in foodstuffs, medicine and the like. Thus feeding a lot of starving children.

Maybe low level barely accountable UN flunkies are inevitability corrupt, but the people at the top indicate a much larger and abnormal problem.

And given that most of the corruption happened in the last 6 years, it is empirical evidence that sanctions were slipping. Thus the argument that UNSCAM was part of the reason to resume conflict with Iraq.

“Saddam had the oil and there was no way of forcing him to sell it while stopping him taking a cut.”

What do we care if he sold it? Let him make palaces out of full oil barrels. Think of his PR nightmare with him claiming children are dieing in his streets while he has more oil than he can store.

Yeah, try again.

John,

I agree with you that corruption is in certain circumstances, a given, and a bad argument regarding the irak war. I am still puzzled about the specific point of (ii understand correctly) the us/uk tightening of the sanctions _because_ of the corruption.

I can imagine for that a general desire to hurt a nation perceived as hostile, some hope something happens and saddam is ousted (i maybe fuzzily called that a political tool higher), and no incentive into relieving the pressure, as saddam avoided when he could to trade with us/uk, yes. But against corruption?

_That was why the US and UK initially tried to keep sanctions much tighter, with the result that thousands of Iraqi children died of starvation or inadequate medical treatment._

Died in what years? As I observed in the _Lancet_ thread, there is a reasonable interpretation of the published data that gives an Iraqi infant mortality rate of about 65 per thousand live births in 1990, falling slowly but steadily to about 55 today, with no detectable contribution from war, sanctions, or war again. (Iraq remains a literate country with a large cadre of Western-educated healthcare workers; the experience of postwar Germany and of Yugoslavia suggests that past infant mortality gains are “sticky” even in the face of appalling privation. People will dig deep into hidden reserves when baby is running a 41 fever and there was once a working hospital.)

Against this null hypothesis, we have outlier data from UNICEF, suggesting a much higher death rate in the late 1990s under sanctions, and outlier data from the _Lancet_, suggesting a much lower death rate in the early 2000s under sanctions. Both of these are epidemiologically interesting. Widespread attempts to believe first one, and then the other, as the political winds shift are sociologically interesting.

What will be even more interesting is if _both_ outliers become conversational tropes _simultaneously_. That is, if it becomes possible to continue alluding vaguely to (excess) Iraqi infant mortality under the sanctions regime _while_ expressing concern about the _Lancet_ numbers for 2004 infant mortality, which show a rise back to the historical baseline from below.

The funny thing with the ‘UNSCAM’ thing that it features the same actors and motives of the ‘WMD in Iraq’ story.

Try reading this by the notorious Judith Miller in the NYT,

Senator Coleman said the huge scale of fraud and theft while United Nations penalties were in effect had created a “dark stain” over the world organization that raised questions about whether it could put in place and monitor any sanctions.

But then to compensate that nonsense,

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, the panel’s ranking minority member, said three-quarters of Iraq’s illicit income came from trade protocols with Jordan and Turkey that the Clinton and Bush administrations had known about and “winked at” because support from those countries was vital.

I wouldn’t trust anything about the UN coming from the US senate and reported by Miller, but this shows that at least Senator Levin knows who is to blame for the 3/4 of the illicit income.

But then if the US accepted 3/4 of the corruption, why all the fuss about the other 1/4?

I think it is politics combined with a grudge against the UN.

Duelfer’s ISG reporting both about the absence of WMD and about corruption in the UN oil for food program makes for a real credible story. Add Chalabi’s secret documents that are the only proof of Sevon’s involvement, a bit of Judith Miller reporting, a US senate’s ‘investigation’, and you’ve got yourself a real nice mess. And this mess has already made various parties weary of cooperating with the Volcker investigation, so even that one is now tainted.

$21 Billion for Saddam isn’t exactly ‘skimming’. There is inevitable low-level corruption, and then there is a program which makes huge amounts of money for a vicious tyrant, while perhaps providing some small amount of food for a small percentage of the people it was meant to help.

It would be far more efficient policy-wise to just buy the food and distribute it. If Saddam doesn’t let you distribute it, the onus is clearly on him as a leader. (Not that I personally understand how it ever wasn’t). Dismissing $21 billion out of $63 billion as ‘skimming’ seems to be very casual about corruption. One third of the total to Saddam? I don’t think that is justifiable. And that isn’t even counting the 25% the UN took in overhead expenses. That means that almost 60% of the money was spent on non-aid functions.

Worse, the program didn’t even significantly aid the people in question, nor did it relieve the political pressure of sanctions causing hardship to the Iraqi people.

no preference,

Then what was the UN’s “fee” for handling the account?

