Volcker & Bofors - Congress Party involvement

10-29-2005, 07:50 PM

Oil-for-Food probe: Congress denies charges QUOTEThe Volcker committee inquiry appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2004 also named External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh in the report.Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' />

The Congress Party said the allegations are baseless as it was not in power when the Oil-for-Food Programme was operated. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
.........
BJP slams Cong
But the BJP is accusing the minister of having personally benefitted in the case.

BJP General Secretary Arun Jaitley demanded Natwar Singh's resignation and said that the Congress should give a statement on the issue.

"How can he (Natwar Singh) continue as India's Foreign Minister even for a day if the UN report mentions him as a non-contractual beneficiary for manipulated payment in UN Food-for-Oil programme.

"Every word he speaks will be suspect and his statements on Foreign Affairs will be suspect," said Jaitley.


QUOTEOil-for-Food Programme

In 2001, Iraq was awarded the Oil-for-Food Programme from the UN while it was still under sanctions. This was being done for humanitarian reasons.

The Volcker committee now says that Saddam Hussein approached Natwar Singh and the Congress party to be involved in this programme.

According to the report, 80 lakh barrels of oil was allotted to both Natwar Singh and the Congress party. The total amount claimed by both was approximately 30 lakh barrel.

Against this, the Congress and Singh were expected to provide humanitarian assistance through Indian industries worth for the same amount.

The report alleges that in all Saddam Hussein sold oil worth US$ 64 billion internationally and got a US$ 1.8 billion kickback

More than 100 Indian companies including Reliance and individuals are also listed as having done business in this deal.

The list of Indian companies includes STC, Kirloskar Engines, Ajanta Pharma, Mohan Exports, L T Overseas Ltd, Jord Engineers, National Electrical Industry, Jain Irrigation Systems, Lucky Exports and Airpac Exports
How they did it? Is it through state they were in power? Why NDA failed to catch them?

10-30-2005, 01:01 AM

With Natwar under cloud, his son's visit to Iraq raises questionsQUOTENEW DELHI: Despite External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh's outrage over the disclosures by the Paul Volcker Committee's final report into the âoil for foodâ programme in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there is credible evidence to indicate his son Jagat Singh was actively involved in promoting companies to corner lucrative contracts under the programme.

The issue came under the scanner after Volcker named Natwar Singh and the Congress Party as ânon-contractual beneficiariesâ of Iraqi oil sales in 2001.

According to the Volcker report, Natwar falls in the category of individuals who either sold or gave their rights to buy oil from Saddam's Iraq to oil companies. In his case, it was allegedly to Switzerland-based Masefield AG.

Natwar, Volcker report says, had rights for four million barrels of oil, of which 1.9 million barrels were lifted by Masefield. The Congress Party, on the other hand, also allegedly had rights for four million barrels. Of this, only one million barrels were lifted in one go, again by Masefield AG, says the Volcker report.

While Natwar has called these allegations âbaseless and untrueâ, the fact is his son Jagat was involved in promoting M/s Hamdan Trading, which is owned by his friend Andy Sehgal, for cornering contracts in Iraq between 2000-2002. Indian diplomats posted in west Asia in that period confirm that Jagat Singh paid at least two visits to Iraq, one of them just days before Saddam's âreferendumâ of October 15, 2002.

On condition of anonymity, these officials alleged Jagat, who is now Congress MLA from Lachchmangarh, Rajasthan, used the offices of the Indian Embassy in Baghdad to push his business interests.

Despite repeated attempts by this websiteâs newspaper to contact Jagat Singh, he was not available for comment and did not reply to text messages sent to his mobile phone.

Andy Sehgal, on the other hand, told this websiteâs newspaper: âJagat Singh is a friend of mine and not a relative ... Hamdan Trading is my company and we did try to get some contracts through STC, which had issued tenders (for the `oil for food' programme) ... But we did not make the grade. In this connection I had also travelled to Iraq as part of an STC delegation.â

While the Congress has left Natwar to defend himself, it may be recalled that he was instrumental, as an Opposition MP in 2003, in pushing for Parliament to pass a resolution that âdeploredâ the US invasion of Iraq.

In fact at the all-party meeting called to draft the resolution _ on April 7, 2003 _ Natwar attacked then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee for soft-pedalling on the issue. According to those present, the then leader of the Samajwadi Party in the Lok Sabha, Mulayam Singh Yadav, urged Vajpayee to accede to Natwar's demand for outright condemnation.

