11-18-2005, 07:27 PM
(via email..)
For those who are shielding Sonia by diversionaly attacks on Natwar, Volcker, USA and UN (accusing UN of destroying papers), here is a report which appeared in a Iraqi newspaper, Al Mada. Surely, an Iraqi news paper report should have some credibility? Or, will the supporters of Sonia also say that this newspaper also wrote at gun-point and was under the spell of Chacha? This newspaper categorically named Congress Party of India as the recipient of 1 million barrels.
The quote in the Jan. 29, 2004 article is: 'India: The Indian Congress Party received 1 million barrels.' This was also reported by the Middle-East Media Research Institute (Memri) [Of course, this institute is based in Washington, DC.] This Memri endorsement is reasonable proof of Chacha's interest in identifying Sonia as the political target.
Now, the question is: what did Sonia Gandhi do with the 1 million barrels of oil? Or, simply did she get only the money credited and no oil was really intended to be sold or received. Poor Congress Party, what would it have done if the million barrels came and there was no secure and safe storage space in 10, Janpath?
Attached is the Memri report of Feb. 20, 2004. The report is recommended reading, in particular Part I (B) reactions by implicated individuals and organizations. The silence from Indian Congress Party is eloquent, more eloquent that the Congress Presiden't oratorical flourish to get to the truth and punish the culprit. What if the Congress Party is also the culprit? How will Pathak get to the docs of the Congress Party?
K.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->February 20, 2004Â No.164
  The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair
  By Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli*.
Introduction
On January 25, 2004, the Iraqi independent daily Al-Mada published a list of approximately 270 individuals and entities who were beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein's oil vouchers. [1] The report evoked reactions from many of those included in the list as well as from the Arab media, among them apologists for Saddam's regime. The fact that so many have opted for silence may give credence to the list's authenticity.
A former undersecretary in the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum, Abd Al-Saheb Salman Qutb, said that the ministry possesses documents proving the authenticity of the list published by Al-Mada. The list was originally the property of the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO), which was responsible for marketing Iraqi petroleum. [2] Mr. Qutb also said that the ministry was collecting the information for submission to Interpol, which could then pursue the voucher beneficiaries. [3]
The Iraqi Governing Council has focused on 46 foreign individuals and organizations included on the lists, primarily from neighboring countries, to determine appropriate action. [4] Council member Muwwafaq Al-Rabi'i said during a visit to Beirut that the council has "tons of documents" but emphasized that the publication of these documents will be handled in a constructive way and not "for the sake of vengeance and revenge. " [5]
In describing what it called "the curse of the Iraqi vouchers," the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat said that it expects more names and details to be made public in the near future and anticipates the revelation of a scandal of vast dimensions transcending countries and continents, implicating many prominent individuals and organizations. [6]
How It Worked: The Voucher Transactions Method
In a subsequent article, Al-Mada provides details on the allocation and sale of oil vouchers. In general, the vouchers were given either as gifts or as payment for goods imported into Iraq in violation of the U.N . sanctions. The voucher holder would normally tender the voucher to any one of the specialized companies operating in the United Arab Emirates for a commission which initially ranged from $0.25 to $0.30 per barrel, though it may have declined in later years to as little as $0.10 or even $0.05 per barrel because of oil surplus on the market. [7] In other words, a voucher for 1 million barrels would have translated into a quick profit of $250,000-300,000 on the high side and $50,000-100,000 on the low side â all paid in cash. According to Al-Mada, Jordan will seek to tax the illicit profits of citizens who benefited from the sale of the vouchers.
One of the common arguments by recipients of vouchers was that the vouchers paid for goods provided in the framework of the U.N.-administered Oil for Food program. However, under the Memorandum of Understanding governing the program, oil allocations were intended for "end users," meaning those with refineries. Most of the voucher recipients would be considered "non-end users." Moreover, if vouchers were used to pay for goods, it would suggest that these were not authorized by the program and should be considered illicit since all contracts approved by the U.N. were reimbursed from the trust account where the oil revenues were kept, at a French bank, at Iraq's insistence. According to the United Nations: "The oil buyer had to pay the price approved by the Security Council Sanctions Committee into a U.N. escrow account, and the U.N. had to verify that the goods purchased by Iraq were indeed those allowed under the program. But the U.N. had no way of knowing what other transactions might be going on directly between the Iraqi government and the buyers and sellers." [8]
This report reviews the Saddam oil vouchers affair, in two parts:
Part I: (A) the list of oil vouchers recipients; and (B) reactions by implicated individuals and organizations.
Part II: Arab media reactions.
