Talk:Oil-for-Food Programme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputed Text[edit]

Many also believe that the investigations into the program are being used to divert attention from much larger crimes of the United States and the UK and the deaths caused by the Iraq sanctions.

A source on this would be nice at the very least.

I don't understand what you want me to cite? Should I list articles or people who have this opinion?
This article and the comments below it are an example:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=2544
But thats one article, read through the reaction in the media to Galloway's appearance. --Freshraisin 10:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


Senator Levin is cited in an interview for the New York Times as saying "There is no question that the bulk of the illicit oil revenues came from the open sale of Iraqi oil to Jordan and to Turkey, and that that was a way of going around the oil-for-food program [and that] We were fully aware of the bypass and looked the other way.
The Senate committee assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that

"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

The report also found that the United States was the number one violator of the programme, accounting for 52% of all kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein.

Lest us be clear about this, while it is true that 52% of all Iraqi oil exports under the oil for food program went to the US, there is no evidence that 52% of all bribes and kickbacks "went to the US".

Did you read the sentance you quoted? It says "paid to Saddam Hussein" not "went to the US." Obviously kickbacks by definition went to the government, the whole article is talking about this.. --Freshraisin


The least we could do, once again is be specific on who in the US is alleged to have received kickbacks and to what ends.

I don't have time to do research for this article, but from the Senate report here are two:
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.

--Freshraisin 10:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

But at least some people are finally acknowledging that there was rampant corruption in the program.

I also find it questionable that 4 paragraphs are devoted to a hit piece in the Guardian (the original source) quoting an unnamed democratic staffer who then quotes a yet to be released report.

..it says "A report *released last night* by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them."

In other words: where is the beef? TDC 00:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


I would also like to add that I find your removal of the Duelfer reports conclusions, you know an actual report that has been released to the public and gone over in the media, and throw in material on the alleged Levin report. Fascinating.

similarly to how you have removed the NPOV header and my entire section? I removed the section because parts of it where incorrect, and the title was way too long. I've made some changes and put it back up. --Freshraisin 10:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

A useful comparison?[edit]

Was the news of Saddam's looting of the Iraq's oil revenue publicized to bury other bad news?
I think a useful comparison is how much oil revenue was looted during Paul Bremer's administration.

Although Bremer had an iron-clad obligation to see that the meters were restored on Iraq's oil pipelines, and although the CPA kept promising the International Advisory and Monitoring Board that they were arranging for the meters to be repaird, the CPA never undertook this work. Bald-faced lying. Estimates of how much oil revenue was looted through this lack of metering during Bremer's 13 months are comparable to the amount looted by Saddam over 13 years. The CPA had an iron-clad obligation to make expenditures from Iraq's oil revenue in a transparent way. This they fundamentally failed to do. $9 billion worth of expenditures cannot be accounted for. So was Ambassador Bremer's administration more corrupt than Saddam's?

Is there a place for this comparison in this article? -- Geo Swan 03:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this detail - that should be in another article (probably a specific "corruption in post-Saddam Iraq" article). A sentence in the intro with wikilink would be useful (but possibly contentious, especially if not carefully phrased to be as NPOV as possible). Additionally, if you can find a news source linking US complicity with oil-for-food with subsequent corruption issues, you could add something to the US Complicity section. Rd232 07:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

current status?[edit]

What is the current status of the merge? The article currently says:

The GAO estimates that the Saddam Hussein regime generated $10.1 billion in illegal revenues by exploiting the Oil for Food program. This figure includes $5.7 billion from oil smuggling, and $4.4 billion in illicit surcharges on oil sales and after-sales charges on suppliers. The scale of the fraud was far more extensive than the GAO had previously estimated.

Well, should the $5.7 billion in smuggled oil be conflated with the illicit surcharges -- kickbacks -- Saddam demanded? Yes, both are crimes. But I think only the kickbacks can be blamed on the UN. -- Geo Swan July 4, 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph[edit]

Hi! I took the arguing out of the intro and tried to make the intro more concise and neutral. Here is the removed text if anyone want to use it somewhere more appropriate:

Many advocates supported the program on humanitarian grounds, hoping that it would indeed help ordinary Iraqis. Others criticized the program, particularly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, citing the Iraqi government diversion of oil profits to prop itself up in a corruption scandal implicating officials of several governments as well as top officials in the U.N.
Many also believe that the investigations into the program are being used to divert attention from the ongoing problems of post-Saddam Iraq, from the issues surrounding the morality and legality of the invasion, and from the effects of the sanctions on the Iraqi people.

It looks a lot like weasel talk to me though. keith 10:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is actually in the second paragraph, so if you need to change a heading, go for it. i have no idea how. anyway, here's the quote: "... the demilitarization of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War," referring to the economic sanctions against Iraq. the 'Iraq Sanctions' article states that Resolution 661 was issued on august 6, 1990. the gulf war began and ended in 1991. thanks 151.213.149.11 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled title[edit]

There is no reason that the foreign spelling for the title should be used. The United Nations is an American organization, headquartered in New York, and created by Americans. Wikipedia is an American site, also hosted in America and created by Americans. There is no reason that the foreign spellin should be used. This should be changed immediately.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.115.2 (talk • contribs)

  • I believe you are mistaken, sir.