But getting back to the point of the post, why doesn’t UNSCAM pertain to the arguement for war? Negate the facts and we have the sanctions working well, with Saddam getting zero extra money, and children getting fed. That certainly hurts the case for war. So why isn’t the inverse true?

FYI, Jet, by 2003 the Iraqi children were getting fed. Food and basic medical supplies were the only imports that wasn’t hampered by sanctions. The maintenance and reconstruction of the infrastructure (including electricity, telecommunications, and oil) were crippled by holds put on imports by the US in the sanctions committee. So were agriculture and advanced medical equipment. The US had Iraq on a kind of welfare state existence, where people were allowed to eat but not work and rebuild the economy. That’s why the place was such a wreck when we arrived.

I don’t think your argument for war makes any sense at all.

The UN’s current annual budget is 2.4 Billion.

It recieved about 2 billion in fees from the Oil prgram – in other words iraq accounted for about 10-20% of the UN’s income over ther period. So was it significant – I think so.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/gaab3545.doc.htm

I’m happy to admit to supporting both policies, and to accepting corruption as one of the inevitable costs.

So much for the idealism of the left, I guess. Has it really come to that? Are today’s advocates of political intervention into economic and commercial life–in the interests of fairness and justice, no less–really simply content to accept massive corruption as an inevitable consequence?

The real difference between these two cases, it seems to me (other than the apparently non-overlapping set of people who believe the accusers in each), is that any corruption in the Iraq reconstruction effort is purely a domestic American issue. After all, the US government handed out US taxpayers’ money to US contractors, and whether they got a good deal or were ripped off seems to me to be a matter for Americans and their politicians to wrangle over. (If, indeed, they were ripped off, then I’d certainly hope that the American polity would hold the responsible government officials and commercial concerns accountable.)

The “oil for food” scandal, on the other hand, is an international matter, involving the UN, numerous financial institutions and businesses in numerous countries, and the heads of state of several nations whose policies with respect to the program may have been influenced by its corruption. To the extent that American politicians might make political hay of it, it would be by calling for changes in US foreign policy (towards the UN and the other countries involved in “oil for food”), not domestic policy (regarding, say, oversight of defense department contracting).

As it happens, the opposition party in the US seems to have failed–so far, at least–to exploit allegations of corruption in the awarding of reconstruction contracts to firms working in postwar Iraq. That may be because there were no serious improprieties to exploit, or because the public was unconcerned about them, or because the opposition party was ineffective at exploiting the issue. In any event, though, the public at least had an opportunity, through the democratic process, to address the problem to the extent that they considered it a priority.

In the case of “oil for food”, we don’t know yet whether any of the parties positioned to make political hay of the scandal will succeed. The scandal itself may turn out to be insufficiently egregious, or other foreign policy concerns may trump the desire to root out corruption in the UN or other international arrangements. But the parties involved will be international, not domestic, and the playing field will be diplomatic, not democratic. That alone should make us less confident in the ability of the “system” to come to an honest conclusion and take appropriate action.

I’m happy to admit to supporting both policies, and to accepting corruption as one of the inevitable costs.

I could understand a paleoconservative neo-realist making this statement sincerely, or a Randian libertarian making it sarcastically. But an idealistic leftist, on Crooked Timber? Is this what the left has come to?

In fact, there is a reason why John Quiggin need not worry about corruption in Iraqi reconstruction contracts–it’s a purely domestic American matter, with the US government handing out US taxpayers’ money to US corporations. If there was corruption involved, then opposition participants in the US political process are quite entitled–indeed, arguably morally obligated–to make a stink about it, and encourage the public to hold the government and corporations involved accountable. And if the misdeeds were severe enough, then we can confidently expect that such a political (and, if necessary, legal) accounting will occur.

The “oil for food” case is quite different. The UN is beholden only to its member nations, most of which aren’t even remotely respectful of human rights, let alone democratically accountable, let alone careful about avoiding corruption. If billions of dollars were siphoned out of the mouths of hungry Iraqis and into the bank accounts of financial institutions, corporations, politicians and diplomats around the world, then it’s not at all clear what process can be expected even to determine the facts, let alone to hold any of the malefactors accountable. (Both the Secretary-General and the US Senate have committees looking at the question in a purely ad hoc manner, but the investigators’ interests are far from clear, as none of them is responsible to any of the parties who would have been most seriously wronged by such corruption.)

Thus the “oil for food” program’s alleged corruption highlights fundamental weaknesses in the accountability structure of the UN, in a way that any complaints about the management of the Iraqi reconstruction contracts do not.

dan Hardie:

Shangri-La may be here soon. I think they still had to climb trees to get the coconuts and fruit, though.

And litter boxes will probably still have to be cleaned out. And dogs walked while you are taking a “doggie bag” with.

