# Kofi Annan and the Volcker report **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-annan-and-the-volcker-report/297686 "2005-04-04T16:44:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-annan-and-the-volcker-report/297686/1 "2005-04-04T16:44:58Z")
I’d like to hear a discussion on what the report found, what it implies and what, if anything, will come of it. And no, I haven’t gotten around to reading the damn thing myself. Been busy at work and moving this last week. Sue me. The general consensus from the stories I’ve read seems to be that the report was pretty damning on the facts, but that it stopped short of actually saying “Kofi is a crook;” which Mr. Annan is now selling as a blanket exoneration. That’s just my impression; feel free to correct it. When the commission was named, I heard several people (including **Manhattan** and others here) voicing the opinion that Paul Volcker was a top-notch straight shooter who could be trusted. I’d like to hear post-mortems on his performance. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-annan-and-the-volcker-report/297686/2 "2005-04-05T03:09:54Z")
What, no link? No OP discussion? I have not been paying much attention to this issue, mainly because I’ve yet to see evidence of any wrongdoing. So far, what I’ve seen is the hype of rightwing bloggers and their media counterparts, yelling fire when they see fog. Certainly their love for Annan doesn’t run high and as per usual procedure they will take every measure to discredit him and the UN. But do they do it here? Anyway, I find it somewhat amusing that the US administration had their own guys in there approving every one of these contracts that they now call fraud upon. Or did they approve _those_ contracts? I don’t know. I don’t even have good cite, but since this thread doesn’t seem to attract much attention, I’ll quote a somewhat lefty position (it’s even French!!) that might give pause for thought: > [@](#): > > Far from giving the Iraqi government free rein, the [Oil for Food] programme had an elaborate system of monitoring and accountability. Before Iraq could purchase anything, it had to submit a list of every item it wished to buy, stating how and where it would be used. > … > Once the UN staff had approved the list, with the input of the UN’s specialist agencies, Iraq was permitted to negotiate with a seller. This was the only thing Iraq could choose freely. And this was not because the UN staff failed to notice, but because the security council had specifically decided to permit Iraq to do so, in resolution 986 … > > Once Iraq had negotiated a contract, that contract was scrutinised at several levels before it could be approved. … It was then sent to the 661 committee, the security council committee charged with implementing the sanctions regime on Iraq. The US was particularly active on this committee, drawing on a staff of 60 US technical experts to examine Iraq’s contracts. … but, according to congressional testimony, the US never once blocked a contract because of price irregularities, **even when presented with documentation that these contracts were likely to result in kickbacks** to Saddam’s regime (6). > … > Where the pricing of a purchase was clearly outside normal commercial practices, the UN staff would ask the vendor to provide an explanation. If it was not satisfactory, the UN staff would present the problem to the 661 committee. **Many times they notified the committee of contracts with pricing irregularities so extreme that it was likely there were kickbacks.** The UN staff was not authorised to block a contract, only to present the information to the members of the security council. > **[Iraq: the real sanctions scandal](https://mondediplo.com/2005/02/05irak)** > > Open access // by Joy Gordon (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, February 2005) My boldings. Anyway, I understand that this second report especially deals with Annan’s son (whose employment/consultance work for a firm involved in inspections in Iraq raises questions about a possible conflict of interest, as well as shredding of some documents. My take: 1. The shredding of documents: An authorization was given by Annan to his Chief of Staff to shred some documents, some of them it later turned out were relating to the Oil for Food program. Also, another order were given around the same time by Annan, but this time to all UN staff members, to preserve all documents relating to the Oil for Food program. I call this a bureaucratic fuck-up. The UN shreds documents all the time and so far I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that Annan or anybody else were trying to hide something. 2. Annan’s son’s connection to Cotecna: As far as I can tell, Annan’s son was employed by Cotecna from 1995 to 1997 in Nigeria, and worked as a consultant for the firm from 1998 to 2004. He earned a total of $300.000, about $33.000 - $34.000 per year. I don’t know his position or what he worked on, but I’ve yet to hear that he was an important person involved in stuff he shouldn’t have been involved in. 3. Annan’s meetings with Cotecna: Annan has met with the leadership of Cotecna on two or three occasions. This is somehow a bad thing, because, it’s obviously not a good idea for a boss to meet with the leaders of a firm who are up for consideration for an important job. I also note that on a previous occasion, in 1991, when Cotecna approached Annan expressing interest in a contract in Iraq, Annan forwarded them to United Nations Development Programme, the department then in charge of the this. Of course, since I’m not following this case, I could be totally wrong on everything. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-annan-and-the-volcker-report/297686/3 "2005-04-05T06:26:30Z")
> [@furt](#): > > The general consensus from the stories I’ve read seems to be that the report was pretty damning on the facts, but that it stopped short of actually saying “Kofi is a crook;” which Mr. Annan is now selling as a blanket exoneration. That’s just my impression; feel free to correct it. I’ve heard it was fairly damning on the younger Annan, who deffinately went out of his way to conceal his relationship with Cotecna. Kofi appears to have indeed been exonerated from most charges of corruption, he didn’t appear to know his son was working for Cotecna and in anycase didn’t apply any pressure to have that company chosen to do Oil for Food Work. > [@](#): > > When the commission was named, I heard several people (including **Manhattan** and others here) voicing the opinion that Paul Volcker was a top-notch straight shooter who could be trusted. I’d like to hear post-mortems on his performance. Just as a note. The two reports released so far are interm ones. The final report won’t be out for a few months, so a true post-mortem will have to wait until then. > [@Alien](#): > > Anyway, I find it somewhat amusing that the US administration had their own guys in there approving every one of these contracts that they now call fraud upon. Or did they approve those contracts? I don’t know At the end of the day, I think this was the main problem with Oil for Food, and perhaps, with the UN in general. There wasn’t anyone really in charge. Kofi has far less power over the UN then, say, the president has over the US gov’t. He was not in charge of Oil for Food, the Security Council was, which effectively splits authority and responsibility amongst 15 squabbling national gov’ts, a situation that seems almost a recepie for corruption, confusion and waste. My guess is that this will be the conclusion of the final report in a few months. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-annan-and-the-volcker-report/297686/4 "2005-04-05T13:20:03Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > The two reports released so far are interm ones. The final report won’t be out for a few months, so a true post-mortem will have to wait until then. Ah. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-annan-and-the-volcker-report/297686/5 "2005-04-05T16:01:16Z")
But seriously, when was the last time a report like this came out (regarding any large organization) that severely chastized the top guy? I don’t think it’s in the nature of these kinds of commissions to do that.