Saddam and the French Connection

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
This was brought up in another thread, so I thought I would create a new thread rather than muck up the old one.

October 07, 2004

UNSCAM UPDATE: Is this a surprise?

SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.

Memos from Iraqi intelligence officials, recovered by American and British inspectors, show the dictator was told as early as May 2002 that France - having been granted oil contracts - would veto any American plans for war. . . .

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one.

To keep America at bay, he focusing on Russia, France and China - three of the five UN Security Council members with the power to veto war. Politicians, journalists and diplomats were all given lavish gifts and oil-for-food vouchers.

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that the “primary motive for French co-operation” was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights.

Iraqi intelligence officials then “targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac,” it said, including two of his “counsellors” and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

I’m shocked, shocked. But wait, there’s more:

Focusing his attention in particular on France and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, Saddam awarded oil exploration contracts and financial inducements to individuals.

The bribes were at first funded by the Iraqi government, but later derived from Saddam’s illegal misuse of the oil-for-food programme, which was supposed to provide food for the poor and medicine for the sick.

Some US estimates have suggested that the Iraqis siphoned off $10 billion (£5.6 billion) from the scheme.

“He [Saddam] targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq, or held pro-Iraq policies,” said the report.
 
Iraq’s Relationship With France

*****Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD
*****The former Iraqi Regime sought a relationship with France to gain support in the UNSC for lifting the sanctions. **Saddam’s Regime, in order to induce France to aid in getting sanctions lifted, targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq or held pro-Iraqi positions. In addition, Iraq sought out individuals whom they believed were in a position to influence French policy. Saddam authorized lucrative oil contracts be granted to such parties, businesses, and individuals.
*
  • *In 1988, Iraq paid 1 million dollars to the French Socialist Party, according to a captured IIS report dated 9 September 1992. ‘Abd-al-Razzaq Al Hashimi, former Iraqi ambassador to France, handed the money to French Defense Minister Pierre Joxe, according the report. The IIS instructed Hashimi to “utilize it to remind French Defense Minister, Pierre Joxe, indirectly about Iraq’s previous positions toward France, in general, and the French Socialist party, in particular”.
  • *‘Aziz says he personally awarded several French individuals substantial oil allotments. According to ‘Aziz, both parties understood that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift UN sanctions, or through opposition to American initiatives within the Security Council.
  • *As of June 2000, Iraq had awarded short term contracts under the OFF program to France totaling $1.78 billion, equaling approximately 15 percent of the oil contracts allocated under the OFF program. (See the Regime Finance and Procurement chapter.)
The IIS flagged two groups of people to influence French policy in the UNSC: French Governmental officials and influential French citizens. IIS documents recovered by ISG identify those persons of interest, to include ministers and politicians, journalists, and business people. On 25 January 2004, the Baghdad periodical Al Mada published a list of names of companies, individuals and other groups that received oil allocations from the former Regime under the auspices of the OFF program. These influential individuals often had little prior connection to the oil industry and generally engaged European oil companies to lift the oil, but were still in a position to extract a substantial profit for themselves. Individuals named included Charles Pascua, a former French Interior Minister, who received almost 11 million barrels; Patrick Maugein, whom the Iraqis considered a conduit to Chirac (which we have not confirmed), who received 13 million barrels through his Dutch-registered company, Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club, who received over 5.5 million barrels through Swiss companies and the Iraqi-French Friendship Society, which received over 10 million barrels. The French oil companies Total and SOCAP received over 105 million and 93 million barrels, respectively (see Oil Voucher Allocations of the Regime Finance and Procurement chapter for additional information).

cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html
 
mediamatters.org/items/200412080005
Since word of the United Nations’ oil-for-food scandal first broke, conservative media figures have been quick to conclude that European nations and political figures that opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq did so because they were bribed by deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Although there is evidence that some political figures from European countries may have been complicit in the scandal, conservatives who have pushed the scandal as the key explanation for European opposition to the war have made assertions unsupported by, and often at odds with, the facts. While some conservatives have specifically accused European leaders of failing to support the war in Iraq because of their alleged interest in the scandal, to date no credible body has directly accused any of wrongdoing.

