Volcker & Bofors - Congress Party involvement

11-10-2005, 03:32 AM

OIL-FOR-FOOD -THE REAL SCANDAL--Guest Column by Radha Rajan The Author is Joint Secretary, Vigil Public Opinion Forum, Chennai)QUOTEThe money that was made âillegallyâ by Saddam Hussein was utilized for his people while the money made legally was diverted illegally for non-humanitarian purposes. Natwar Singh and Soniaâs Congress may be the opportunists that Saddam Hussein may have used to make the money so desperately needed for his people but we, as a nation cannot reduce the immoral oil-for-food programme or the scandalous Volcker report to Natwar Singh and the Congress party. This was and continues to be a crime against the children and the people of Iraq and therefore calls for collective national response to UN (read American) plunder and loot. Do we have the vision and the sense to see it that way?

11-11-2005, 12:55 AM

Pioneer.com
QUOTEVitol links Cong to $16.8 m oil scam 
Yogesh Vajpeyi / Rana Ajit / New Delhi
Another Letter of Credit worth $5.7 m links Natwar------- More details linking the Congress party and former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh with the Iraq Oil-for-Food scam surfaced even as the Union Cabinet on Thursday approved the setting up of the Justice RS Pathak Inquiry Authority to go into the Volcker Committee revelations.

A Rotterdam-based oil major Vitol had issued two letters of credit (LC) -one for the Congress party and another for Natwar Singh_ which were deposited with the UN approved bank Banque Nationale Paribas. 

A close scrutiny of Table IV of the Volcker Committee report shows that Vitol issued an LC (N731924) for $ 16.8 million against Contract No. M/10/57 that tallies with the details mentioned against the Congress in Table III of the report. The LC was reportedly issued for 1.896 million barrels of oil that was sanctioned to the Congress as a non-contractual beneficiary.

Similarly, Vitol issued a LC (D726805) for $5.7 million against contract no. M/09/54 that tallies with details mentioned against Mr Singh in Table III. The LC was for 300,000 barrels of oil.

In the face of these fresh pointers, the Opposition dubbed the UPA Government's resolution setting up the Inquiry Authority "to establish the truth or otherwise of unverified references" in the Volcker report as an attempt to cover up the Congress party's involvement in the scam.

The Government had not announced the terms of reference of the Inquiry Authority after the Cabinet meeting during the day fuelling Opposition's fears that and it was planning merely an executive inquiry.

However, it changed tack and another meeting of the Cabinet was held late in the night after Justice Pathak met the Prime Minister and reportedly expressed his reservations.

Briefing newspersons after the late night Cabinet confabulations, Finance Minister P Chidambaram announced that the Pathak Inquiry Authority would be vested with all the powers under the Commission of Inquiries Act and its' report would be tabled in Parliament.

To a question why an Authority was being set up instead of an Inquiry Commission, Mr Chidambaram said "there is no difference in terms of the objectives to be achieved. There is no difference in the effectiveness of the inquiry and there is no difference on the powers required to enquire into the matter."
[fraud already started]

Asked whether Natwar Singh, who was stripped off the External Affairs portfolio in the wake of Volcker findings, was present at the Cabinet meeting, Mr Chidambaram said the Union Minister was present but left when the issue of setting up of the Authority was taken up for discussion.
[No harm to invite thief]Â

While awaiting notification of the terms of reference, the BJP-led Opposition hoped that the focus of the inquiry would not be Hamdan- centric, as indicated in the Cabinet resolution setting up the authority that talked only of "allegations of payment of kickbacks by certain Indian entities and individuals."

BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said the use of terms like "unverified references" in the Cabinet resolution showed that the Government did not want to get to the truth and punish the guilty. 

"The issue is not who got the notice but who got the oil and who got the money. The Congress and the UPA Government are trying to divert the issue, " he alleged in Patna. He maintained that the only way to get to the truth would have been to entrust the inquiry to an agency

like the CBI which had coercive powers to procure evidence and interrogate witnesses within the country as well as other countries.

"The present inquiry authority will have to depend on cooperation of agencies outside the country and has limited powers to procure evidence from abroad," he pointed out.

Mr Volcker had already said that he would provide material within the legal constraints only to a judicial authority.

Though Mr Chidambaram sought to dismiss the differences and the Government has assured to invest the Pathak Inquiry Authority with "all the powers that Justice Pathak wants", few in the legal circles were prepared to buy the argument.

Mr Chidambaram refused to speak about the results of the four days of questioning of the partners of Hamdan Exports by the Enforcement Directorate.

But sources said that the ED had been able to extract statements from Hamdan's partner Andleep Sehgal that neither the Congress nor Natwar Singh had any financial dealings with it.

11-11-2005, 03:19 AM

QUOTE(Mudy @ Nov 11 2005, 12:55 AM)Pioneer.com
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEVitol links Cong to $16.8 m oil scam 
Yogesh Vajpeyi / Rana Ajit / New Delhi
Another Letter of Credit worth $5.7 m links Natwar------- More details linking the Congress party and former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh with the Iraq Oil-for-Food scam surfaced even as the Union Cabinet on Thursday approved the setting up of the Justice RS Pathak Inquiry Authority to go into the Volcker Committee revelations.
Â ................................
[right][snapback]40967[/snapback][/right]</div>
Man! If only BJP's house is in order and if there is no war of words going between VHP/RSS adn BJP, they could crush this garbage can of liars, CONmen ITALIAN mafia and COMMIE BASTA*RDS who want to destroy India.

11-11-2005, 06:24 AM

This is getting ugly every day..