The next day, the NDA government agreed to a resolution criticising the US action in Iraq. The same day US troops entered Baghdad.

The supposed involvement of the Panther Party's Bhim Singh and the Congress Party was pointed out by Iraq's ÃªiAl-MedaÃªr newspaper on January 28, 2004. While implicating others, including British Labour Party MP George Galloway, the newspaper named the Congress as being an alleged recipient of one million barrels of oil.

REACTIONS:

K. Natwar Singh from Frankfurt: âI am deeply shocked and outraged by these allegations which are baseless and untrue. My record in public life for the past 50 years and more has been an open book ... This is obviously a part of the continuing campaign to malign the Congress party and its senior leaders.â

Ambika Soni, Congress general secretary: âI categorically state that the reports are false and baseless. We consider this an attempt to sully the fair name of the Indian National Congress.â Individuals, she added, were competent to defend themselves. She would confine herself to speaking for the party.

Arun Jaitley, BJP general secretary: âHow can he (Natwar Singh) continue as India's foreign minister even for a day? ... Every word he speaks will be suspect and statements on foreign affairs will be suspect. A person who can be compromised by X can be compromised by Y.â

10-30-2005, 01:02 AM

Read whole list of news on this issue.

10-30-2005, 01:34 AM

Pioneer.com
QUOTENatwar is an embarrassment 
First there was The Mitrokhin Archive, a quasi-official publication of the British Government which revealed the alarming extent of KGB penetration of the Left-liberal political establishment and India's intelligence agencies.Â Â

The UPA Government, no doubt concerned with the reputation of the Congress party and its Communist allies, decided to brazen out the controversy. A junior Minister of State was deputed to inform the country that the charges were "devoid of merit" and smacked of unsubstantiated sensationalism. A lazy media decided this was the last word on the subject and relegated Mitrokhin to the archives.

Now there is another damning report that suggests that a senior member of the Congress party was bribed by Saddam Hussein to influence the country's foreign policy. The UN-backed, independent report by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker on the Oil for Food scandal, which was released in New York on Friday, is only tangentially about India. Indeed, India finds only perfunctory mention in the main report. It is a report on how the Saddam regime received colossal kickbacks and bribed its way through the political establishments around the world.

Perhaps it wouldn't have mattered if the Indian extras in this web of deceit were figures from the past. However, the Congress establishment has to face up to the fact that an international report by a man, who has absolutely no axe to grind in India, has listed External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh as a beneficiary of $748,450 (amounting to Rs 3.37 crore at today's exchange rate) from Iraqi oil sales. The money was routed through Switzerland by a company called Masefield AG and listed the beneficiary as a "member of the Congress party."

The political tag attached to the payment makes it quite apparent that the External Affairs Minister was paid in his then capacity as head of the Congress' foreign affairs cell. According to the Volcker Report, such payments were made to "empower Iraq with economic and political leverage to advance its broader interest in overturning the sanctions regime." In other words, Saddam's payments were qualitatively no different from the suitcases disbursed by the KGB to further the interests of the Soviet Union. Saddam was buying influence and the Congress allowed itself to be bought.

This, however, is not an ordinary allegation of sleaze. The amount involved is relatively small compared to whispered kickbacks in commercial deals. The Volcker Report acquires importance on two counts. First, there is the role of Natwar Singh in pushing the unanimous resolution condemning the US-led military intervention in Iraq in 2003. And, second, Natwar Singh now happens to be the External Affairs Minister of India.Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' />

For the moment, it is not necessary to go over Natwar Singh's successful lobbying for Saddam in India. Nor should the controversy be confined to the repeated visits made to Saddam's Iraq by a Congress MLA who is part of Natwar Singh's family. What is important today is the issue of the Minister continuing in office for even a single day. A man who has been indicted by an international report for being a lobbyist for a criminal regime has absolutely no right to determine the foreign policy of India. His immediate resignation is a must. 

Of course, the Minister has every right to answer the charges. However, the indictment by the Volcker Report means that it has to be resignation first, and a post-mortem subsequently. National honour and national security must be upheld. Both Mitrokhin and Volcker have conclusively demonstrated that "anti-imperialism" is not an ideology; it is a position of profit.

