How can we tell whether the European Union is corrupt?

Great Debates
41

No it’s not Montezuma. It might seem strange and alien to you as a European, but it’s a democracy. It’s just that politics are centered around individuals. The Republican party and the Democratic party covers a very wide spectrum of the right - left axis. What shade of conservatism or liberalism you’ll get depends very much on the representative you are electing. There are other more complex and more improtant advantages and disadvantages with a two party system… but that would be a complete hijack of this thread.

It’s not worse, or better, it’s just different.

Sparc

42

Just a bit overboard, guys.

I don’t intend to add anything to the EU issue - I don’t know anything about the EU and think the OP’s logic with regard to the EU is tenuous, as mentioned. But I think people are way overboard regarding the Arafat comments.

The cite from the IDF intelligence chief regarding his personal wealth is quite legitimate. Intelligence chiefs are just the type of people who would make it there business to know (& have the means to find out) about the personal wealth of terrorists & dictators. And we might speculate about their methodology, but this does not make their assessment less legitimate. Sorry, Kimstu, you are not going to get a Big 4 accounting firm to give you a line-by-line treatment of Arafat’s assets. When the US (or any other) intelligence chief gives you his assessment of some foreign situation you will get about as much. (And it makes no difference if it is $1.3B or some other very large number - it is understood that you can’t get an exact figure - it’s a best-guess ballpark estimate).

It is true that the Israelis are biased in the direction of denigrating Arafat. But it should be noted in this regard that the guy did not call a press conference to announce these things - he was testifying to the Knesset. And even a biased report cannot be dismissed out of hand - fact is that the Israelis are not generally considered to be unreliable in these matters (more on that later). It is analogous to the CIA chief testifying before congress about Iraq’s military programs - I guess you would have to arbitrarily dismiss it out of hand according to the logic of many posters here - I don’t think so.

As for how he got the money well I guess you guys are entitled to think maybe he got it through his employment. Maybe it was the remarkable success of is eArafat.com IPO. Anything is possible, when you’re desperate to believe something, I guess. Oddly, it turns out that other sources are corroborating the idea that it was stolen & embezzled. Note Tamerlane’s post in this regard. Or continue ignoring it, as you will.

A comment about the suggestion by yojimbo that the Israelis might have concocted the evidence against Arafat. Somehow while holding december to ultra-rigorous levels of proof on every statement, this was allowed to slip by - too much important work at hand, no doubt. So I will note the following:

Fisk (the author of the linked article) does not make clear how he came by the “original documents” that he refers to. Presumably these are held by the Israelis, who seized them. (He also does not make clear whether he understands Arabic and is translating for himself or relying on others, and if so, who.) It was my understanding (I could be wrong here) that the Israelis provided copies of the documents to the Americans, who have access to people who understand Arabic - it would not be a smart move to mistranslate them under such circumstances. Beyond this, many or most of the supposed “omissions and falsehoods” with which the documents are “riddled” with appear to be nothing more leaving out facts that Fisk feels will give a more symphathetic picture - a subjective judgement.

And just who is this Robert Fisk whose words and interpretations have been deemed so credible? Is he an impartial journalist doing his best to report the facts? Actually he is rabidly Anti-Israel, and an “outspoken critic of US policy in the Middle East”. (For more about his worldview, see here) Which doesn’t mean that he is wrong - or even that he can’t be used as a cite. But its striking that while every conceivable (and inconceivable) alternative possibility is used to counter the negatives about Arafat (and - perhaps more to the point - to attack the OP), statements such as posted by Yojimbo pass blithely by. Odd, but so it goes.

43

No it’s not Montezuma. It might seem strange and alien to you as a European, but it’s a democracy. It’s just that politics are centered around individuals. The Republican party and the Democratic party covers a very wide spectrum of the right - left axis. What shade of conservatism or liberalism you’ll get depends very much on the representative you are electing. There are other more complex and more improtant advantages and disadvantages with a two party system… but that would be a complete hijack of this thread.

It’s not worse, or better, it’s just different.