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20051110/nation.htm#12

QUOTECong probing role of NDA leaders in oil-for-food scam
Anita Katyal
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, November 9
Reeling under the Opposition attack over the Volcker committee revelations, the Congress is trying to dig up evidence to show that the NDA government was involved in making âillicit paymentsâ to Iraqâs Saddam Hussienâs regime to secure lucrative contracts.

In this connection, the Congress has zeroed in on public sector companies like State Trading Corporation (STC) and Rail India Technical and Economic Services (RITES) which have figured in UNâs Volcker enquiry committee report on Iraqâs oil-for-food programme. These are among the 129 Indian firms which have been listed in Table 7 of the report as having made âillicit paymentsâ to the Iraqi President when the country was under sanctions.

While RITES has been mentioned as having paid over $ 100,000, the STC figures in the list of firms which paid less than this amount.

The Congress machinery is now working furiously to find out more on the role of the NDA ministers who headed the ministries in charge of these public sector undertakings.

While Janata Dal (U) leaders Nitish Kumar and Digivijay Singh were in the Railway Ministry which is the nodal ministry for RITES while Mr Murasoli Maran, Mr Arun Shourie and Mr Arun Jaitely were among those who headed the Commerce Ministry, STCâs nodal ministry.

The Congress is, however, not rushing to launch its counter-campaign as it wants to make sure that Mr Maran was not involved as the tables have now turned and the DMK is an important partner in the UPA government while his son Dayanidhi Maran is a minister in the present ruling coalition. Since Mr Murasoli Maran was ill for a prolonged period, the Congress is trying to ascertain as to who headed the ministry when the contracts with Iraq were finalised.

In addition, the Congress is also trying to find out whether the ministries acted independently or if the Union Cabinet or the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) endorsed these âillicit paymentsâ for securing contracts for supply of humanitarian goods. The Congress effort will be to make a link between these payments and possible pecuniary benefits that might have accrued to those who might have take a decision in this case.It will be particularly inerested in finding some dirt on Mr Arun Jaitely since he has been leading BJPâs campaign against the Congress on the Volcker controversy.

In fact, the UPA government is also toying with the possibility of including the role of the NDA government in the terms of reference of the R.S.Pathak probe into the Volcker findings, which are still being framed and are expected to be endorsed at the next Union Cabinet meeting. This is particularly so since the NDA government was in power when these deals with Iraq were finalised.

11-11-2005, 06:25 AM

BTW for those watching TV in India - does Jaitley appear a lot on TV these days ? Which BJP leader(s) are getting TV time ?

11-11-2005, 08:03 PM

From Kanchiforum:

The smoking gun that connects Ms. Sonia Gandhi to illegal payments facilitated by oil allotments of the Saddam Hussein regime is the Letter of Credit issued by Vitol Ltd in the name of President, Congress Party, 24, Akbar Road, New Delhi. That such a Letter of Credit can be inferred by Table 3 in the Volker Committee Report.

The Volker Committee also has a copy of the letter written by Ms. Sonia Gandhi to Saddam Hussein, which the latter forwarded to the Oil Ministry in Baghdad with an endorsement for oil allotment voucher in the name of President, Congress Party for more than 4 million barrels of oil. Not a drop of that oil came to India, but the kickbacks on it for Ms. Gandhi was deposited in her account in Bank of America, Caymen Island. Later, much of the money has come to India via the US based company Fidelity Investments in the form of a Participatory Note[PN] for investing in Bombay Stock Exchange. Mr. Chidambaram as Finance Minister has exempted PNs from being subject to the usual disclosure of ownership and put it outside the purview of the SEBI. This has helped Ms. Gandhi to safely launder in India her ill gotten money in Iraq.

Can the CBI now investigate and register a case with Ms. Sonia Gandhi as the first accused, and Mr. Chidambaram as the second accused/ accessory in this sordid affair?

11-11-2005, 09:24 PM

Vitol links Cong to $16.8 m oil scam
QUOTEAnother Letter of Credit worth $5.7 m links Natwar------- More details linking the Congress party and former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh with the Iraq Oil-for-Food scam surfaced even as the Union Cabinet on Thursday approved the setting up of the Justice RS Pathak Inquiry Authority to go into the Volcker Committee revelations.

A Rotterdam-based oil major Vitol had issued two letters of credit (LC) -one for the Congress party and another for Natwar Singh_ which were deposited with the UN approved bank Banque Nationale Paribas.

A close scrutiny of Table IV of the Volcker Committee report shows that Vitol issued an LC (N731924) for $ 16.8 million against Contract No. M/10/57 that tallies with the details mentioned against the Congress in Table III of the report. The LC was reportedly issued for 1.896 million barrels of oil that was sanctioned to the Congress as a non-contractual beneficiary.

Similarly, Vitol issued a LC (D726805) for $5.7 million against contract no. M/09/54 that tallies with details mentioned against Mr Singh in Table III. The LC was for 300,000 barrels of oil.

In the face of these fresh pointers, the Opposition dubbed the UPA Government's resolution setting up the Inquiry Authority "to establish the truth or otherwise of unverified references" in the Volcker report as an attempt to cover up the Congress party's involvement in the scam.

11-13-2005, 05:18 AM

http://www.dailypioneer.com/foray1.asp?mai...t&counter_img=1

QUOTECurious tale of the Telis

Chandan Mitra

Once upon a time there was a man by the name of Ziaur Rahman Ansari, a Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi Government. An elderly, almost avuncular man, impeccably attired as a member of the Muslim aristocracy of Awadh - sherwani and the works, replete with a greying goatie beard - you would have thought him least capable of pouncing on a young woman inside his ministerial office.Â Â Â

But, according to a woman NGO activist, that was exactly what he allegedly did. Many people didn't believe her for she was so well-built that one blow should have had him flat out on the floor.