The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair, Part I:
A. Complete List of Recipients of Oil Vouchers (in alphabetical order by country)
(All numbers for barrels of oil unless indicated otherwise)
All names on the list were transliterated from the Arabic. Although every effort was made to be precise, some inaccuracy is inevitable.
Extract from the names on the list (related to India):
India
1. Biham Singh 5.5 million
2. Indian Congress Party 4 million
Extract from B. Reactions of Implicated Individuals and Organizations
India: NIL ...
United States
Shaker Al-Khaffaji (7 million barrels) advanced $400,000 to Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. Ritter produced a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections, which in his telling were corrupted by sinister U.S. manipulation. [47]
Samir Vincent (10.5 million barrels): In 2000, Vincent, an Iraqi-born American who lived in the U.S. since 1958, organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to the U.S., which met with former president Jimmy Carter.
The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair, Part II: Arab Media Reactions
Arab Media Ignore the List
In an op-ed titled "Beautiful Masks over Ugly Faces" in the London daily Al-Hayat, Salama Na'mat criticizes Arab television and other media for showing little interest in the oil voucher scandal. Because releasing the list shows Saddam Hussein's bribery of hundreds of politicians and journalists from 50 Arab and foreign countries, the Arab media have neither pursued the issue nor investigated the matter. In fact, Na'mat says, the publication of the list has triggered even less interest in official circles than in the media. Na'mat continues:
"The reality is that some Arab governments perhaps do not object that politicians and media people benefit from Saddam's bribes either because they are also involved or see no harm in bribes since it is a normal practice by the Arab regimes in varying degrees. Perhaps the political agenda of the deposed Iraqi regime was [no different] than the agendas of these governments. It mattered not to those who were bribed and those who shut their eyes that the money they received from the deposed regime to sing its praise were taken away from the Iraqi people which was destroyed by Saddam's wars and his stupid policies. [48] [48] Al-Hayat (London), January 29, 2004.
* Nimrod Raphaeli is a Senior Analyst at MEMRI.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=arc...a=ia&ID=IA16404
Deccan Chronicle, International Section, Reporter: Ela Dutt, 18 November 2005
Iraqi paper named Congress nearly 2 yrs ago
New York, Nov. 17: An independent Iraqi newspaper named India's Congress party nearly two years ago in a report that contained details of the oil-for-food corruption scandal that has hit international headlines now. The information contained in Al-Mada, highly regarded in Iraq for its objectivity, did not however create the kind of stir that the recently released Paul Volcker committee report has done.
The Congress party maintains it was not informed that it was being named in the Volcker report and has demanded to see the original documents to authenticate allegations that it received vouchers of oil from the Saddam Hussein regime.
On January 29, 2004, months before UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed the Independent Inquiry Commission (IIC) headed by former US federal reserve chairman Volcker, the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri) wrote a report that brought attention to the January 25 article written in Al-Mada, an independent newspaper in Iraq that listed 270 entities said to have received the vouchers. Among those named was the Congress party, but not Mr K. Natwar Singh, who has had to resign as the external affairs minister after being named in the annexures of the Volcker report.
The one sentence in Al-Mada about India reads as follows: "India: The Indian Congress party received 1 million barrels." The Volcker report has described both the Congress and Mr Natwar Singh as "non-contractual beneficiaries" of the UN-sponsored oil-for-food deal. Several other Indian companies also figure in the Volcker report.
In an interview to IANS, Nimrod Raphaeli, senior analyst at Memri in Washington, spoke about the 2004 media report. He pointed out that the original Al-Mada report did not have Mr Natwar Singh's name, he said: "Yes, I believe the original list had only the Congress party."
IANS: I wanted to double check with you the authenticity of Al-Mada as a paper?
A: You know, the Volcker report is more about the list and before the Volcker report there was another report from the CIA which confirmed the list. So at this stage for someone to argue â I am not a recipient can't be authentic.
I'll tell you why â Why would anybody in the Iraqi ministry of petroleum under Saddam Hussein put the name of the Congress party? What reason do they have?
Q: The Al-Mada list is well known, right? A: It wasn't known until it came out in Al-Mada. We have some, there was some knowledge of the vouchers, but there was no really any documentation of who was the recipient of the vouchers.
Q: How old is Memri? When did you set up Memri?
A: Seven years ago. I really think that if this list was published in a Western paper, it is a clear case for an award.
Q: It has named so many names in so many countries. In India, the foreign minister has lost his job. They have a judicial inquiry going on.