Conservative misinformation on European leaders’ links to the oil-for-food scandal is nothing new. For example, on the July 29 edition of FOX News’ The O’Reilly Factor, FOX News political analyst Dick Morris asserted that “it’s been proven that [French President] Jacques Chirac and [Russian President] Vladimir Putin got personal bribes from the oil-for-food program. What could you have done as president to persuade them to dump Saddam Hussein, their benefactor?”

Below is a summary of the evidence that exists for Germany, France, Russia, Britain, and China’s roles in the oil-for-food scandal:

Germany

Limbaugh’s claim that Germany was “bribed” into opposing the war in Iraq is completely without support, as Media Matters for America has noted. Although some German companies and individuals benefited from the scandal, Germans accounted for no more than 3 percent of the recipients of Saddam’s illicit oil vouchers, meaning Germans likely profited no more (and possibly less) from the scandal than Americans did. Further, no significant German political officials were among those named in an initial list of 270 individuals and entities implicated in the scandal. Nor were any named in Charles A. Duelfer’s comprehensive report on Iraq’s weapons programs or included on that report’s list (Vol.1, annex B, p. 302) of “Known Oil Voucher Recipients.” The Duelfer report does not support Hannity’s claim that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was complicit in the oil-for-food scandal – Schroeder was not accused or even mentioned in the report.

France

Morris’s claim that it has been “proven” that Chirac was complicit in the oil-for-food scandal is not supported by the Duelfer report. Although political officials connected to the French president are implicated in the Duelfer report, the report did not accuse Chirac of improprieties. The report does not even allege that Chirac was aware that any corruption was taking place.

According to the Duelfer report, 15 percent of Saddam’s illicit oil vouchers went to French individuals and companies, the second most of any nation. As Media Matters has noted, the Duelfer report named Patrick Maugein – chairman of oil firm Soco International with ties to Chirac – as a recipient of vouchers from Saddam (although it could not confirm that Maugein was a conduit for Chirac). Further, the report noted that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) “targeted a number of French individuals that the Iraqis thought had close relations” to Chirac, “including, according to the Iraqi assessment, the official spokesman of President Chirac’s re-election campaign, two reported ‘counselors’ of President Chirac, and two well-known French businessmen.” The report also named former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua among the voucher recipients.

The report also documented that a May 2002 IIS memo addressed to Saddam indicated that a French parliamentarian assured a member of the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) that “France would use its veto in the UNSC [Security Council] against any American decision to attack Iraq.” But the report does not allege that Chirac himself accepted bribes or was convinced to oppose the war by Saddam’s apparent efforts to bribe his associates.
 
mediamatters.org/items/200412080005

Russia

As with Chirac, Morris’s claim that it has been “proven” that Putin was complicit in the oil-for-food scandal is not supported by the Duelfer report. While several Russian political officials with ties to Putin have been implicated in the scandal, the Duelfer report does not accuse or even mention Putin, and does not allege he was aware of the corruption.

Nonetheless, Russian individuals and companies received 30 percent of Saddam’s oil vouchers, the most of any country, according to the Duelfer report. As the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations has noted, among the Russian recipients were Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky ("and companies associated with his party’), as well as former Russian Chief of Staff Alexander Voloshin, chief of staff under Putin until October 2003. A July 10 Moscow Times article also included “the pro-Kremlin Unity party” and the Communist Party among the beneficiaries of vouchers, according to “a leaked document from the Iraqi Governing Council” and quoted an unnamed “senior Western diplomat” who emphasized that the Russians’ appearance on the list of voucher recipients does not prove “they were complicit in making funds available [to Iraq].”

