AP: Sevan “Only” Received $160,000 in Kickbacks
In another sign of the AP’s lopsided coverage of world affairs, the embezzlement of $160,000 in Oil-For-Food kickbacks by the program’s chief is reported in the following manner:
Investigators have concluded that the former chief of the Iraq Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan, took kickbacks under the $64 billion humanitarian operation and refused to cooperate with their probe, his lawyer said Thursday.While the amount of money Sevan allegedly took wasn’t immediately known – and may be as little as $160,000 – the findings would be a major blow because of his stature in the organization and the control he had over it.
Presumably the author of this piece writes for a living and thus knows the importance of words, and that makes this coverage even more baffling. ‘…As little as $160,000″? “A major blow because of his stature”? $160,000 wouldn’t be a big deal if he weren’t the program head, is that the implication?
This is somewhat akin to saying although most people think O. J. Simpson is a murderer, he ‘only’ killed 2 people. If Sevan is corrupt, he’s corrupt – and $160,000 isn’t the taking home of a few pens with the U.N. Oil-For-Food logo on them. Anything less than 2 years in prison would be a scandal if these allegations are proven.
UPDATE 08/05/05 3:04 p.m.: Many thanks to the Instapundit for the link!…
Much like the Eurocrats of Brussels, I would imagine…fascinating; but sadly, not surprising…
Good point, Mark. Heres an amusing anecdote for you.
A neighbor of mine worked at the UN as a translator for more than twenty years. She speaks numerous languages and is originally from French colonial Africa. Algeria. Now in her mid-70s, she recently retired. She still has contact, I gather, with former coworkers at the UN.
We were having coffee not too long ago when John Bolton came up. She was quite derisive. Then I changed the subject to the Oil-for-Food scandal. She got a little touchy, I guess you might say.
Regarding Sevan and the mushrooming Oil-for-Food debacle she said, “these people at the UN, they are civil servants. They are not millionaires like Bush and Cheney. If they take a little piece for themselves, why is this wrong?”
Well, I was fairly appalled by this remark but apparently it reflects the prevalent mindset. She seemed not at all concerned by the lawlessness that pervades the whole affair. Or of the fact that the program, once corrupted, enabled a horrendous tyrant to skirt a system that was put in place to force him to tend to the needs of his people. And needless to say, neither she nor I have anything like $160,000 lying around, making her comment about it being “a little piece” all the more absurd.
I suppose whats at work here is a sense on the part of those at the UN that they are doing the world some great service, making some great sacrifice in the name of all humanity. Hence, they feel they are above the law. What a sham.
While perusing a bulletin board a few years back, I recall seeing an argument over the occurrences in SE Asia in the 1970’s:
“Pol Pot was a lunatic – he killed 2 and a half million people.”
“Oh, come on – we know that Pol Pot ONLY killed one million people.” (emphasis mine)
If something like THAT is excusable, then I am not surprised by this turn of events at all.
Greg, you are on to it there. Any crime is excusable in the pursuit of a greater good. Um, pursuit of the greater good by good people of course; Progressives or Liberals or Levelers… whatever the name of the week is. This is the major reason we see no coverage of Air Enron despite the alacrity with which it tracks other hyped-to-death “scandals”. What are a few cracked eggs when you get this tasty omelet? Might make some sense if we ever got the omelet.
SJKevin, how right you are…
The Babaganoosh – on that note, see Chomsky, Noam…
He didn’t take that money from rich shareholders, he took it indirectly from sick Iraqis, and $160,000 could have purchased a whole lot of medicine.