For the Congress too there are important questions to answer. Natwar Singh is not an ordinary functionary of the party. He has for long been a trusted adviser of Sonia Gandhi and has also served as the custodian for various trusts of the first family. He is in the inside track of decision-making in the Congress. Consequently, it is pertinent to ask the question: Were the payoffs merely to an individual?

10-30-2005, 02:49 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Oct 29 2005, 07:50 PM)Oil-for-Food probe: Congress denies charges <div class='quotetop'>QUOTEThe Volcker committee inquiry appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2004 also named External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh in the report.Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' />

The Congress Party said the allegations are baseless as it was not in power when the Oil-for-Food Programme was operated. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />
.........
BJP slams Cong
But the BJP is accusing the minister of having personally benefitted in the case.

BJP General Secretary Arun Jaitley demanded Natwar Singh's resignation and said that the Congress should give a statement on the issue.

"How can he (Natwar Singh) continue as India's Foreign Minister even for a day if the UN report mentions him as a non-contractual beneficiary for manipulated payment in UN Food-for-Oil programme.

"Every word he speaks will be suspect and his statements on Foreign Affairs will be suspect," said Jaitley.


QUOTEOil-for-Food Programme

In 2001, Iraq was awarded the Oil-for-Food Programme from the UN while it was still under sanctions. This was being done for humanitarian reasons.

The Volcker committee now says that Saddam Hussein approached Natwar Singh and the Congress party to be involved in this programme.

According to the report, 80 lakh barrels of oil was allotted to both Natwar Singh and the Congress party. The total amount claimed by both was approximately 30 lakh barrel.

Against this, the Congress and Singh were expected to provide humanitarian assistance through Indian industries worth for the same amount.

The report alleges that in all Saddam Hussein sold oil worth US$ 64 billion internationally and got a US$ 1.8 billion kickback

More than 100 Indian companies including Reliance and individuals are also listed as having done business in this deal.

The list of Indian companies includes STC, Kirloskar Engines, Ajanta Pharma, Mohan Exports, L T Overseas Ltd, Jord Engineers, National Electrical Industry, Jain Irrigation Systems, Lucky Exports and Airpac Exports
How they did it? Is it through state they were in power? Why NDA failed to catch them?
[right][snapback]40267[/snapback][/right]
</div>

Mudy

That's why CONmen keep up good relations with SCOUNDRELS of the world. NDA may be in power. But CONmen have the advantage of being in power for 50 years and have a lot of links to shady characters all over the world. They can SELL India even when they are not in the POWER. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

The BJP has been fighting itself so much that they won't be able to take advantage of this at all.

10-30-2005, 03:07 AM

QUOTEIn fact at the all-party meeting called to draft the resolution _ on April 7, 2003 _ Natwar attacked then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee for soft-pedalling on the issue. According to those present, the then leader of the Samajwadi Party in the Lok Sabha, Mulayam Singh Yadav, urged Vajpayee to accede to Natwar's demand for outright condemnation.
His personal greed was more important than his own country. Such traitors should be hanged on goal post. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' />
Who else pocketed money? Sonia.
How COngress is bank rolling Sonia and her family is no surprise?

10-30-2005, 08:58 PM

PM backs Natwar, condemns UN report
One chor supporting other. <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

10-30-2005, 11:29 PM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Oct 30 2005, 03:07 AM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEIn fact at the all-party meeting called to draft the resolution _ on April 7, 2003 _ Natwar attacked then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee for soft-pedalling on the issue. According to those present, the then leader of the Samajwadi Party in the Lok Sabha, Mulayam Singh Yadav, urged Vajpayee to accede to Natwar's demand for outright condemnation.
His personal greed was more important than his own country. Such traitors should be hanged on goal post. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' />
Who else pocketed money? Sonia.
How COngress is bank rolling Sonia and her family is no surprise?
[right][snapback]40302[/snapback][/right]
</div>

This Volcker report is definitely biased. It is well known that Natwar Singh was supporting Iran for a long time. US administration cooked up this story to tame India.

But the role of COngress and Natwar Singh should be investigated.

Since the credibility of the US administartion in the whole Iraq issue is dubious and it is going take many heads there, one should not give much credence to that. The reasons for which Iraq was attacked is now open and it was jsut a cooked up story by Dick Cheney and his asssociates. The role of Koffi Annan and his son is also dubious.

**shamu** · 10-31-2005, 12:51 AM

Long back, soon after Saddam was deposed, they had reported that India's Congress Party had received funds from Saddam. But they did not reveal details then.