First of all, the United Nations is an international organization, headquartered on an international zone in New York (therefore actually not in the U.S.), with major offices in other countries. The creation was a multinational effort.

Second, Wikipedia is not American. While the majority of its servers are located in Florida, location is irrelevant on the Internet; do you have any idea how fast signals travel nowadays? The founder is an American, but it is not "made" exclusively by Americans. The English Wikipedia is editable by anyone who speaks English (and technically those who don't); that includes people from Canada, India, the U.K., and anyone else who has made the valuable acquisition of the language. If you don't know, there are many more Wikipedias in other languages.

Here, we compromise where spellings differ. It is not a "foreign" title, except relative to you. In fact, "programme" is probably accepted in more countries than "program" is. The title of a page is determined by its creator, unless the title is absolutely wrong. Even if I wanted to change it, I couldn't.

I've reviewed some of your other contributions, and I must say you would do well to visit some foreign countries. The American lifestyle (we're pretending there's only one) is not the only lifestyle, not the first lifestyle, and not the best one. Users here are likely to call you a troll if you don't start to accept that the U.S. is only a small part of the world. (If you are a troll, then please, find something better to do with your life. I hear Africa needs help.)

Oh, if you're wondering, I was born and raised in Nashville, Tennessee. (And furthermore, if you are a woman, I apologise for calling you "sir". And yet furthermore, I didn't spell "apologise" wrong.) In short, there's a great world out there. Don't let it go to waste. Deltabeignet 06:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am less concerned about the British spelling vice the American spelling of program, but the program/programme was named "Oil-for-Food," not "Food-for-Oil." If you go to the UN's own web site, a search for "Food-for-oil" turns up 169 hits, while "Oil-for-food" turns up 3200 hits, about 20 times greater.

Businessdr 06:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was correct until an anonymous editor changed it very recently. Thanks for fixing it. Rd232 talk 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I AGREE WITH THE TOPIC STARTER. THIS IS IN AMERICA, THERE IS NO REASON THAT COMMONWEALTH SPELLING SHOULD BE USED. 

 <*)
 (=\   
  X
8====D

Oil-For-Food "Scandal"[edit]

Oil-For-Food "Scandal"

Also, and I have noted this on the United Nations page as well, but you do not emphasize the way the UN works with the Security Council having veto power. It is not clear that nearly all the deals in the Oil-for-Food program were done complicitly with the members of the Security Council (including the U.S) who decided not to place holds on those exchanges.

A reliable source would be Fair and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR.org) and provides citations as well (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1186). Without this context, the sections seems to accuse the figurehead, Kofi Annon, implicitly due to the lack of background and inner-workings of the organization, as being the culprit of the oil-for-food "scandal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.13.152 (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

I counted roughly 40 uses of "programme" and 30 of program. Unless there are objections, I intend to change all spellings to programme, except when in a direct quote, so as to conform to the title. Biruitorul 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say the U.S. "Program" is much more pleasant to the eye and is easier to read than "PROGRAM-ME" (which I will continue to treat jokingly as a phrase by someone begging to be brainwashed.) As for international whatnot, the reason that English is the most commonly spoken language is because of the commercial success and world trade of the U.S, not the ancient imperialistic failure of Britain. Therefore, it will be less of a burden for foreign speakers of English to understand the U.S. spelling, and using the British spelling is simply selfish. I will continue to engage in an edit war to remove "PROGRAM ME!!!" whenever I see such ridiculous bigotry. (QUINTIX 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hmm, it seems, from the history of this article, as if the article creator (Anthere) spelled it "program", and the user [unknown, researching l8r] "corrected" it to "Programme". (is it really possible to leave comments unsigned? smackbot experiment here)
  • The official name of that program is/was Oil-for-Food Programme. See all relevant UN documents as well as documents by the IIC. The article should be moved and corrected. Both versions are grammatically correct, but only one is authoritative in this case. By the way, Wikipedia is not a platform to play this silly US v. British English game. Henning Blatt 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd say that settles it. However, the discussion was very much relevant and necessary, so I don't know why you condemn people for holding it. --MQDuck (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://malaysia-todays.blogspot.com/2008/07/oil-for-food-scandal-revisited.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oil-for-Food Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Oil-for-Food Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Oil-for-Food Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oil-for-Food Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations against George Galloway[edit]

I removed the entire section about Geoge Galloway because absolutely none of the references are operational. Even the committee report fails to load, at least on my machine. So what was left was an account of serious allegations denied by their target, completely unsubstantiated. I know the charges were made; I remember that. The US media covered it heavily. However if Wikipedia is going to repeat them -- and possibly it should, and debunk them if appropriate, I am not certain -- it definitely needs some references. Given my uncertainty I moved the text here rather than just deleting it. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---correction, the pdf for the subcommittee report does load now; possibly there was an OS issue before on my end. The BLP and POV issues however remain since the secondary sources fail and the one reference that does work is a primary source from the first Bush term, and the credibility of that US administration on the subject of Iraq is extremely low. Needs verification or deletion. I'd vote for verification, but am doing something else right now so I can't take care of it myself.Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