Anyway, ZR Ansari's real or imagined molestation attempt is not the story. Under siege from the media even before the age of 24-hour news channels, the hapless Ansari unable to contain himself burst out, calling his critics "Telis and Tambolis." He asserted he was a dedicated Congressman and, therefore, could not possibly belong to the class of oil-pressers or paan-growers! He would not have got away with this casteist remark today, but the media focused only on his alleged pawing of a handsome woman in his ante-room and not his berating the two communities. Since he was asked to quit by an embarrassed Rajiv Gandhi, the controversy died down.

The Congress, Ansari had declared, could never be reduced to the category of Telis! I am sure the khaandaani MP from Unnao meant what he said. Ansari would be turning in his grave to discover that 20 years later his party is quite comfortable making money from oil! If the Volcker Report has any substance, India's ruling party has sunk to the level of an oil merchant. Apparently, it has gained a whopping US $ 16.7 million from a transaction through a Rotterdam-based company, courtesy Saddam Hussein. In comparison, Natwar Singh is alleged to have benefited to the tune of just $ 300,000. Peanuts! But such is the (in)justice that prevails in the world of politics that poor Natwar has been made the fall guy, Manmohan Singh's half-hearted defence of his colleague notwithstanding.

The former External Affairs Minister partially exited kicking and screaming, protesting his own and his wayward son's innocence. He had to go, for further indiscretion by him might have compelled fingers to be raised at the real beneficiaries of the shady oil business, namely, the custodians of the party he has loyally served for decades.

Everybody knows the real gainers from the food-for-oil deal: The buck stops at Delhi's most famous residential address. But that's a charge nobody dare openly make. Worse still, retainers of the impugned family were out with knives from Day One, hoping poor Natwar would promptly get the sack so that they could wriggle their way through South Block's Gate No 4 and plonk on the seat vacated by him. If Natwar Singh repeatedly put his foot in the mouth thereafter it must have been on account of his outrage at his colleagues' ruthless plotting for his ouster.

An invidious attempt is being made to turn the focus away from Sonia Gandhi and the Congress party by pointing fingers at one Andleeb (Andy) Sehgal, his dubious firm Hamadan Exports and obliquely at Natwar Singh's already controversial son Jagat. Accordingly, the RS Pathak probe has been designated an "authority," which means its status is less than that of a commission of inquiry.

A great deal of verbal jugglery has been done to pretend that "authority" and "commission" is the same thing. In common understanding, they are not. If they, indeed, are the same, what is the problem in calling it a commission of inquiry? It's disingenuous to suggest that a commission will take more time to probe than an "authority." This peculiar logic has never been advanced in the last 58 years. What is the compelling reason to do so now? Not surprisingly, it is being said in political circles, tel mein kuchh kaala hai.

On the face of it, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would appear to have acted with firmness and alacrity. As soon as storm clouds began to gather he put old UN hand Virender Dayal on the job followed the next day by Justice Pathak. These parallel inquiries are intriguing. What will be Dayal's brief when Pathak is heading the judicial probe? Both seem unclear.

Apparently Dayal will be given unlimited round-the-world air tickets to ferret out information from abroad while Justice Pathak will do the querying at home. One should not pre-judge, but Dayal's long stint at the UN could cut both ways. He may be well placed and sufficiently networked to get all the details. But the same qualifications could yield a different result if the Government's intention is to be less than transparent. In other words, the promptitude displayed by Manmohan Singh may have a different purpose. After pacifying voluble protests with these announcements, the Congress' dirty tricks department appears engaged in diluting the dimensions of the inquiry.

The Finance Minister, busy ingratiating himself to the high command (he needs to do it in view of the Left's trenchant criticism of his policies) is on yet another diversionary track. He has threatened tax raids on selected companies that are believed to have paid surcharges to Saddam Hussein for lifting his oil at discounted rates. Since the Who's Who of India's corporates have been named in this connection, it is certain that a great deal of hype will be generated over the so-called inquiry.

The fact, however, is that these companies committed no crime; their transactions with the erstwhile regime in Baghdad were of a purely commercial nature and cannot be compared with the political transactions made by Natwar Singh and, more importantly, the Congress party. In case these companies have evaded paying tax they must be probed and if guilty, punished.

However, the corporate aspect was well known for years. As Indian Oil Corporation has explained, it too was offered a deal but declined because it was not ready to pay the surcharge (read kickback). So, there was nothing particularly secret about the UN-supervised oil-for-food programme, especially since as many as 125 Indian companies participated in it. The issue, therefore, is not of commerce but ethics.

The point is whether it was appropriate for a major political party to exploit its pro-Saddam policy to make a fast buck on the side. Even if the Congress cries hoarse, who will believe there was no quid pro quo in the deal? Saddam did not extend his munificence to various Indian political parties: He confined it to the Congress. Why? Also, why was the deal evidently negotiated through the chief of the party's Foreign Affairs Cell, as it seems from the Volcker Report? Are clandestine commercial operations a legitimate way of raising funds for the party? Does this not constitute a violation of the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA)? I am afraid the Government's damage-limitation exercise is aimed at shielding the Congress and its functionaries. It is not enough to temporarily hang Natwar Singh. The Congress Party, and its president cannot escape responsibility.

Is it credible that $16.7 million (Rs 71.8 crore) flowed into the Congress's coffers without the knowledge and concurrence of its chief? Arguably, this charge is yet to be conclusively established. But is the Government interested in establishing it? Or will the Volcker probe go the Bofors way? Indians have the right to know, although we probably never will.