But I agree with you totally, it sometimes takes as much effort and time to account for money as the effort and time it took to actually do the work. Way to go British! I didn’t know they were doing that super effective under the table type stuff.

Dan Hardie, I’m not sure we’re that far apart.

To me, the scandal is not that contractors cheat, or that Saddam is corrupt. In my view, the scandal is that US procuring authorities cheat and that the UN is corrupt, and I see greater accountability on that side as a means of constraining that side of the equation.

Throwing more contracts to Iraqi contractors seems to me to be a net positive. It could result in more skimming due to murkier accounting, but it would seem to present fewer opportunities for quid pro quo corruption on the part of the procuring authorities, since Iraqi contractors would not be able to offer the same political benefits (or threaten the same political reprisals) that a connected company like Halliburton might be able to do.

Wait a second—you’re saying it’s “loony” to hypothesize that the multi-billion-dollar financial interests of domestic corporations might occasionally influence the French, Russian or Chinese (or for that matter, any other) government

But i don’t need to say that. I just nees to say thinking that the decisions to engage the military or damage its diplomatic relationship with the u.s., derives from saddam-evil-oil-money is simply loony.

Limiting myself to france, that i know a bit :

If corruption from third world countries representing 0.0something of the foreign trade could influence the country’s decisions to go to war or not, is suppose right now we’d be fighting the sahraouis or the tamil tigers.

Then, there’s occam, and the fact that in a democracy, it is usually unwise to to against a huge majority of the electors.

Then, because it just doesn’t match the facts. Chirac was originally undecided about irak, and began to plan going along (very little articles mentioned it, as it doesn’t fit well with the history in making). Only after seeing the u.s. insistence to go without waiting for the inspectors, and seeing its domestic opinion on it did he oppose it.

Then because the very making of the story. Its one third half baked chalabi proofs (oxymoron, i know), one third duelfer concluding that he can’t prove any french government role into this mess, but hint, wink, nudge, and one third the usual stupids at lgf, murdoch or moon that are shocked, shocked, to discover there is corruption out there. This alone should earn it a place of choice, along with the french bomb parts, passports, intelligence, missiles, also “found” in irak.

What i find not loony, on the contrary is to think that, as a democracy in a war of choice, the u.s. need to build a narrative of irak the righteous’ war. For that, it is a matter of survival that an uncorrupted (or more realistically “not more corrupt that usual”) opposition to this war must not exist.

“France didn’t go to irak because french people – as the rest of the world – thought it was a stupid idea”, if glarignly obvious, is an explanation which is, in these conditions, absolutely unpalatable.

Tom T, again, we are certainly far apart on one point: your first post praised the existence of an ‘audit trail’, whereas mine explicitly criticised the need for an ‘audit trail’ in postwar conditions, since as far as I can see the one sure effect of requiring such documentation is to elbow domestic contractors aside, if they come from an underdeveloped nation, in favour of US or other developed world contractors. Basically a requirement for an ‘audit trail’ is a Non Tarriff Barrier in reverse: uses bureaucratic means to limit competition to foreign companies only.

While lesser minds worry about the reconstruction of Iraq, Dan Simon sees that the real issue is making feeble points against something called ‘The Left’: ‘I could understand a paleoconservative neo-realist making this statement sincerely, or a Randian libertarian making it sarcastically. But an idealistic leftist, on Crooked Timber? Is this what the left has come to?’

Dan, if you think that it is only leftists who are saying that turning a blind eye to possible corruption is a price worth paying for a bit of postwar reconstruction, let me know when you’re next in England and I’ll introduce you to friends of mine who were in Iraq with the military or (in one case) the Foreign Office, and who were party to deals in which money was doled out to local Iraqis to get things started again, without too much (or any) notice paid to auditing. It’s not what ‘the Left has come to’; it’s what the FCO and the Royal Engineers, among other lefty organisations call ‘getting the job done’. Call the average RE Staff Sergeant a morally twisted leftwinger or ‘a paleoconservative neo-realist’and you may not enjoy his response. (Also, try not to thank him for having been ‘flypaper’, and avoid the phrase ‘bring it on’.)

Dan then descends beyond the reach of ridicule with this cretinous and objectionable nonsense:
‘any corruption in the Iraq reconstruction effort is purely a domestic American issue.’
No, it is not ‘purely a domestic American issue’- not unless the twenty-five million inhabitants of Iraq are either a) American citizens or b)magically unaffected by the effects, intended and otherwise, of the occupation and the reconstruction effort.

When I mentioned a “paper trail” (not an audit trail), I simply meant that there is now hard evidence that the UN or the US military procurement authorities are capable of corruption.