===Allegations against George Galloway=== The US Senate [[Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations]] claimed that the British then-Member of Parliament [[George Galloway]] among others had received approximately $600,000 in illegal oil kickbacks from the Iraqi regime. During testimony before the committee on 17 May 2005, Galloway said that the charges were false and part of a "smoke screen" by pro-[[Iraq war]] U.S. politicians designed to deflect attention from the "theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth..." that had occurred under the post-invasion [[Coalition Provisional Authority]]. A later report dated 25 October 2005<ref>[http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTGallowayOct05FINAL.pdf ] {{wayback|url=http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTGallowayOct05FINAL.pdf |date=20080307041503 |df=y }}</ref> prepared by the subcommittee's majority staff said there was evidence that Galloway was "false or misleading" in his testimony, and further that his then-wife (since divorced) received some of the kickbacks.<ref> {{cite news | url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article322108.ece | work=The Independent | location=London | title=Galloway lied over Iraqi oil payments, says Congress report | first=Rupert | last=Cornwell | date=25 October 2005 | accessdate=2010-05-20}}</ref>{{deadlink}} A second new element to the accusations was the subcommittee's claim that former Iraqi Foreign Minister [[Tariq Aziz]], imprisoned since early 2003, had verified them. However, Aziz's lawyer Badia Aref states, "these are lies ... he (Aziz) denied this."<ref>http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29469155.htm {{dead link|date=July 2014}}</ref>{{citation needed|date=July 2014}}<!--And reference is suspect - http://www.webarchive.org.uk/mementos/search/http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29469155.htm shows no supporting content--> Galloway continued to deny wrongdoing and challenged former subcommittee's chair Senator [[Norm Coleman]] to charge him with perjury.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article322161.ece | work=The Independent | location=London | title=Galloway challenges US senators to charge him with perjury | first1=Andrew | last1=Woodcock | date=25 October 2005 | accessdate=2010-05-20 }}</ref>{{dead link}}

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Oil-for-Food Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the sanctions were effective"? what were the sanctions "effective" in producing?[edit]

The "Background and Design" section of this article begins with a statement that describes the approach throughout much of the article: "The Oil-for-Food Programme was instituted to relieve the extended suffering of civilians..."

Is this remotely tenable statement by any serious, third party, disinterested, student (such as an historian, social scientist, UN administrator, for example) or even observer of this program?

This is an article for Wikipedia, not for the Ministry of Truth.

A cursory look at the The "Oil-for-Food Programme" reveals that it has been characterized even within by the political party of the administration that proposed it in the United States as "infanticide masquerading as politics" (quoting David Bonior, Democratic Whip of the Senate of the United States).

The US Secretary of State of the administration that created this program famously represented her administration's views about its concern for suffering of Iraqi civilians in a soundbyte heard round the world. Does anyone today remotely credible view this programme as anything other than a thinly veiled public relations attempt to appear in conformity with Article 54 of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions?

To rephrase this question as a concern: this article seems plagued to its core with problems relating to recentism and POV that should be obvious to anyone with a pulse. The general way that this concern plays out to affect many WP entries is tacit acceptance of a government entity's official view of a dispute to which it is a party as if that view were either a disinterested view or the view of a third-party. The problem neither in the specific case nor in the general case is insurmountable. But one would be a fool not to recognize it.

To reiterate something I'm surprised to have to say once let alone repeatedly to any other WP editor: Particularly where understandings of an event are contended, an agent's view of an event should be reported as that agent's view, not as what actually happened. This should apply whether the agent is a person, a state, a media company, or anyone else.

WP is not the Ministry of Information or any other nationalist media organ, nor should it be a means for any backdoor injunctive relief for state actors whose observers--in attempting to report on the truth of state programmes in some cases or what actually happened pursuant to such state programmes--engage in the crime that states used to call seditious libel. (Seditious libel, you will recall, is that crime of speaking critically of the sovereign, for which a party is guilty even when his or her challenges to the doublespeak of the state are conceded to be truthful.) Hence, in the interest of accuracy and the best possible entries, Wikipedia should not accord any state party to a disputed topic the final word on what is true. This should all be obvious, but given entries such as this one in the condition that they are in at the time of this writing, it bears repeating and emphasis. Alfred Nemours (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have something specific that needs addressing, or are you just wanting to preach at nebulous people about how horrible an article is? Please drop the holier-than-thou attitude and point out specific changes you think need to be made. If you can't point out anything specific, then it's unlikely anyone here is going to be willing to help you address your nebulous claims. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you fix it yourself? Add the sources if you can source it properly, and remove it if you can't, stating what you are doing in the edit summary. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Oil-for-Food Programme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oil-for-Food_Programme&oldid=1172287572"