11-13-2005, 05:21 AM

http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=1QUOTE Panel diluted to spare Sonia
Yogesh Vajpeyi / New Delhi
Stepping up its offensive on Volcker Committee revelations, the BJP on Saturday challenged the Congress to reveal names of all those who had accompanied former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh to Iraq when he allegedly handed over Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's letter to President Saddam Hussein.Â Â Â

The demand came in the wake of former Union Minister Shiv Shankar's assertion that Hamdan Exports' promoter Andy Sehgal had accompanied the Congress team to Baghdad in 2001. According to the Volcker report, Sehgal's company had deposited $748,540 in the Jordan National Bank as surcharge for two contracts in which the Congress party and Natwar Singh were shown as 'non-contractual beneficiaries.

Mr Shiv Shankar was a member of the Congress delegation to Iraq led by Mr Natwar Singh. He told a section of the media on Friday that Sehgal had tagged along with the delegation as a friend of Mr Singh's son Jagat.

"The Congress must reveal who went to Iraq in that delegation authorised or unauthorised," BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley said.

Sources indicated that the BJP intends to put the Congress on the mat on this score because it has been informed that a known oil dealer had also accompanied the Congress delegation in addition to Jagat and Sehgal.

While the party expects more incriminating evidence against Congress and Mr Singh in the Iraqi oil scam to surface, it remains sceptical about the chances of the UPA Government appointed RS Pathak Inquiry Authority to unravel the truth.

Mr Jaitley pointed out that while it had been vested with most of the powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act through two gazette notifications on Friday, the power to issue notices to parties likely to be adversely affected by the inquiry under Section 8 of the Act had been withheld from it.

"This has been done deliberately to save public embarrassment to Ms Gandhi. Had the Pathak Authority been given powers under Section 8, it would have issued notice to her and Mr Natwar Singh and they would have been subject to cross examination". Mr Jaitley said the Government had knowingly adopted a crippled approach to the probe. "The Authority has no legal powers to issue a letter of request to international agencies/courts through the courts in India to collect evidence, both documentary and oral, outside the territory of India," he said.

Mr Jaitley pointed out that the first two terms of reference of the Authority wanted it to inquire into sources of the Volcker Committee's revelations and determine whether it was justified in making its references to the Congress and Mr Singh.

"It appears that the Government wants Mr Pathak to act as a appellate Authority over the Volcker Committee," he remarked.

As for the third term of reference relating to an investigation into when, where and how the alleged pay-offs were made, the Pathak Authority is unlikely breach the hurdle of confidentiality of transactions maintained by most international banks, he maintained.

"This could have been done only after a criminal case was registered and the CBI asked to investigate it," he added.

11-13-2005, 09:52 PM

Did Natwar cook his own goose?QUOTE It's possible the party did not get the proceeds from Saddam's concessional oil coupons, says Ajoy Bose 

A week after Mr Natwar Singh was stripped of the External Affairs Ministry portfolio, there are a few takers for the official reasons cited by the UPA Government and the Congress for his downfall.

Nor do the explanations suggested by the media, or rumours doing the rounds in political circles, seem credible. Indeed, considerable mystery remains on why Congress president Sonia Gandhi decided to turn her back on this old retainer of the Gandhi family who she has mollycoddled for so long.

Clearly, neither a sense of moral outrage nor a sense of imminent political danger could have motivated Ms Gandhi and the Congress to have taken such a step. First, any talk of moral outrage should be swiftly discounted in a party where corruption in high places and favours given and taken from all and sundry are considered routine. As a matter of fact, the knee-jerk response of the Congress, as has been the practice for the past many decades when faced with similar corruption charges against party leaders, should have been denial and bluster.

As for a sense of imminent political danger arising out of revelations contained in the Volcker report about the Congress and Mr Natwar Singh, this makes even less sense. First, the extremely scattered and unverified references of underhand dealings by individuals and institutions with the Saddam Hussein regime during the Oil-for-Food programme in the fifth volume of the report has been contested bitterly across the world. Even UN officials admit that the evidence against many of those named in the report is pretty thin, since the purpose of Volcker was find wrongdoings and malpractices within the United Nations and not outside the organisation.

The Congress could have easily taken shelter behind all these allegations and more strenuously backed Mr Natwar Singh's own public fulminations about the credibility of the Volcker report. Now it also turns out that Mr Paul Volcker, despite claiming to do so, may not have notified either the Congress or Mr Natwar Singh about their names featuring in the report. This would have further strengthened the case of the UPA Government and the Congress, if they chose to rubbish the report.

What makes the gravity with which the Government and ruling party chose to view the report even more puzzling is that they were not under pressure to do so from any of it allies. Instead, several allies including the Left Front, DMK and even the Nationalist Congress Party chose to make public statements supporting Mr Natwar Singh, and declaring that there was no need for him step down from the post of Foreign Minister just because of the Volcker report. In fact, many Leftist leaders were openly critical of the report, seeing it as a bid by the United States to remove Mr Singh because he was not so inclined towards the Bush Administration and its policies.

There is also some talk about the probe being announced and Mr Natwar Singh removed from the Foreign Minister's post to save the Government from being embarrassed by the BJP and other opposition parties in the coming Winter Session of Parliament. Surely, this is bit of a joke, since the Congress along with other ruling parties have revelled in surviving Opposition charges of corruption both within Parliament and outside. Considering the internal woes of the BJP at the moment and the general subdued mood of the Opposition, it seems quite inconceivable that it could mount the kind of challenge to the Government on the Volcker report, say, like it did during the Bofors scandal. Even die-hard critics of the Congress admit that there is a huge difference in scale and substance between the two scams, at least on evidence on view so far.