Tom, what’s the “hard evidence” that UN officials were involved in corruption? The last I heard the only “evidence” for that came from Ahmed Chalabi, who was refusing to show it to the Volcker commission. Do you have a link?

“you are an ultra-nationalist and a fool, if that isn’t a tautology”, oh yeah, that’s scoring you points with the readers. After going through these posts of reasonable arguements, ol Hardie’s is the only one that looks foolish.

While your use of the word “foolish” was a sad ad hominem, your use of “ultra-nationalist” was slanderous and based on nothing in this thread. Saying that other countries or the UN can be tempted by large unaccountable sums of money is just fucking being in tune with reality, not being “…opposed to international cooperation”.

Simon, you’re also a bit dense or so narrow minded you can’t budge and inch to see a different point of view.

I guess I got you all fired up :P

“I disagreed with him because he said ‘any corruption in the Iraq reconstruction effort is purely a domestic American issue.’-” That’s the part I called you narrow minded about. Because in a functional sense, there is only a net gain for the Iraqis reguardless of corruption (unless it reached UN proportions).

So because someone takes the view that corruption or no corruption in Iraq is really a US issue, or least that is one point of view, that hardly is ultra-nationalistic.

And you really hurt my feelings with all those mean things you said about my reading abilities. And maybe you should reread your own posts and point out exactly which part of Dan’s post you were referring to when you called it “ultra-nationalists”. Upon your rereading, you might find it a bit…vague.

But anyone who uses “foolish” and “ultra-nationalist” is hardly attempting to change anyone’s mind ;) Good luck with all that and maybe you and your buddies can have a little chuckle. I live but to serve.

“Dan, if you think that it is only leftists who are saying that turning a blind eye to possible corruption is a price worth paying for a bit of postwar reconstruction, let me know when you’re next in England and I’ll introduce you to friends of mine who were in Iraq with the military or (in one case) the Foreign Office, and who were party to deals in which money was doled out to local Iraqis to get things started again, without too much (or any) notice paid to auditing.”

What was ‘getting the job done’ in food-for-oil?

Sebastian asks me: ‘What was ‘getting the job done’ in food-for-oil?’

I didn’t say anything was, and if you read my posts you won’t see a single mention of food-for-oil, which are all solely concerned with reconstruction spending. Next, please. Oh, God, Dan Simon -another Canadian with superpower envy.

Dan, the most dishonestly chauvinistic pro-USA writer I can think of is Mark Steyn, a Canadian subject. And David Frum is pretty close. I suppose you’ve read George Orwell’s writing on ‘transferred nationalists’. If not, do so, because you are one.

And since you are seriously defending the proposition that the effects of the expenditure of billions of dollars of US money in Iraq- even considered apart from the presence of tens of thousands of US troops, if that were possible- is ‘purely an American domestic concern’, you are a fool. There are twenty-five million Iraqis who may also be said to be legitimately ‘concerned’ by this expenditure, which- given its impact on such matters as food supply, health care and the defeat of the insurgency- is quite literally a matter of life and death for at least some Iraqis. And to you it’s ‘purely an American domestic concern’- you offer no qualification, you do not say it’s ‘an Iraqi and an American concern’.

You said this, so accept that it was a fool’s remark, and spare me this ‘we are all equally foolish’ stuff. (What happened to conservatives and personal responsibility?) If you catch me out saying something as cretinous about Iraq, let me know. Until then, the dunce’s cap fits you, so you can wear it.

Dan,
As you probably understand, I am devastated by your words. I shall always remember the kind an gentle soul who set me straight. Please accept my sincere gratitude for the abundant amount of entertainment you have provided.

Button-Pusher

Do you seriously think that the amount of money allegedly siphoned out of the Oil-for-Food scheme by France was enough to make them oppose the Iraq war?

Of course it was. Foreign policy positions, in general, are bought pretty cheap. I doubt you’d hesitate for a second in attributing this or that American position to the odd billion-dollar financial interest by a major contributor to the party in the White House. Are you suggesting France is somehow above all that?

Of course, whether French companies’ financial interest in “oil for food” actually was the deciding factor determining France’s position on the Iraq war is a different question. To be honest, I have no idea.

And in what sense did France BETRAY the US?

Only in the mildest sense of the kind of screwing-over that countries–including mutually quite friendly ones–administer to each other all the time, when there’s a buck to be made, a point to be scored, or a domestic constituency to be placated. (EU countries pull this kind of thing all the time on each other, for instance.) Don’t worry–I’m not working myself into a big, morally self-righteous lather over it. My main point is not to lambaste France, but rather to call attention to the inherent lack of accountability that made the massive corruption of the “oil for food” program possible.

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.

…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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

_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.