I don't believe that the fact is wrong, but the leaking of this news may have something to do with Natwar's support to Iran. Natwar's son may not be the only receipient of Saddam's money.

US government is master in selectively leaking news to media inorder to armtwist the opponent.

10-31-2005, 01:59 AM

Receiving funds from Sadam is not a crime at all. USA itself supported Saddam with arms for a decade to fight Iran. Saddam paid them to support him for a long time. Now USA is after Iran. Bush is a failure in the domestic front. His approval rating is lowest in 5years. Now he wants to divert attention away to some other issue.

10-31-2005, 04:54 AM

QUOTEI don't believe that the fact is wrong, but the leaking of this news may have something to do with Natwar's support to Iran. Natwar's son may not be the only receipient of Saddam's money.

Its part of investigation conducted by UN. Its more damaging for US and European companies and some individual. Natwar/Congress party is just a small greedy fish.

QUOTEReceiving funds from Sadam is not a crime at all.
His regime was under UN sanction so its a crime according to International law.

QUOTEBush is a failure in the domestic front
In US. not a single channel is reporting any news on this issue. Nothing to do with US internal politics.

**shamu** · 10-31-2005, 07:50 AM

QUOTE(kaalidaasan @ Oct 31 2005, 01:59 AM)Receiving funds from Sadam is not a crime at all. 

Yes, it is a crime for anybody holding power to receive secret funds. If they receive funds, they are likely to make policies favoring the donor. Just connect Congress policies towards Soviet Union and Saddam with recent revelations.

All the talk of non-aligned solidarity is nothing but bull crap. It was money that was working behind it.

10-31-2005, 09:53 PM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Oct 29 2005, 03:31 PM)With Natwar under cloud, his son's visit to Iraq raises questionsNEW DELHI: Despite External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh's outrage over the disclosures by the Paul Volcker Committee's final report into the âoil for foodâ programme in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, there is credible evidence to indicate his son Jagat Singh was actively involved in promoting companies to corner lucrative contracts under the programme.
[right][snapback]40287[/snapback][/right]


If memory serves me right, I believe this Jagat Singh's wife died under mysterious circumstances and about a month later his sister. Anyone know status of the police case or was it all pushed under the rug after Natwar became FM?

10-31-2005, 10:32 PM

QUOTEIf memory serves me right, I believe this Jagat Singh's wife died under mysterious circumstances and about a month later his sister. Anyone know status of the police case or was it all pushed under the rug after Natwar became FM?
Jagatâs muslim wife died in Hyatt regency swimming pool by so called "jumping from roofâ. If you have seen hotel, one can wonder how that roof became so accessible to "so called" drunk lady. Mysteriously now they call it suicide and case is closed.

Natwar's unmarried daughter (32 yrs) who was working in UK, was on vacation, also committed suicide inside Natwar's house in Delhi after few months of her sister-in-laws death.

11-01-2005, 03:31 AM

QUOTEOilgate in India 
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Given the utterly opaque manner in which the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government has been functioning, one had to be singularly naÃ¯ve to expect that it would take credible steps to investigate the Volcker Committee's findings.
Â
What, however, even seasoned political observers did not expect was the breathtaking alacrity with which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rushed to give Foreign Minister Natwar Singh a clean chit, saying that the evidence presented by the Committee was "insufficient" to arrive at any "adverse conclusion". Such unusually prompt response - without even going through the motions of holding an inquiry - was, to say the least, strange, given the seriousness of the Committee's finding that the Congress Party and External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh were among the "non-contractual beneficiaries" of Iraqi oil sales in 2001. Both the volume of oil and the cash involved are substantial.

According to the Committee's report, the Congress party was allotted four million barrels of oil, and Mr Singh, an equal volume in two installments of two million barrels each, via the Swiss energy company Masefield AG. This entitled them to commission on sales which would have fetched them a profit of $250,000 to $300,000 on the high side and $50,000 to $100,000 on the low side, on the sale of every one million barrels.

According to the report, 1,001 barrels and 1,936 barrels were actually lifted against the allotment made to the Congress and Mr Natwar Singh respectively. Thus the amounts involved are by no means small. More important, however, is the implication of the allotment, which clearly represented an attempt by the authorities to influence the policies of what in 2001 was India's principal opposition party and which is now the main constituent of the UPA Government at the Centre.
Â
The primary - albeit not an unimportant - question is not whether Mr Natwar Singh has received the money; he may well not have received any and had merely asked a conduit for the flow of funds to the Congress and no more. What is of concern is the question of foreign influence on India's policies, which gives to the entire matter a dimension that allotments to a minor politician like Mr Bhim Singh (against which no oil was lifted) or the Messrs Reliance Industries, a private company, do not have. Both Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have, therefore, a responsibility to reveal, in a manner that carries conviction, what exactly has happened.