A: In a democracy it is different than in a non-democracy.
http://deccan.com/World/Worldnews.asp#Iraq...202%20yrs%20ago
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetai...51117&cat=World<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For those who are shielding Sonia by diversionaly attacks on Natwar, Volcker, USA and UN (accusing UN of destroying papers), here is a report which appeared in a Iraqi newspaper, Al Mada. Surely, an Iraqi news paper report should have some credibility? Or, will the supporters of Sonia also say that this newspaper also wrote at gun-point and was under the spell of Chacha? This newspaper categorically named Congress Party of India as the recipient of 1 million barrels.
The quote in the Jan. 29, 2004 article is: 'India: The Indian Congress Party received 1 million barrels.' This was also reported by the Middle-East Media Research Institute (Memri) [Of course, this institute is based in Washington, DC.] This Memri endorsement is reasonable proof of Chacha's interest in identifying Sonia as the political target.
Now, the question is: what did Sonia Gandhi do with the 1 million barrels of oil? Or, simply did she get only the money credited and no oil was really intended to be sold or received. Poor Congress Party, what would it have done if the million barrels came and there was no secure and safe storage space in 10, Janpath?
Attached is the Memri report of Feb. 20, 2004. The report is recommended reading, in particular Part I (B) reactions by implicated individuals and organizations. The silence from Indian Congress Party is eloquent, more eloquent that the Congress Presiden't oratorical flourish to get to the truth and punish the culprit. What if the Congress Party is also the culprit? How will Pathak get to the docs of the Congress Party?
K.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->February 20, 2004Â No.164
  The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair
  By Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli*.
Introduction
On January 25, 2004, the Iraqi independent daily Al-Mada published a list of approximately 270 individuals and entities who were beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein's oil vouchers. [1] The report evoked reactions from many of those included in the list as well as from the Arab media, among them apologists for Saddam's regime. The fact that so many have opted for silence may give credence to the list's authenticity.
A former undersecretary in the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum, Abd Al-Saheb Salman Qutb, said that the ministry possesses documents proving the authenticity of the list published by Al-Mada. The list was originally the property of the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO), which was responsible for marketing Iraqi petroleum. [2] Mr. Qutb also said that the ministry was collecting the information for submission to Interpol, which could then pursue the voucher beneficiaries. [3]
The Iraqi Governing Council has focused on 46 foreign individuals and organizations included on the lists, primarily from neighboring countries, to determine appropriate action. [4] Council member Muwwafaq Al-Rabi'i said during a visit to Beirut that the council has "tons of documents" but emphasized that the publication of these documents will be handled in a constructive way and not "for the sake of vengeance and revenge. " [5]
In describing what it called "the curse of the Iraqi vouchers," the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat said that it expects more names and details to be made public in the near future and anticipates the revelation of a scandal of vast dimensions transcending countries and continents, implicating many prominent individuals and organizations. [6]
How It Worked: The Voucher Transactions Method
In a subsequent article, Al-Mada provides details on the allocation and sale of oil vouchers. In general, the vouchers were given either as gifts or as payment for goods imported into Iraq in violation of the U.N . sanctions. The voucher holder would normally tender the voucher to any one of the specialized companies operating in the United Arab Emirates for a commission which initially ranged from $0.25 to $0.30 per barrel, though it may have declined in later years to as little as $0.10 or even $0.05 per barrel because of oil surplus on the market. [7] In other words, a voucher for 1 million barrels would have translated into a quick profit of $250,000-300,000 on the high side and $50,000-100,000 on the low side â all paid in cash. According to Al-Mada, Jordan will seek to tax the illicit profits of citizens who benefited from the sale of the vouchers.
One of the common arguments by recipients of vouchers was that the vouchers paid for goods provided in the framework of the U.N.-administered Oil for Food program. However, under the Memorandum of Understanding governing the program, oil allocations were intended for "end users," meaning those with refineries. Most of the voucher recipients would be considered "non-end users." Moreover, if vouchers were used to pay for goods, it would suggest that these were not authorized by the program and should be considered illicit since all contracts approved by the U.N. were reimbursed from the trust account where the oil revenues were kept, at a French bank, at Iraq's insistence. According to the United Nations: "The oil buyer had to pay the price approved by the Security Council Sanctions Committee into a U.N. escrow account, and the U.N. had to verify that the goods purchased by Iraq were indeed those allowed under the program. But the U.N. had no way of knowing what other transactions might be going on directly between the Iraqi government and the buyers and sellers." [8]
This report reviews the Saddam oil vouchers affair, in two parts:
Part I: (A) the list of oil vouchers recipients; and (B) reactions by implicated individuals and organizations.
Part II: Arab media reactions.