So, if a sense of moral outrage or pressure from its allies or the Opposition was not the reason, was it a daring internal coup within the Congress that got rid of Mr Natwar Singh from the Foreign Minister's post? Some suggest that a powerful cabal of leaders including Ms Ambika Soni, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Jairam Ramesh forced Ms Sonia Gandhi to withdraw her protection from the old Gandhi family loyalist. Now, this is extremely difficult to believe considering the sweeping authority of Ms Gandhi within the Congress, and the abject manner in which everyone in the party falls into line with her likes and dislikes. There had to be some kind of signal from the lady herself for the hounds in the Congress to have started baying for the blood of the ousted Foreign Minister.

There is also speculation that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took a firm stance against Mr Natwar Singh and served the Congress president with an ultimatum that he would quit unless the Foreign Minister stepped down. This too seems most unlikely and completely at variance with the Prime Minister's dealings with 10, Janpath. While differences between the two Singhs on a host of foreign policy issues date back to well before the UPA Government came to power, it is difficult to believe that he would blot his copybook and mount pressure on the Congress supremo - a move that even if temporarily successful could easily backfire in the future. It is also significant that Mr Manmohan Singh has gone out of his way to defend Mr Natwar Singh after the latter quit the Foreign Ministry.

To solve the Natwar Singh mystery, we need to look beyond the more obvious reasons and speculation for his departure. There is a distinct possibility, for instance, that Mr Natwar Singh got into trouble with Ms Sonia Gandhi herself, after she was provided some damaging evidence that suggested his son, Jagat Singh, had garnered concessional oil coupons from Saddam Hussein in the name of the Congress, but did not pass on the proceeds to the party. It is an open secret that this kind of betrayal on money matters is far greater sin to the Congress president than political disloyalty.

To make matters worse for himself, Mr Natwar Singh is reported to have lost his head when confronted with this evidence. He is said to have publicly threatened at a New Delhi evening party that he was all for a probe into the Volcker report as long as it went right to the top of the Congress. Not surprisingly, Ms Sonia Gandhi was furious when reports of this public gaffe got back to her. The beleaguered Foreign Minister then proceeded to crucify himself further by giving an explosive interview to NDTV where he uttered several foreign policy indiscretions.

This was followed by yet another controversial statement to the media on the Iran vote, and his goose was cooked.
Shows Sonia is not only greedy but dumb.

11-14-2005, 10:25 PM

PM not to attend CHOGM conference
QUOTEThe CHOGM (Chaps Holidaying On Govt Money)Â meeting is scheduled to take place at the month end while Parliament's Winter Session commences on November 23. In the session, the opposition is likely to raise the Volcker Committee issue.

11-15-2005, 04:48 AM

QUOTEJagat got help from Indian trader- By Seema Mustafa
New Delhi, Nov. 13: Who was Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal's first contact in Iraq who led them to Iraqi officials and the high society operating behind closed doors in that sanction-hit country? A young Indian businessman, Jamil Mohammad, based in Iraq and very close to Congress party circles, was amongst the first to get in touch with the two visitors, who were accompanying a Congress goodwill mission to Iraq under the then President Saddam Hussein.

Mr Jamil, a very pleasant and engaging young man, was a regular fixture in Iraq in those days, claiming to do business that he never really specified. Hospitable to the last, he dined and wined influential Indian visitors, helped them into the corridors of power as he claimed to know Mr Saddam Hussein's son Udai. He was clearly rich and well-connected, and back in Delhi had good links with operatives of the Youth Congress. So, when Mr Jagat Singh and Mr Andaleeb Sehgal accompanied minister of external affairs K. Natwar Singh to Iraq in January 2001, they were taken "care of" by Jamil who helped them develop the contacts required to do business in that country.

The story that appears to have reached a conclusion in the Volcker Committee report really began in January 2001 when Mr Natwar Singh, accompanied by protÃ©gÃ©e and fellow member of the AICC foreign relations cell Aneil Mathrani, and former ministers P. Shiv Shankar and A.R. Antulay, decided to visit Iraq on a goodwill mission from the Congress party. Mr Jagat Singh, son of Mr Natwar Singh, travelled with the delegation. Mr Sehgal joined a day later. The young delegates disappeared from view, spending their time with Jamil and his friends in getting to know the influential Iraqis and exploring the areas for lucrative business. They were dinners, music at night and hard business during the day.

The official delegation armed with the letter met Mr Saddam Hussein's second-in-command Tariq Aziz. Mr Antulay said that this was the highest they went. Another Indian businessman operating in Iraq at the time, who had hosted a dinner for the delegation in Baghdad, Mr H.S. Meijie, said he had learnt from the Iraqi oil minister at the time that Mr Natwar Singh had met Iraq President Saddam Hussein. And that he was the only person from the delegation to have got the appointment. Subsequently, Mr Meijie said that the oil minister Ammr Rashid had told him that an oil allocation had been cleared for Mr Natwar Singh.

Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy has claimed since that the letter from Mrs Sonia Gandhi was used for the appointment and the subsequent clearance of the oil contract, and that it was part of the Iraqi petroleum ministry records. While this cannot be verified, it is true according to those who knew the workings of the Iraqi government then, that a letter from the Congress president of support would have opened doors for Congress leaders or relatives looking for business with Iraq at the time, simply because of the close relations and high regard with which Mr Saddam Hussein held the party and its earlier leadership.

The delegation returned to India as did the others accompanying it. But there is evidence of return visits by at least three individuals including Mr Aneil Mathrani, Mr Jagat Singh and Mr Andaleeb Sehgal.

