5.  NO OIL FOR FOOD
    by Wendy McElroy 
    Special to TLE      http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/>     Issue 222

Around the globe, the UN uses "humanitarian aid" as a vehicle by
which to impose politically correct policies, from gender feminism to
http://www.zetetics.com/mac/ifeminists/2001/0717.html gun control. But the
crisis in Iraq reveals another aspect of the UN: a money-hungry institution
that hides behind a mask of compassion.

The political purposes to which the UN uses food and medical programs has
been the subject of much research and comment.

Even the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) is guilty. In 1996,
http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/unicef/vatican1196.html the Vatican
suspended contributions to UNICEF and warned against the agency's promotion
of feminist policies, especially abortion. More recently,
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/2003/03pr21southernafrica.htm UNICEF's
Executive Director Carol Bellamy proposed a major program for African women
and girls that explicitly excluded men -- a clear violation of the UN's
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits sex discrimination.
Bellamy's program addressed not only "the immediate needs of
women", but also long-term ones, such as "access to productive
assets" and the elimination of "destructive social norms."
The humanitarianism is attached to a social agenda. The wielding of food
and medicine as a form of political control has become blatant, even in
UNICEF.

Any legitimate, non-political agency that wants to provide aid to Iraq
should be allowed into the secured areas of the country. But
"non-political" is not word that describes the UN. And its main
purpose is not aid. Consider just one of the UN's unfolding maneuvers. It
is an open grab at power and riches.

The UN desperately wants back into Iraq in the role of
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/23/1050777306319.html a weapons
monitor. Since Bush has said "no," the UN is seeking to enter
through the back door with the http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/ Oil-for-Food
program.

Oil-for-Food was established by the UN in 1995. It allowed Iraq to sell oil
to finance the purchase of humanitarian goods for its people who were dying
from lack of basic supplies. (This hardship was largely due to the economic
sanctions imposed by the UN in 1990.) The money from the Iraqi oil went
into a UN escrow account with the
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2002/02
19banks.htm French bank BNP-Paribas, which was then used to buy goods from
suppliers. The Security Council had to approve all oil contracts, which
gave the UN http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/index.html effective
control over the second largest proven reserves of crude oil in the world.

The UN richly benefited in several ways. First and foremost was the flood
of oil money. One UN
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/latest/wu030304.html report reads,
"Total [oil] exports for the week (13.2 million barrels) generated
estimated revenue of...$370 million." The UN grew in size: oil-funded
employees, such as the weapons inspectors, led some to dub the program
"Oil-for-UN Jobs."
http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/04/25/15592719 Moreover, the
individual members of the UN Security Council richly benefited. France,
Russia and Syria received oil contracts on extremely favorable terms.

But it was not merely the producers of oil who fattened themselves. William
Safire http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899082/posts writes in the
New York Times (04/24), "U.N. Under-Secretary Sevan admits that the
French bank BNP Paribas was chosen to issue letters of credit to most of
the favored suppliers, but brands as 'inaccuracies' charges...of secrecy.
He cites a hundred audits in five years. But details of which companies in
what countries got how much - that's not public." Nevertheless reports
should be made available to US members of the UN. And, as Safire observes,
Senator Arlen Specter of Senate Appropriations wrote to Powell ...about
"reports that these funds are a slush fund," saying, "I urge
the State Department to demand an accounting."

The US is also calling for an end to both the sanctions and Oil-for-Food.
This would eliminate UN control over Iraq's economy. The US undoubtedly
intends to profit handsomely from control of the Iraqi oil. But those who
view the UN as a non-political or altruistic alternative to the
"greedy Americans" are flatly wrong.

The UN is scrambling to retain its cash cow. Last Thursday, the Security
Council unanimously extended the Food-for-Oil program through June 3rd. The
extension had nothing to do with humanitarian concerns.

Members of the Security Council do not want to lose their oil contracts.
Thus, in the coming dispute between the US and UN, the Council will almost
certainly advocate what France's Jean-Marc de La Sabliere
http://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2003/04/25/1051235343.htm calls
"transparency in the sale of oil and awarding of contracts,"
which will be a condition for lifting sanctions and Food-for-Oil.
"Transparency" is a vague and odd word to use, allowing for many
interpretations. But, whatever meaning emerges, it will almost certainly
involve protecting the members.

During the negotiations, the UN will yell "humanitarianism" but
it will not be true. If it were true, then the UN would immediately remove
the sanctions it imposed against what is now a non-existent regime. Those
sanctions now punish only innocent civilians.

The US should take the true humanitarian stand and encourage the entry of
private charities like http://www.ifrc.org/WHAT/disasters/response/iraq.asp
The Red Cross and the Red Crescent, and of organizations, like as
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/ Doctors Without Borders. The
Pennsylvania-based Save the Children
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-save2apr18,0,1509621
.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines has been clamoring to help.

Private charities are not perfect but they have no long-term ambition to
control the economy and the social policy of nations to which they
minister. Unlike the UN, a private charity does not give children a bowl of
food or a vaccination in exchange for control over their futures.
- - -

Visit my home page and blog at http://www.zetetics.com/mac> drop by
ifeminists.com http://www.ifeminists.com> For photo (05/02/02)
http://www.zetetics.com/mac/vesuvio.jpg>

---