By giving a certificate to Mr Natwar Singh in unseemly haste, the Prime Minister has only created the impression that he was trying to sweep the scandal under the carpet. This has severely dented the Government's credibility and his own image. As an intelligent man, he should know this and also the fact that if there is anything from which he can draw some consolation, it is the contortions of the CPI(M) which, in a bid to be too-clever-by-half, has made a stunning display of its hypocrisy.

It has, demanded that the Government investigate the matter, brazenly ignoring the fact that the Government's main prop, the Congress, is in the dock in this case. But then one could hardly have expected the heirs to those exposed by the Mitrokhin Archives-II to take make things difficult for others accused of receiving foreign funds. Birds of the same feather help each other.

11-01-2005, 04:50 AM

Go, minister 
After this, Natwar Singh cannot be retained in the government.

11-01-2005, 06:25 PM

QUOTE(kaalidaasan @ Oct 31 2005, 01:59 AM)Receiving funds from Sadam is not a crime at all. USA itself supported Saddam with arms forÂ a decade to fight Iran. Saddam paid them to support him for a long time. Now USA is after Iran. Bush is a failure in the domestic front. His approval rating is lowest in 5years. Now he wants to divert attentionÂ away to some other issue.
[right][snapback]40352[/snapback][/right]


Hmmmmmmmm. Receiving funds from Saddam is not a CRIME? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' />
Why is he sending funds to NUTwar or CONmen or SONIA? Is he a Philanthropist trying to donate to the cause of AIDS research or World HUNGER or something like that? Why would he pay money to ur politicians?

What ever dirty things US does with world's most repugnant dictators is NONE of CONmen's business. If US has some shady deal with Saddam, it does not mean our shady CONmen can make such deals with him and accept funds from him.

11-02-2005, 12:01 AM

Cabinet reshuffle in the offing QUOTE"When the cabinet is expanded, factors like capabilities and regional imbalances will be kept in mind," said Ambika Soni, Congress Leader.

Although Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi will take the final call on the portfolios, sources indicate:

Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi or Suresh Pachauri might become full-time in-charge of the parliamentary affairs ministry.

Congress leader from Kerala, Vyalar Ravi, is likely to be a new face in the cabinet.

Names from Orissa, a state which has not been represented in the cabinet so far, include Giridhar Gamang and Chandrashekhar Sahu.

Congress leader Saifuddin Soz might now represent the Kashmir valley in the Manmohan Singh cabinet.

And finally, Shibu Soren is likely to return to the Union cabinet after his defeat in Jharkhand.
While Ambika Soni might also be asked to join the cabinet, Rahul Gandhi is sure to be nominated as an office bearer of the Congress party.

Once the cabinet reshuffle gets over, the Congress President will look towards revamping the party.

11-02-2005, 12:36 AM

QUOTEPoor Natwar is just a fiduciary; 
Sonia Congress is the real beneficiary
Sunday October 30 2005 12:01 IST
S Gurumurthy

Amid all their hectic political commitments in India the Congress Party led by Sonia Gandhi and Natwar Singh, the External Affairs Minister now, seem to have spared time for a mysterious business in Iraqi crude oil. This is what the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) appointed by the United Nations in its final report released the day before yesterday (October 27, 2005) confirms.

The IIC report says more. In simple terms that it is a straight bribe given by the Iraqi regime to the Congress and to Natwar Singh. This stunning revelation by the IIC shows that the Congress party and Natwar were chosen by Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime for transferable entitlement of Iraqi crude oil as political friends of the

Iraqi government under the Food-for-Oil Programme of the United Nations. The allotment is made with a view to favouring the friends of the Saddam's regime with the black gold so that they could make a killing by selling it. Along with Natwar and the Congress from India are two similar allottees of Iraqi crude obviously in the category of the `politically influential'.

One is well known, the Reliance Petroleum and the other, an unknown `Bhim Singh'. But mysteriously Reliance was not allotted crude for its refinery, but like Natwar Singh was, as a favoured party. While Sonia Congress and Natwar got an allotment of four million tonnes of crude each, Reliance got an entitlement of 19 million tonnes and the unknown Bhim Singh 7.3 million tonnes.

