Finally

Courtesy of a leak to the AP from some random congressional aide, we're finally getting a peek into the UN Audits of the Oil For Food Program. While we're only talking about three audits out of a total of fifty-six, well, it doesn't look very nice for the UN.

{...}Two of the audits examined irregularities including overcharging by two companies that were hired to monitor oil sales and the import of humanitarian goods under the program. Another detailed financial mismanagement by a U.N. agency administering humanitarian aid under the program.

{...}A congressional aide provided the AP with copies of three of the 56 audits, including one that found that the United Nations was billed over several years for 31 days of work in June, which only has 30 days.

Pardon me for interrupting, but it seems pretty---ahem---Goddamn basic to realize there are only thirty days in June and not thirty-one. It gets better.

{...}It was unclear what steps the United Nations took to correct the mismanagement uncovered in the reports and to demand repayment from the companies recommended by the auditors.

One audit dated July 3, 2002, examined contracts with Saybolt International BV, a Dutch company that was hired to monitor oil exports from Iraq under the humanitarian program.

The report detailed billing by the company exceeding $2 million. The company inflated invoices, charged for accommodation of workers provided by the Iraqi government and exaggerated staffing and other expenses. For example, the report found that the United Nations was billed several years for 31 days of work in June, which only has 30 days.

Another report from July 21, 1999, detailed possible overpayments of more than $3 million to London-based Lloyd's Register Inspection Ltd., which was hired to inspect and monitor humanitarian goods as they were imported into Iraq.

The audit noted that the company billed the United Nations for agents deployed in December 1996, two months before the first contracts for the import of humanitarian supplies were issued.

"The contractor without consultation took the decision to deploy all the agents," the report states, costing the United Nations an estimated $1.97 million.

The company also was able to renegotiate inflated renewals of its contract because U.N. administrators neglected to consider competitors in time.

"It appears that the contractor was fully aware that the (United Nations) was unprepared or unwilling to undertake fresh bidding for the service," the report stated. "Negotiations with Lloyd's were always conducted just before the expiry of the contract."

In 1998 Lloyd's Register pulled out of the contract and was a replaced by another company, Cotecna Inspection S.A., a Swiss company, which has also been the subject of investigations of the U.N. program.{...}

{emphasis mine}

Now, Paul Volker, who's overseeing the UN's internal investigation, has pooh-poohed these audits. And I quote:

{...}In an interview Thursday, Volcker said that the internal audits "don't prove anything," but do show how the United Nations was urged to tighten up its supervision of the program. "There's no flaming red flags in the stuff," he said.{...}

Even better, UN spokeswoman Stephanie Dujarric said:

{...}"These audits do show that this was a program that was highly audited with a great level of oversight by the U.N."{...}

As if simple oversight was enough to correct the outright thievery.

It never ceases to amaze me how blind these people are to how all of this looks. If you do not have the power to stop someone from overbilling you, well, you're not conducting business in an appropriate manner, are you? Even better, you renegotiated a contract with a company that was overbilling you! And at a higher rate, too! Wow. You're smart! Give that International Governmental Organization a Gold Star for efficiency and smart bookkeeping!

According to Volcker, there aren't any "red flags" in these audits. I beg to differ. The red flag that's sticking up for me is how flaming easy it is to rob the UN.

These contractors deliberately padded their bills and expense accounts, knowing that the UN wouldn't notice. And if the UN did notice, well, there doesn't appear to be much that they could do about it, does it? These audits just give us even more proof about how corrupt the UN is. And they don't even care! It's absolutely amazing, isn't it, that they would deny the corruption, skipping over the inconvenient fact people died because of the corruption, and say, hey, but we were auditing, so we were doing something. That's weak. And any fourth-grader could tell you that.

But they're oblivious. We're doing the good deeds of the world, they say. We're relevant, they claim. We should be the leading body of international statesmanship, they demand.

Well...

If we went by Uncle Joe's old aphorism, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs, the UN's omelette would be made with golden eggs laid by a certain goose we're all familiar with. That's a pretty expensive omelette to begin with, you'll agree. But wait, it gets better. The UN would acquire these eggs, they would then pay twice the normal price (while, of course, not realizing they were being swindled until well after the fact) and then would have trouble breaking the damn eggs because someone, namely the dictator in charge of serving the omelette, would object about the portion size and would want the bigger half for himself.

Meanwhile, the poor people who just want the fucking omelette---no matter what it's made out of---are starving.

Would you want these makers of omelettes in charge of the world? Do you think they're qualified? I don't. And the fact they don't even have a clue as to how incompetent they are does nothing to convince me otherwise.

Posted by Kathy at January 9, 2005 12:47 PM