Sparc

44

Odd, but so it goes.
[/quote]
I think it might be another case of OP self-destruct from december’s side. I certainly haven’t and will not get into the question about Arafat, since the thread isn’t about that. It’s about alleged corruption in the EU, possibly leading to Arafat enriching himself. I don’t know which one is the strawman of those two, but due to the thread title I have chosen to believe that Arafat’s riches is the strawman, hence I couldn’t give a flying fuck how much money Arafat has or doesn’t. I’ll just stick to answering the question. Which last I checked was “How can we tell whether the European Union is corrupt?”

Sparc

45

My previous post was supposed to quote IzzyR in the opening and was a reply to his previous post… between the hamsters and my keyboard strokes it seems every post I make in this thread is going to be jumbled somehow.

46

Absolutely. Nonetheless, that irrational posts were in turn provoked by other irrational posts does not make them more rational.

Indeed you have not, and my comments were not directed at your posts to this thread. But others have, as you may have noticed.

47

IR: The cite from the IDF intelligence chief regarding his personal wealth is quite legitimate.

Nobody has claimed that it isn’t legitimate, just that it is so far completely unsubstantiated, except for vague references made to earlier allegations based on the alleged contents of documents that the IDF claims to have found but that have not been otherwise verified. Every word Maj. General Ze’evi says may be perfectly true (and personally, going just on my own notions of likelihood, I’d be very surprised if it turned out either that Arafat wasn’t a rich man or that he didn’t acquire any of his wealth illegally), but I need better evidence before I’ll just take his word for it.

Sorry, Kimstu, you are not going to get a Big 4 accounting firm to give you a line-by-line treatment of Arafat’s assets. […]

In other words, you’re saying that Ze’evi’s word on the subject is all the evidence I can expect here, and I can take it or leave it. I don’t “dismiss it out of hand”, as you suggest, nor do I accuse Ze’evi or the IDF of lying, but I require more sufficient evidence if I’m going to accept any such statement as truth, even as a “best-guess ballpark estimate” of the truth.

Oddly, it turns out that other sources are corroborating the idea that it was stolen & embezzled. Note Tamerlane’s post in this regard.

I did, and what’s more, I read the article it linked to. It’s a publication of the group “Christian Action for Israel”, a self-described “Christian Zionist” organization founded on the evangelical Christian belief in New Testament prophecies of “the battle of Armageddon” and “the second coming of Jesus, the Messiah […] to end that terrible battle, and his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem”. Like many evangelical Christians in North America, they are committed to undisputed Israeli dominance of “Greater Israel”, including Jerusalem, because they believe that it is a prerequisite for the fulfillment of Christian prophecy as they interpret it. They have a strong incentive to present Arafat, the PLO, Palestinians in general, and all pro-Palestinian supporters in as negative a light as possible, and that’s exactly what their publications do.

Now of course, that doesn’t mean that their statements on PLO corruption in the article Tamerlane linked to are false; it wouldn’t surprise me if many of them were true. However, the article provides no references or cites for any of its statements beyond vague allusions to unnamed “sources”. Around here, that doesn’t really count as “corroboration”.

A comment about the suggestion by yojimbo […]

Not my table. Carry on.

48

Amen.

49

and, the OP stated that corruption from the EU was the ‘only’ possible explanation for his wealth, which is what I questioned, and apparently as others noted, there were alternative sources.

So, in short, the OP :

I asked for demonstration that was the ‘only’ possible explanation, and in essence, he repeated it, saying, where else would he have gotten it. Now, frankly in the standards of proof, that comes up pretty damn short. Some one else submitted some level of substantiation that some of the wealth came from corruption, but as far as I can tell, that source doesn’t even make the claim that ‘all’ of it did, and from the EU specifically.

I rather doubt that is a defensible suggestion in the first place. Assuming the man is corrupt, why on earth would he only steal money from the one source?

50

*ARCHAIC implies having the character or characteristics of a much earlier time <the play used archaic language to convey a sense of period>. * Cite.

Lloyd’s isn’t archic; it’s just old.

Sound written procedures and structure are merely the starting point for effective controls. They may or may not actually work in practice. Based on the post about Marta Andreasen and the one about the 1999 corruption scandal, the EU procedures haven’t yet reached perfection.