Now, some sideshow is unavoidable. What is this Food-for-Oil Programme? When the United Nations had imposed sanctions on Iraq from 1990, the Iraqi people became starved of food and medicine and other essentials. So from 1996, the Saddam regime was allowed by the United Nations to export crude oil but deposit the proceeds in a special bank account (technically known as Escrow Account) in the name of the UN. From out of that account the UN would pay for all Iraq's essential imports of food, medicines, etc.

This UN scheme was operational from 1996. But the critical period was between September 2000 and August 2002. It was during this period that the Saddam regime outsmarted the UN and stashed away some $1.8 billions out of the UN scheme when the UN officials `looked the other way' obviously for `the right consideration'.

During this period, the IIC report says, Iraq exported crude oil in excess of $64 billion and deposited the amount in the escrow with the UN. In the same period, according to the IIC report, the UN paid out of the Escrow account $24.8 billion for the essential import bill of Iraq. While Iraq behaved honourably from 1996 to 2000 August, obviously forced by the high-handedness of the US, it decided to exploit the loopholes in the UN scheme for making money `on the side'.

Under the scheme, the UN will decide the fair market price at which Iraq will sell the oil and will control the money obtained on export. But the UN scheme left a large loophole for Iraq to exploit. Iraq could decide who to export the oil to and from whom to import the essential goods from. While the cash was controlled by the UN, the crude and the decision to spend were in the hands of Saddam. Iraq exported crude through or to 248 companies.

This included the Indian Oil Corporation also. Out of them, 139 companies paid `on money' of $ 229 million to Saddam's regime over and above the official payment for oil exports into the Escrow Account of the UN. (But the Indian Oil on which a demand for payment of on money of $893,914 was made refused to pay the bribe and so did not get future allotment. The BJP, which was in power at that time, and Ram Naik, who was the Oil Minister then, indeed can feel proud!). On the import side, Iraq imported essentials for $ 24.8 billion from 3614 companies and out of them 2253 companies paid kickbacks of $1.5 billions to Saddam' regime. The Saddam operation lasted till August 2002, when the Iraqi regime on its own ceased taking on money and kickbacks.

Every lamppost in the global oil market knew that bribes were being paid by the buyers of Iraqi oil. Yet the UN did nothing about it till after Saddam himself was overthrown by the US and allies. After everything was over, in April 2004 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed the IIC to examine, among other things, ``allegations of fraud and corruption'' by UN officials and those who entered into contracts with the UN and Iraq. The UN backed the investigation by a resolution asking the member nations to cooperate in the investigation.

The IIC consisted of Paul Volcker, the former US Federal Reserve Chairman and two more, an expert on money laundering and an expert criminal prosecutor. The IIC gave an interim report on Feb, 2, 2005, and a second interim report on March 29, 2005 and has come out with the final report on October 27, now.

Now on with the main story... While till Aug 2000, the Iraqi regime was selling oil to recognised global oil companies or traders, from September 2000 it began selecting its oil recipients to influence foreign policy and influence public opinion in its favour. The Saddam regime began to allot oil entitlements to companies and individuals from countries perceived to be friendly to Iraq, particularly permanent members of the Security Council so that it could influence theirs to get the sanctions eased. (No one can deny this is in Iraq's legitimate national interest).

Thus Russia received a third of the oil entitlements in this period, and France came a close second! Iraq did disfavour the US oil companies, but that did not make any difference to the US companies which could buy substantial Russian oil entitlements from Iraq and get their supplies!

The US could be at war with Saddam, but that did not prevent US companies from buying Iraqi crude in `black market' and making gain. Not that the US was unaware of it either! Were all allottees of Iraqi crude only the regular players in the oil market, the oil companies or oil traders? `No' says the Volcker Report.

The Iraqi crude allottees, it says, consisted of a wide range of individuals and groups, including political parties, both ruling and opposition, who espoused pro-Iraqi views and organised anti-sanction activities.

They are named in the records of the Iraqi government's State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) as `non-contractual beneficiaries' of the entitlement. Note the words carefully. They are not the ones who will enter into contracts to buy the oil. They are just beneficiaries of some buyer who will contract and buy under their entitlement. They are not the ones who will buy the oil. They are not the players in oil market.They are political players whose opinion matters for Saddam and Iraq.