The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair, Part I:
A. Complete List of Recipients of Oil Vouchers (in alphabetical order by country)
(All numbers for barrels of oil unless indicated otherwise)
All names on the list were transliterated from the Arabic. Although every effort was made to be precise, some inaccuracy is inevitable.
Extract from the names on the list (related to India):
India
1. Biham Singh 5.5 million
2. Indian Congress Party 4 million
Extract from B. Reactions of Implicated Individuals and Organizations
India: NIL ...
United States
Shaker Al-Khaffaji (7 million barrels) advanced $400,000 to Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. Ritter produced a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections, which in his telling were corrupted by sinister U.S. manipulation. [47]
Samir Vincent (10.5 million barrels): In 2000, Vincent, an Iraqi-born American who lived in the U.S. since 1958, organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to the U.S., which met with former president Jimmy Carter.
The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair, Part II: Arab Media Reactions
Arab Media Ignore the List
In an op-ed titled "Beautiful Masks over Ugly Faces" in the London daily Al-Hayat, Salama Na'mat criticizes Arab television and other media for showing little interest in the oil voucher scandal. Because releasing the list shows Saddam Hussein's bribery of hundreds of politicians and journalists from 50 Arab and foreign countries, the Arab media have neither pursued the issue nor investigated the matter. In fact, Na'mat says, the publication of the list has triggered even less interest in official circles than in the media. Na'mat continues:
"The reality is that some Arab governments perhaps do not object that politicians and media people benefit from Saddam's bribes either because they are also involved or see no harm in bribes since it is a normal practice by the Arab regimes in varying degrees. Perhaps the political agenda of the deposed Iraqi regime was [no different] than the agendas of these governments. It mattered not to those who were bribed and those who shut their eyes that the money they received from the deposed regime to sing its praise were taken away from the Iraqi people which was destroyed by Saddam's wars and his stupid policies. [48] [48] Al-Hayat (London), January 29, 2004.
* Nimrod Raphaeli is a Senior Analyst at MEMRI.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=arc...a=ia&ID=IA16404
Deccan Chronicle, International Section, Reporter: Ela Dutt, 18 November 2005
Iraqi paper named Congress nearly 2 yrs ago
New York, Nov. 17: An independent Iraqi newspaper named India's Congress party nearly two years ago in a report that contained details of the oil-for-food corruption scandal that has hit international headlines now. The information contained in Al-Mada, highly regarded in Iraq for its objectivity, did not however create the kind of stir that the recently released Paul Volcker committee report has done.
The Congress party maintains it was not informed that it was being named in the Volcker report and has demanded to see the original documents to authenticate allegations that it received vouchers of oil from the Saddam Hussein regime.
On January 29, 2004, months before UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed the Independent Inquiry Commission (IIC) headed by former US federal reserve chairman Volcker, the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri) wrote a report that brought attention to the January 25 article written in Al-Mada, an independent newspaper in Iraq that listed 270 entities said to have received the vouchers. Among those named was the Congress party, but not Mr K. Natwar Singh, who has had to resign as the external affairs minister after being named in the annexures of the Volcker report.
The one sentence in Al-Mada about India reads as follows: "India: The Indian Congress party received 1 million barrels." The Volcker report has described both the Congress and Mr Natwar Singh as "non-contractual beneficiaries" of the UN-sponsored oil-for-food deal. Several other Indian companies also figure in the Volcker report.
In an interview to IANS, Nimrod Raphaeli, senior analyst at Memri in Washington, spoke about the 2004 media report. He pointed out that the original Al-Mada report did not have Mr Natwar Singh's name, he said: "Yes, I believe the original list had only the Congress party."
IANS: I wanted to double check with you the authenticity of Al-Mada as a paper?
A: You know, the Volcker report is more about the list and before the Volcker report there was another report from the CIA which confirmed the list. So at this stage for someone to argue â I am not a recipient can't be authentic.
I'll tell you why â Why would anybody in the Iraqi ministry of petroleum under Saddam Hussein put the name of the Congress party? What reason do they have?
Q: The Al-Mada list is well known, right? A: It wasn't known until it came out in Al-Mada. We have some, there was some knowledge of the vouchers, but there was no really any documentation of who was the recipient of the vouchers.
Q: How old is Memri? When did you set up Memri?
A: Seven years ago. I really think that if this list was published in a Western paper, it is a clear case for an award.
Q: It has named so many names in so many countries. In India, the foreign minister has lost his job. They have a judicial inquiry going on.
A: In a democracy it is different than in a non-democracy.
http://deccan.com/World/Worldnews.asp#Iraq...202%20yrs%20ago
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetai...51117&cat=World<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->