Like Thomas Crapper and the Earl of Sandwich, Robert Fisk has now lent his name to a word.

http://volokh.blogspot.com/2002_08_04_volokh_archive.html#85331300

51

IzzyR, intelligence chiefs are also “just the type of people” who would put out disinformation about enemies of their country.

I’m not saying that this is what happened here - I think it is very likely that Arafat is massively corrupt. I’m just not going to take the unsubstantiated word of the head of the IDF’s intelligence service at face value.

Actually, on reading back … what Kimstu said.

Sua

52

What does “verified” mean? When do you consider something “substantiated”? I think you could probably dismiss any cite based on the fact that it has not been “otherwise verified”. (Who else do you expect to “verify” documents that the IDF found? A notary?). You are perfectly free to be skeptical of any cites or claims, but the dismissive attitude of your first post is unjustified in such circumstances.

This is a very valid point. You might have posted that earlier.

wring, I thought I made clear that I am not supporting the idea that Arafat can be assumed to have embezzled EU funds specifically (or the even more fantastic notion that he must be paying off the EU). But many posters went far beyond denying the EU part of it - including you.

Sua, what I said to kimstu. (And to be clear, in your case I object to your first and second points, and am skeptical of your third. I’m with you on the fourth and fifth).

53

Including me? I asked him to prove his assertion. I did suggest that there were other potential sources for his income (which Tamerlane’s post supported, IIRC). That doesn’t = ‘none’ of it came from EU. december claimed that the ‘only’ potential source was theft from the EU.

54

Once again…

That’s what this thread is really about, isn’t it? Pretty disingenuous as far as snipes go, but hey it’s a free world.

Sparc

55

Yeah, that was pretty much my reason for posting it. I have no idea if all the exact details of that report are true, but in general I expect that:

A.) Arafat is wealthy. It is more than likely ( as that report suggests ) that part of his longevity and influence within the PLO organization comes from a personal control of assets of what was a virtual demi-government ( in both Jordan before 1971 and Lebanon before 1982, to a lesser extent in Tunisia after that ) long before the creation of the PA. In that sense the $1.3-10.0 billion or whatever may be technically Fatah funds or whatever, but no doubt there is virtually no separation from his standpoint.

B.) His fund were acquired from a combination of donations, embezzlements, personal family and business assets ( probably the smallest portion ), and criminal enterprise ( I am pretty certain the looting of banks in Lebanon during the civil war by a variety of factions, including the PLO, is well-documented ).

However none of this proves any or all EU funds have been appropriated ( though I’d bet some have, it seems almost certain they do not comprise the bulk of Arafat’s current fortune ). It absolutely does not prove EU collusion and corruption in the amassing of said fortune, which is a pretty stiff charge to make on such flimsy evidence.

  • Tamerlane
56

Izzy replied to me: What does “verified” mean? When do you consider something “substantiated”? I think you could probably dismiss any cite based on the fact that it has not been “otherwise verified”.

Sure, but I don’t think I’m being quite so absolutist as that here. There have been generally accepted external verifications of, or failures to verify, other IDF claims. Example: IDF asserts there was no deliberate massacre of civilians in the IDF assault on Jena, UN conducts investigation and reports no evidence of such massacre. Or IDF alleges that Ramallah documents show links between EU assistance and funding of terrorists, European Commission and International Monetary Fund conduct investigation and report no evidence of such links. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect such claims to be submitted to more public scrutiny, as in the above cases, before making up one’s mind about them.

*You are perfectly free to be skeptical of any cites or claims, but the dismissive attitude of your first post is unjustified in such circumstances. *

Why? What I said there was that december’s unqualified positive assertion in his OP about Arafat’s wealth was based solely on a report of one unsupported statement from one person, and that it would be better to find out if the statement was true before we rushed to all kinds of conclusions about its implications. Or in other words, “Cite, please”. “Skeptical” != “dismissive”. (Admittedly, I am usually somewhat dismissive of the unsupported statements of december himself, but that’s because of my prior experience with december’s style of argument. I have no reason to think so poorly of the reliability of Maj.Gen. Ze’evi, whom I do not know at all.)