In substance the Saddam Regime bribed them to speak in favour of Iraq. It is in this category that Natwar Singhs and Sonia Congress fall in the Iraqi calculations. And it is for this purpose that the entitlement of Iraqi crude was given to them. What will the Congress party led by Sonia and Natwar Singh do with this entitlement? Volcker report says that these `political beneficiaries often used little known intermediary companies to enter into contracts for their entitlements and then the oil is sold through the intermediaries to established oil companies or traders'.

The oil companies and traders pay the intermediaries `on-money' over and above the UN official price which, says the Volcker report, includes the payment due to the entitlement holder. This is the bribe to the political favourite of the Saddam regime.

What did the Sonia Congress and Natwar Singh get in this side business? Table 5 of the Report under the head `Summary of Oil Sales by Non-Contractual Beneficiaries', that is, says the Volcker report, `individuals and entities other than named contracting party' this category is listed.

Coming to Indian political favourites of the Saddam regime, the Table 5 lists: `Beneficiary: India: Congress Party' with an entitlement of 4 million barrels of crude' and `Beneficiary: India: Singh Mr K. Natwar' with an entitlement of 4 million barrels again. In the last column against Natwar Singh it is noted that in the SOMO records he is mentioned as `Member Indian Congress Party'. Poor Natwar, he is not the real beneficiary, just a fiduciary.

The real beneficiary is the Sonia Congress. Natwar is just a foot soldier of the party! More, the record shows that out of the 8 million barrels allotted to the Sonia Congress half of it, 3 million barrels were bought by one `Masefield AG' based in Switzerland.

This company's name does not figure anywhere else. So whatever Masefield paid the Sonia Congress and Natwar for the benefit of the Sonia Congress is limited to little more than a third of the entitlement, the balance having lapsed. Poor thing, the Sonia Congress actually lost almost two-thirds of the bribe!

But what about Reliance and who is Bhim Singh?

The Volcker report lists Reliance to which a crude oil entitlement of 19 million barrels had been made by Saddam regime not as an oil company; but as a `non-contractual beneficiary'. Like the Sonia Congress and Natwar Singh in Table 5! The oil companies, including Indian Oil Corporation, are listed separately.

Also the oil entitlement to Reliance was lifted, not by Reliance, but by Alcon one of the four intermediary companies, which bought most of the entitlements. That means Reliance was chosen not as an Oil company but as an influential entity which could swing the public opinion in favour of the Saddam regime.

Obviously Reliance has no interest in influencing any one in favour of the Saddam regime. So it is a mystery why Reliance, which is an oil company, is listed as a `non-contractual beneficiary' in which category only bribe takers are listed. Who was Reliance fronting for?

The entitlement to Reliance that was lifted is more than five times the entitlement to the Sonia Congress that was lifted finally. So the amount that Reliance got for someone unknown should be five times more! Also who is Bhim Singh to whom an entitlement of 7.3 million barrels were made, but not a barrel was lifted.

There is no Bhim Singh known in Oil trade in India. Again he is also lifted in Table 5, which is the list, stated in simple terms, of bribe takers. Volcker report can say only this much. The rest the Indian government has to unearth. But what will the poor Prime Minister do when his own party, his own leader and his own External Affairs Minister are involved?

www.newindpress.com/colum...&Sub=&Cat=

11-03-2005, 01:09 AM

Natwar not yet out of oil-for-food scam : Times of IslamabadQUOTENEW DELHI: Panthers Party chief Bhim Singh has confirmed that he was offered a lucrative deal by the Saddam Hussein regime under the Oil-for-Food Programme (OFFP), but says he declined it. Even more significantly, Singh also told TOI he had seen a document that suggested external affairs minister Natwar Singh was among several others who were offered similar money-spinning oil allocations.

Bhim Singh claims the offers were made by a committee headed by the then deputy prime minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz and the then vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan.

The revelations are the first instance of a person "accused" by the UN report confirming that lucrative deals were indeed offered by the Saddam regime. They are likely to add pressure on the beleaguered Natwar Singh, who has attempted to rubbish the UN panelâs report.

Bhim Singh said he had written to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Wednesday, demanding that the UN should not only publicly provide details of evidence against those who accepted such sweetheart deals, but also the evidence that some âlike him â refused all such offers.............. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/guitar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='guitar.gif' />

Login




Remember me Lost Password?