In a careful piecing together of the events of the time, this newspaper came across Indians in Iraq, who did not want to be quoted for obvious reasons, who had personally met Mr Mathrani in Amman, Jordan, on his way to Iraq. He along with Mr Sehgal and Mr Jagat Singh renewed the contacts that they had made during the initial visit, and used the "friends" they had made to tie up business transactions. Oil, if the Volcker Committee report findings are found to be correct, was clearly the main area of interest.

Sources witness to the visits pointed out that "gifts were showered" on Iraqis by these Indian visitors who came at different points in time, and not necessarily together. Most Indian businessmen operating out of Iraq played host to visiting delegations, making it a point to be regulars at the Indian embassy and keeping close contact with the Iraqi leaders.

Mr Jamil was amongst those with an "in" into Iraqi high society as well as the top echelons of the leadership in Baghdad. He had little time for the Indian mission as he knew the local ropes and provided the heady mix between hard business during the day and high living at night. Mr Meijie was the sober businessman, officially entrusted with hosting a dinner for visitors such as Mr Natwar Singh, and doing so to develop contacts that he could not always encash.

http://www.asianage.com/main.asp?layout=2&...&RF=DefaultMain

11-15-2005, 09:30 PM

What did ya'all expect? A confession from bofor's chor, antique smuggler, and Italian Bandit queen from Tiber valley? <!--emo& Tongue

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

QUOTEGuilty will not be spared: SoniaÂ

Press Trust of India
Posted online: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 1240 hours IST
Updated: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 1436 hours IST

New Delhi, November 15: Breaking her silence on the Volcker committee report, Congress president Sonia Gandhi today declared that action would be taken against any individual found guilty in the inquiry into allegations of pay offs in the Iraqi oil deals.

She also rejected a suggestion that she was "protecting" former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh the moment the controversy broke out after his name and that of the Congress party were mentioned as beneficiaries in the pay offs.

"Obviously, we are waiting for the results of the inquiry... what comes out of the inquiry... action will be taken if something comes out against any individual if he has indulged in some activities.

"Government will initiate action (against individuals). We can no longer look the other way when such things take place," she said in reply to questions on the Volcker committee controversy at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi.

Making it clear that she fully backed the government decision on instituting a judicial probe into the allegations and was "100 per cent with it" to get to the bottom of the problem.

"I hope that they (inquiry) will come out with the truth in the shortest possible time. Any individual found not innocent, action will be taken," she said during the question-answer session following the speech.

Asked if the inquiry on the basis of document found that somebody had used the Congress party's name to make money, Gandhi said, "it is certainly a very serious issue. It made me extremely angry and if some individuals has misused the name of the party, it is my duty to see.... I was of the strong view that government should look into this issue to go into the bottom of this matter."

She said there was certain amount of cynicism among the people that all political parties were the same and indulged in corrupt activities. "I think it is sad and bad that people should have such a feeling about political parties. I believe it is important to do what I can to change this impression of the people who have about us.

"Whenever such instances come to light, we have to take immediate action in the form of probe or some credible action. It may take time. But slowly people are bound to change their opinion of establishment and political parties.

Asked about reports that she was the one who backed Natwar Singh during the crisis and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wanted action against him, Gandhi said, "this is not accurate at all."

"Natwar Singh has had a very close working relationship with me and right at the beginning there was a certain amount of feeling that is it possible.

"But, I kept on saying that if what transpired has come out in those documents. If those documents were authentic, if anyone has indulged in such activities, I shall certainly not protect them and I shall not be by their side," she said.

She admitted that she was "angry" at that time. "The anger is some sort of subdued now, it has been over a week now."

11-15-2005, 09:50 PM

Now they caught her pant down, what else she can say <!--emo& Big Grin

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

11-17-2005, 12:18 AM

The General Theory of Revelations and Responses
ARUN SHOURIE 
QUOTEFirst, ignore, look the other way, pretend indifference. Second, deny. Deny vociferously. Third, lawyerly evasions and explanations â the cleverer these are, the more they undermine the credibility of the individual putting forth the defence as well as of the government. Fourth, counterattack: âYou did it when you were in power.â Little does the individual or government realise that with every fact which it puts out to establish that its opponents had done wrong, it is convincing everyone that this group â the one that had claimed to be different from its rivals - is no different. Fifth, denounce the persons who are pursuing the matter, for instance the paper. Paste motives on them, conjure conspiracies.

With every passing day, the governmentâs miasma encompasses more and more. First members of government conclude that one paper â usually The Indian Express â is against them, that it is out to topple them, and that it is doing so in league with, indeed at the behest of unseen forces. This used to be the âforeign handâ, then it became Reliance, these days we are back to the Americans. Then that the âmediaâ â the whole of it â is congenitally against the government. Then that the chief vigilance commissioner is against it â he is an appointee of the previous regime, after all. Then that the Election Commission is out to embarrass the government. Then that the judiciary is exceeding its ambit. The more self-righteous the group is, the more, for instance, it identifies itself with the country or some great cause, the more loyalists it has among its members, the more courtiers and tale-carriers, the more swiftly it convinces itself that everyone who is criticising it is doing so, not because he has a different opinion or because he is pursuing facts per se, but because he is a conspirator. 