*"[The article cited by Tamerlane] is a publication of the group ‘Christian Action for Israel’ […] However, the article provides no references or cites for any of its statements beyond vague allusions to unnamed ‘sources’. Around here, that doesn’t really count as ‘corroboration’."

This is a very valid point. You might have posted that earlier.*

Thank you, but why would I have posted it earlier? AFAIR, nobody else before you had mentioned Tamerlane’s link, so I just assumed that anybody who read the linked article had noticed its flaws in that respect. When I read your post that seemed to suggest that you thought the article did count as “corroboration”, then I made my criticisms public. Was that somehow remiss of me?

57

Just out of interest here is another report of the type I posted earlier. It’s a little more detailed, though a bit out of date. I make no claims as to the veracity of any of the details:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/204

  • Tamerlane
58

wring, if you are qualifying your statements to mean that there’s no evidence been presented that he stole from the EU I’m with you. Your earlier posts seemed to saying that there’s no evidence that he stole it at all.

Kimstu, we apparently differ with regards to the extent to which you originally dismissed the cite. We’ll have to leave it here - no big deal, in any event.

That’s a big assumption to make - especially as it was posted by a very respected and intelligent poster.

The advantage of posting your criticism earlier is that it would spare simple minded people like myself from assuming that you attack posts based on the identity of the poster, and not purely the content of the post. :wink:

In any event, we seem to all be in agreement that Arafat has apparently amassed a huge fortune, mostly through corrupt means. (And that Ze’evi’s assertion - while not completely conclusive - is at least not far off the mark). And that this in itself tells little if anything about corruption in the EU. I’m happy to leave it here.

59

Izzy: The advantage of posting your criticism earlier is that it would spare simple minded people like myself

Ha! :slight_smile:

*from assuming that you attack posts based on the identity of the poster, and not purely the content of the post. *

Well, I hope that isn’t often assumed.

In any event, we seem to all be in agreement that Arafat has apparently amassed a huge fortune, mostly through corrupt means.

Qualification: I can’t say I’m in agreement with that, because I don’t feel I’ve seen adequate evidence one way or the other. What I do say is that it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that that was true.

And that this in itself tells little if anything about corruption in the EU. I’m happy to leave it here.

Fair enough. Go in peace. :slight_smile:

60

I agree with Izzy’s summary, as far as it goes. I agree that there’s no evidence at all of Arafat paying kickbacks to people in the EU leadership, but I remain concerned, because: [ul][li]Kickbacks would make economic sense, given the magnitude of the EU aid.[]Arafat presumably would not have moral compunctions about paying kickbacks, since he has received them (according to one of the cites above.)[]The EU support for the Palestinians is optional, since the UN is already supporting them.[]I can understand the US sucking up to Saudi Arabia (though I don’t like it), because they have all that oil. But, what does the EU get from supporting the Palestinians?[]On Fox News “Special Report” tonight, a panelist mentioned that the EU donations are uncontrolled and the a couple of US diplomats were traveling to Europe to try to persuade them to put some financial controls to see that the money isn’t stolen.The EU has maintained and even increased their contributions, despite Arafat’s corruption and despite the terrorism by Arafat’s al Aksa Brigades.[/ul]None of this proves anything. And, I’m not trying to bash Europe. My own Senator, Robert Torricelli, was just censured for accepting bribes from a man named Chang in exchange for using his Senatorial power to benefit Chang’s business. Although Chang went to prison for paying the bribe, Torricelli avoided prison, remains in the Senate, and is leading in the polls in his race for re-election. So the US is far from perfect in this respect.[/li]
I’ve also seen bribes and kickbacks paid in the insurance industry. They’re hard to detect, because an audit of the company records won’t help. In the 2 cases I’m familiar with, an insurance executive had made decisions that seemed not to be in the company’s best interest. A suspicious owner or superior went to the trouble of engaging private detectives. The detectives were able to trace improper checks from the customer back to the decision maker.

Actually in both of these cases, there was little effort to disguise the source of the money. Presumably the perpetrators counted on nobody ever bothering to look, which is indeed unusally the case.

Bribes and kickbacks are a common problem. Many organizations need to be concerned, including IMHO the European Union. Nothing posted so far gives me confidence that the EU is taking adequate steps in this area.