Although the “ultra-nationalists” who make up the Liberal Democratic Party “mostly vote” with Putin, as the Economist noted on December 9, 2003 (following the Russian election), the party is not directly aligned with the Russian president. Putin is not a member of any political party, and is most closely allied with the United Russia party (formerly the Unity party). Zhirinovsky has denied the oil voucher charges, according to the *Moscow Times.
*

China

According to the Duelfer report (Vol.1, p.166), China received approximately 10 percent of Saddam’s oil vouchers, the third most of any nation. But the report does not implicate Chinese President Hu Jintao, or even allege he was aware corruption was taking place. He is not mentioned in the report.

As the Wall Street Journal reported on November 9, one Chinese individual on the list of voucher recipients was “Huang Ruzhen, a former deputy general manager of arms maker China North Industries Corp., or Norinco.” The Journal noted that Ruzhen – who was identified as “Mr. Joan” on the “secret list kept by Mr. Hussein’s regime” – “said he negotiated for the vouchers only after having received permission from the Chinese Foreign Ministry and the U.N. committee supervising Iraq’s oil-for-food program.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry confirmed that Chinese companies signed contracts with Iraq but said those contracts were legal and in accordance with the rules of the oil-for-food program. As the Journal reported, “Mr. Huang said he did nothing for Iraq in exchange for the vouchers he received. Nor was there any implication by the Iraqi side that they expected anything in return, he said.”

On November 14,* The Washington Post* reported that the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform, Patrick F. Kennedy, testified before a House committee in October that “China, France, Russia, Syria and other governments, which represented companies competing for billions of dollars’ worth of business, stalled measures aimed at ending corruption” of the oil-for-food scandal. On December 6, the Chinese government “called for a swift resolution to the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, saying it wanted to see an independent and objective investigation.”

Finally, it should be noted that, as democratically elected leaders of their respective nations, European leaders’ political opposition to the war in Iraq likely stemmed in part from a response to public pressure. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) noted on February 11, 2003, citing public opinion polls taken just weeks prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, that “the majority of people across the [European] continent are united in their opposition to war.”
 
40.png
Matt25:
Since word of the United Nations’ oil-for-food scandal first broke, conservative media figures have been quick to conclude that …
Click to expand...
*Cute speculation you post in these 2 long posts, but very inaccurate and not evidence at all. I think I will stick with the evidence. *

You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. Then you post speculation, albeit a LOT of speculation, but speculation, that there is no evidence. That is very disengenuous, don’t you think?

The CIA’s Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD is not a “conservative media figure.”

Look at the names, man, look at the names.
 
Matt25 said:
mediamatters.org/items/200412080005
Since word of the United Nations’ oil-for-food scandal first broke, conservative media figures have been quick to conclude that European nations and political figures that opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq did so because they were bribed by deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Although there is evidence that some political figures from European countries may have been complicit in the scandal, conservatives who have pushed the scandal as the key explanation for European opposition to the war have made assertions unsupported by, and often at odds with, the facts. While some conservatives have specifically accused European leaders of failing to support the war in Iraq because of their alleged interest in the scandal, to date no credible body has directly accused any of wrongdoing.

Conservative misinformation on European leaders’ links to the oil-for-food scandal is nothing new. For example, on the July 29 edition of FOX News’ The O’Reilly Factor, FOX News political analyst Dick Morris asserted that “it’s been proven that [French President] Jacques Chirac and [Russian President] Vladimir Putin got personal bribes from the oil-for-food program. What could you have done as president to persuade them to dump Saddam Hussein, their benefactor?”

France

Morris’s claim that it has been “proven” that Chirac was complicit in the oil-for-food scandal is not supported by the Duelfer report. Although political officials connected to the French president are implicated in the Duelfer report, the report did not accuse Chirac of improprieties. The report does not even allege that Chirac was aware that any corruption was taking place.
Click to expand...

Oh, this makes a lot of sense. In effect, it says Russia and France were heavily tied up in the scandal but there is no “evidence” to prove that is why they opposed the Iraq war.

When your hand is caught in the cookie jar… deny logic. Assume everyone opposing the war reputable and did not have monetary interests and assume America had only monetary interests at heart.

So when students cheat on an exam, it does not mean that they did not study hard or were not well prepared - it simply means that the professor was using unfair trick questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top