Maybe now they'll can his butt!
Published on June 15, 2005 By drmiler In Politics
Seems some "new" memos were found that link Annan with the whole food for oil scam.


Annan drawn into the Oil for Food scandal
By Sam Knight, Times Online



Two previously undisclosed memos have emerged which seem to implicate the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in the UN's scandal-ridden oil-for-food programme.



The memos appear to challenge Mr Annan's assertion that he knew nothing of the award of a lucrative UN contract to a company that employed his son.

Last night, the Independent Inquiry Committee appointed by the UN to investigate corruption in the oil-food-programme said it was launching a fresh investigation into the documents.

Until now, the committee has cleared Mr Annan of any conflict of interest in the award of UN contracts.

The memos are the first evidence from the time to suggest that Cotecna Inspection Services, a Swiss company that employed Mr Annan's son, Kojo, may have had contact with the Secretary-General before making a successful bid for a UN contract issued under the oil-for-food programme.

The memos describe a meeting between Cotecna and "the SG and his entourage" in Paris in 1998 and say that Cotecna expected "to count on their support." The company was awarded a multi-million dollar contract a few weeks later.

Speaking in Paris, UN chief spokesman Fred Eckhard said Secretary-General Annan could not remember having had any such meeting.

Last night, the Independent Inquiry Committee appointed to investigate the $65 billion programme, said: "The IIC is urgently reviewing newly disclosed information concerning possible links between UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and representatives of Cotecna Inspection S.A., a Swiss contractor based in Geneva that bid for a contract under the Oil-for-Food Programme while the Secretary-General's son, Kojo Annan, was a consultant for the company."

Reid Morden, executive director of the IIC, told the Associated Press: "Does this raise a question? Sure."

The IIC is expected to publish its final report within a few months about the programme, which ran from 1996 to 2003 with the intention of providing humanitarian goods to the people of Iraq in return for oil bought from the Iraqi government.

The two memos came to light this week after the details of one were published in The New York Times. The first memo, written by Michael Wilson, a senior executive at Cotecna and a friend of the Annan family, is dated December 4 1998. The email devotes only two sentences to the UN and refers to a meeting with the "SG" at a summit in Paris:

"We had brief discussions with the SG and his entourage. Their collective advise (sic) was that we should respond as best as we could to the Q&A session of the (sic) 1-12-98 and that we could count on their support."

The second memo, sent just a few minutes later and also written by Mr Wilson, expresses confidence that through "effective but quiet lobbying", Cotecna would secure a contract.

It says: "Our chances of getting the contract are very good. We presented a sound technical tender competitively priced. With the active backing of the Swiss Mission in New York and effective but quite (sic) lobbying within the diplomatic circles in New York, we can expect a positive outcome to our efforts."



Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 15, 2005
Sure we could. Just cancel their lease. No place to stay? To bad, so sad! C-ya!


I agree. The U.N. needs to go.
on Jun 15, 2005
When they were first started it was a noble idea and they did some good. But not long after they started going down hill.
on Jun 15, 2005
The US pays most of the UN's Expenses anyway...
on Jun 15, 2005

#18 by Lucas Bailey
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





The US pays most of the UN's Expenses anyway


No, not most....just 20%
on Jun 15, 2005
No, not most....just 20%


--20%,I heard somewhere that it was the expenses (might've been something else) but that the usa pays most of it...i'll have to look at it...
on Jun 15, 2005

#20 by Lucas Bailey
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





No, not most....just 20%


--20%,I heard somewhere that it was the expenses (might've been something else) but that the usa pays most of it...i'll have to look at it...


20% of their operating cost is what our dues are. Something on the order of 550 million or billion USD. I can't remember which.
2 Pages1 2