QUOTE My friend, Shekhar Gupta recalls a delicious story that Giani Zail Singh told him. Gianiji was responsible for collecting some funds for the Congress. The traders of a bazaar in Patiala had agreed to contribute. But they just wouldnât pay up. Gianaji called the SHO, asked him to get hold of a tawaif, seat her in a rickshaw, and send word that she was being brought to the bazaar, that whomsoever she identified as having been a customer, will be taken in to the havaalaat. The rickshaw, with the lady in it, had but to reach the gali, the traders downed their shutters, and rushed to settle their dues! For they knew, everyone would believe the tawaif!  <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' />

11-17-2005, 01:14 AM

Sonia, Manmohan patrons of terrorists: Dr Swamy
QUOTEDescribing Manmohan Singh as weak and wobbly, Dr Swamy said Singh himself has proved time and again that he is incapable to lead a country like India. âHis spinelessness has evoked international pity, and his white washing of his colleaguesâ corruption has exposed him as a dissolute person who would sacrifice anything for serving his benefactor, Ms.Sonia Gandhi. Never has Indiaâs international standing fallen so low as now,â said Dr Swami in one of the most hard hitting statements on the UPAÂ government.

11-18-2005, 01:29 AM

http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/11/17/d51117020423.htm
QUOTEPlain Words
The Natwar Singh affair
M B Naqvi, writes from Karachi

Fallout from Kunwar Natwar Singh's ouster from India's External Affairs Ministry the other day will not remain confined to Indian politics alone. It is obviously calculated to consolidate the America-India strategic partnership. We learn from Indian media that quite apart from the Volcker Committee Report's aspersions on Natwar Singh as well as the Congress of having indirectly benefitted from UN's Iraqi oil-for-food programme in the 1990s, the outgoing foreign minister of India had become an embarrassment for Manmohan Singh government. The PM disliked him as a relic from Nehru's non-aligned mode of thinking while he whole-heartedly accepted the BJP project of partnership with America. Natwar was even referred to as 'dense' in US official documents which in some Indian eyes made him totally unfit to be India's Foreign Minister. 

The immediate issue is about India's vote on Iran's nuclear programme if the US moves the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors at its upcoming meeting on Nov 24. The Americans clearly want the IAEA to refer Iran's non-compliance with NPT complaint to the UN Security Council so that mandatory sanctions can be imposed on Iran, if the US can muster a majority vote in UNSC. They have set their heads on punishing Iran. Meanwhile the wheels of international politics are churning.

Americans face a difficult task. No one really wants to see sanctions being imposed on Iran except the US, Israel and a few of US satellite states; even the European Three -- Britain, France and Germany -- are visibly unhappy at the prospect of having to vote for sanctions on Iran, if the latter does not relent on the issue. Russia and China, both veto-wielding powers, are opposed to punishing Iran and are trying to find a consensus solution. The US expects India to be ready to vote as the US desires.

Americans as well as his colleagues in the government saw Natwar in a politically compromising position: He not merely attended a Moscow SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) meeting where the issue came up and he went along with the Russo-Chinese position; he even talked with the Chinese Foreign Minister in which he agreed with the Consensus idea. Later, he left a statement on the record in which he said 'if the next resolution in IAEA Board was any harsher on Iran, he, as External Affairs Minister, would recommend to his government to reverse the earlier position that India had taken'. That scandalised the pro-America groups in and out of Indian government. It is also interesting to note that the Indian media have trained all their guns on Natwar, while the Volcker Committee had indicted the Congress party as another beneficiary from the Iraqi oil-for-food programme.

Even so it remains uncertain how will India vote. Indian media, on the other hand, appears to be relieved that Natwar is out and the way forward to stand united with America is clear. Still, the question is open: will Manmohan government vote for UN sanctions on Iran? There is little doubt that the good doctor leading the Indian government is anxious to vote as the US desires; he will be supported in this by India's mainstream media. What might restrain him, however, is the stiff opposition from the Indian Left to toeing American line. The September vote against Iran in Vienna was one too many for the Left. The whole Left disapproved it. Some 100 MPs in Lok Sabha bitterly oppose the pro-American policies of South Block.

Meanwhile there was a small window of opportunity when E Three made a compromise proposal, with tacit US approval, that Iran may convert uranium into Hexaflouride but should not proceed any further. It should enrich it in Russian facilities inside Russia jointly with it. Initially it seemed as if this compromise will be acceptable to Iran. But as it happens, Iran and EU remain engaged in secret diplomacy. Iran still seems to stand by the letter of NPT, holding that enrichment of uranium is its NPT given right. The west, of course, refuses to recognise that right of Iran on the basis of its suspicions that Iran will cheat and that it will somehow go on enriching uranium to the level needed in an atomic bomb. Given American determination to prevent any chance of Iran acquiring atomic weapons, the world still has a first class crisis on its hands in which US will demand India's support.

Although it is only a foreign policy issue, it meshes in with other social and economic policies. Natwar has unwittingly helped sharpen the Left-Right divide in India. Left parties generally oppose the World Bank-IMF policies -- the offsprings of Washington Consensus -- that were so dear to the previous BJP-led government, are now wholeheartedly supported by the UPA government. After all, this economic paradigm had been initiated by Dr. Manmohan Singh himself in 1991 as Rajiv Gandhi's FM. Both much of UPA and NDA share the love of these 'reforms' as well as preferring a strategic alliance with the US in place of the earlier non-alignment. They both dislike the Left. Where the two alliances differ is in the definition of Indian Nationalism: UPA's is, by definition, Nehru's secular, composite Indian nationalism while BJP's nationalism is suffused with Hindutva; the difference is mainly theoretical and historical, without much practical distinction today.

