The Facts Behind the Volcker Commission’s Interim Report

By Joy Gordon

No 5. February 2005
UNA-USA Policy Brief

Introduction

The media and the critics of the United Nations have made much of the interim report of the Independent Inquiry Committee’s (the “Volcker Commission”) finding that the UN’s Oil-for-Food Programme was “tainted,” going as far as to conclude that the program as a whole—and perhaps the UN itself—is corrupt. In fact, the Commission’s findings are much more limited than that. The interim report does not have much to say about the “big ticket” accusations: that Saddam Hussein was able to get $10 billion (or $21 billion, depending on whose numbers you look at) through illicit means. It does say one thing very clearly about the multi-billion dollar accusations: that they largely have nothing to do with the UN or the Oil-for-Food Programme at all.

How Washington Plans To Dominate The New Iraqi National Assembly
By Milan Rai

The elections in Iraq have been an unprecedented opportunity for ordinary people to influence the destiny of their country, but the National Assembly they have elected is so hedged in with US-imposed restrictions that the cabinet it produces will be more like a chain-gang of prisoners than an independent government.

A prominent Iraqi politician in the Shia coalition told the New Yorker in January that the US had quietly told the parties before the election that there were three conditions for the new government: it should not be under the influence of Iran; it should not ask for the withdrawal of US troops; and it should not install an Islamic state.

Speech to the Labour Against The War conference by Milan Rai, University of London Union, Malet Street, London
5 February 2005
[edited version]

Commenting on the handling of terrorist suspects, the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on Wednesday 2 February, ‘the one thing I will not do as Prime Minister is engage in anything that I think puts the security of our country at risk. That is paramount for me.’ (Hansard)

Why, then, did he ignore the advice of British intelligence, which warned him in February 2003 that the invasion of Iraq would ‘heighten’ not lessen the risk of terrorism against Britain?

The Intelligence and Security Committee report into Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, published in September 2003, found that the Joint Intelligence Committee gave this warning to Tony Blair on 10 February 2003:

‘The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to Western interests and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.’ (emphasis added)

At no point yesterday did anyone mention occupation. Like sex, “occupation” had to be censored out of the historical narrative.

Watching occupation on television (photo: Donna Mulhearn)

by Robert Fisk
original at Selves and Others

So, the Palestinians will end their occupation of Israel. No more will Palestinian tanks smash their way into Haifa and Tel Aviv. No more will Palestinian F-18s bomb Israeli population centres. No more will Palestinian Apache helicopters carry out “targeted killings” - ie: murders - of Israeli military leaders.

The Palestinians have promised to end all “acts of violence” against Israelis while Israel has promised to end all “military activity” against Palestinians. So that’s it, then. Peace in our time.

by Phyllis Bennis

Institute for Policy Studies

• The millions of Iraqis who came out for the elections were voting their hopes for an end to violence and occupation, and a better life; their hopes are not likely to be met.
• George Bush will be the major victor in this election, using it to claim legitimacy for his occupation of Iraq . This election does not mean that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is legitimate - democracy cannot be imposed at the point of a gun.
• The election, held under military occupation and not meeting international criteria, including those of the Carter Center , remains illegitimate; legitimacy is not determined by the number of people voting.
• Even the expected victory of Shi’a-led political parties is not likely to result in the new assembly calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
• U.S. domination of Iraq ’s economic, political and social life will continue through the military occupation and the continuing control of money, the legal system, and political patronage.
• The U.S. has a long history of using elections held under conditions of war and occupation to legitimize its illegal wars - the January 2005 elections in Iraq mirror the 1967 election held in South Viet Nam , also held to give credibility to Washington’s puppet government.

The individual Iraqis who came out to vote clearly were very brave and eager to reclaim control of their country. They were voting for their hopes, for secure streets so children can go to school, for electricity and clean water, for jobs, and mostly for an end to the U.S. occupation. The elections, however, are unlikely to achieve any of those goals; the violence is likely to continue, perhaps even increase. The U.S. occupation is STILL the problem, not the solution, in Iraq , and only bringing the U.S. troops home, not imposing elections under continuing occupation, will lead to an end of violence.