If the present configuration of Indian politics lasts -- i.e the Manmohan government is able to square the circle of hunting with American hound and running with the Iranian hare -- everything will depend on Indian Left's threshold of tolerance: when will the UPA government moves too far to the Right to withhold cooperation? Its decision will not be easy. Most of the old communist certainties have disappeared except one: while there is no strictly definable Left programme, the emergence of the US as sole hyper power, going flat out for global domination, can be identified as the chief legitimate object of Leftist opposition. While imperialism and crude capitalism -- the leitmotif of Washington Consensus -- are still the demons to fight, though what socialist construction now looks like has become uncertain.

Manmohan government is not easily assailable on the assumption that the Left cannot afford to topple it; it will be too frightened by the prospect of NDA winning over a few of UPA constituents. While there is weight in this rather self-serving assumption of rightward-inclined Congress leaders, it is also too facile not to say cynical. The decisiveness required by the Left to implement such a decision cannot be taken for granted. Like everywhere else, the Indian left too is in a flux. India's CPM is now ready, really, to follow the example set by Deng Xiopeng in superimposing free markets over what was designed as a planned economy. WB Chief Minister is now welcoming fixed private development investments. Amidst other changes, they may not be able to ditch what was basically a Nehru's legacy? Anti-Imperialism will certainly be too difficult to drop. Natwar's departure from office and Left's acceptance of it in practice thus may not be easy.

Among all the political reactions to the Volcker Committee Report, few regard it to be anything like a competent judicial determination. How much politics is in it is hard to say. Whether it was entirely free of US political purposes or expediencies is also hard to say. Anyhow, its pronouncements will lead to political action by Indian practitioners of realpolitik who are not novices in its arts and crafts.

Indian Rightists will use the report to tighten their grip further over the Congress and the UPA Government. By the same token, the Left will be forced to take equal opposite action. Left-Right polarisation in Indian politics thus stands to be sharpened by another anti-Iran vote, while the process of Left's self-definition should quicken.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.

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.
QUOTEFebruary 20, 2004Â No.164

Â Â The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair
Â Â 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 SinghÂ 5.5 million
2. Indian Congress PartyÂ 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

11-19-2005, 01:37 AM

Effect of Volcker
QUOTEPM promotes Munshi & Oscar, shunts Jaipal 
Sanjay K Jha / New Delhi
Volcker cooked Soren's goose----- Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's wish to avoid a Cabinet expansion at a time when the political situation wasn't favourable appears to have prevailed on the Congress leadership which finally agreed to minor adjustments in the ministry to facilitate the smooth working of the Government.Â Â

Though several theories are being churned out as reasons for the cancellation of the scheduled expansion, top sources indicate the Prime Minister thought this wasn't the ideal time to bring in a new team. The Prime Minister didn't even agree to a minor exercise of filling up vacancies as he was keen to avoid the compulsion of taking back Mr Shibu Soren at this juncture when the Volcker Report had already made the Government vulnerable.Â <!--emo& Big Grin

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

In fact, the only major decision of giving Information and Broadcasting Ministry to Mr Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi is also directly linked with the problems being faced by the Government and the Congress. Mr Dasmunshi is probably the best person to exploit the office of I&B to tackle the "image crisis" that the Congress was grappling with. Party circles have always felt it didn't get positive media projections even after the change of regime in 2004. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tv_feliz.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tv_feliz.gif' />Â [who watch doordarshan?]

Mr Dasmunshi has the requisite experience, the expertise and the brazenness to aggressively serve the party's interests through the vital I&B instrument.His predecessor Jaipal Reddy was too much of a gentleman to do this job and he often sounded apologetic about his bold decisions. While the party strongly believed Mr Reddy had failed to deliver, the minister too felt uncomfortable being constantly under pressure to deliver as per the wishes of different party bosses.
.............

Get a goonda as I&B minsiter. <!--emo& Big Grin

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

11-19-2005, 09:46 PM

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/arti...300836.cms

QUOTE NEW DELHI: Special envoy Virendra Dayal, currently at the UN to collect information about the Volcker panel findings, may shift his attention to Capitol Hill, as US Senate Committeeâs interrogation report of an Iraqi official contains the clearest account of the oil scam transactions that offered a lifeline of cash and influence to the Saddam regime.

Indian officials, who have got a chance to go through the report, say it talks about the methods employed by the Saddam regime for buying political support â under-pricing allocated oil so that the difference with the prevailing market price creates a large sum to be divided among all parties to the deal.

Iraqi regime, the report says, usually deducted 10-30 cents and the remaining sum constituted bribery to buy support. According to an Iraqi official, who was interrogated by the Senate Committee, the commission for the non-contractual beneficiary of the deal was around 2-3 cents a barrel.

The SOMO documents, which are already in the public domain, have details about the âallocationâ to Natwar Singh, the Congress and other Indian entities. But these documents have said that Indian entities made higher profit.

According to the Senate Committee (SC), the documents were maintained by the then Iraqi vice-president Taha Yasin Ramadan al-Jisrawi and then oil minister Amir Rashid Muhammad al-Ubaydi.

Incidentally, this information matches with that provided by Paul Volcker in his report.

The SC officials are in possession of a copy of the English version of documents of the 9th phase of contracts. It is in this phase that Indian entities got involved in the deal. Natwar Singh is misspelt as Natora Singh in this report.

And the âallocationâ under the contract number M/09/54 is for 1.936-m barrels. The records show that profits in the tenth tranche worked out to 45 cents per barrel.

In this phase there was an âallocationâ to the Congress under contract number M/10/57 for 1-m barrels. The Indian entity, which âprocuredâ Congressâ coupon, lifted 1.001-m barrels.

This report will prove to be helpful for RS Pathak when he sits down to assess the involvement of the Indian entities named in the Volcker documents. It will also help the panel understand the exact quantum of money received from the oil deal.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?