The Money Trail

Tracking the Cash - Scandal Files Update
Scandal files tries to follow the cash and character trail of AdScam (Sponsorship Scandal) with a comprehensive timeline.Like all big political corruption scandals, this one is highly complex, with a telephone book of names involved. You can also find the Wheel of Shame, a guide to some of the big players in AdScam.

Politically Corrupt

The culture of political corruption has percolated through to the legislative thought processes it seems. The political thought processes on the conservative end of US politics have steadily been sliding towards the Soviet style previously much reviled by the same people.
Rule by terror to defeat terror seems an idea which could only come out of tortured minds. Arrest without trial, secret prisons, torture and eventual secret ‘military trials’; these are among the raft of accusations against the old Soviets.
Now they are being emulated in the US while the exulted ‘party’ bosses help themselves to the public purse.
If that is not enough, to prove they have truly adopted the Soviet methodology, Republicans now want to build their own ‘Berlin Wall’.
To "create a border security fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico," according to Republican House of Representatives members Duncan Hunter of California and Virgil Goode of Virginia.
Rule by fear and paranoia has obviously addled the brains of some in Congress. Gentlemen, the first rule is; ‘Don’t believe your own propaganda!’ Unless of course, the Washington ‘Presidium’ deemed that its congressmen should be treated to the same undiluted BS as the rest of the country.
Next thing Washington’s ‘Cuba’ in the South Seas, Australia will be following suit on this madness. Toady, John Howard can’t seem to get enough of George’s neo-soviet style. With his record of ‘me too’ I expect he will be announcing a ‘dingo fence’ to be erected around Australia’s entire coast line.
Power corrupts and the neo-sovs are showing every sign of total corruption. Tear down the walls, turn your back on the trumped up paranoia and bring back some semblance of Democracy.

Pondering Power and Corruption

The current rash of major corruption and scandals tends to take some of the fun out of scandal monitoring. Apart from the fact that these affairs rock the foundations of our political structures, the facts and the consequences are almost too great to easily absorb.
When a large government or business entity is caught up in corruption it invariably involves a superabundance of issues. In turn, these outfits have the resources to obfuscate and create diversions. It might all come out in the end, but it is a tedious process.
Give me a good straight forward Blunkett style scandal any day; the British know how to do these things.
Personally I enjoy delving into the mechanics of the ‘planning department’, or local government type misconduct. They are invariably grounded in base human motive, delivering a chewable level of detail and revelation. Perhaps even a little ‘there but for fortune’.
But how do you personally relate to the far reaching machinations at national government levels? We don’t even speak the same language as these people, and we certainly don’t have their ability to continually massage the language to suit the needs.If you were caught with your hand in the till, or you private parts where they shouldn’t be, do you think the media would run with your gloss and spin? Not bloody likely! The little guy is fair game, and it is the journalists who will be constructing the epithets for them.
The sad part is that we are led to believe that we are governed in trust, that we delegate the duties of government to those we elect.
One problem with that idea is that there are far more ‘unelected’ influences on those we elect. Another is obviously the massive temptation, when handling such large issues, cash and power.
Democracies invariably grew out of older style authority systems. Perhaps it can be said that the uplifting language of democracy is little more than sop to compliant populations.
The Magna Carta wasn’t written with the rights and freedom of ordinary people in mind. It was intended, solely, to devolve power to the land holding barons in Britain. Any benefit to the rest of the population didn’t even begin till centuries later.
Equally the US Constitution foresaw the problems of trusting ordinary folk to choose a president. That is why they have the Electoral College, to make sure the ‘right’ sorts of men are chosen. As for the rest of the document, that is continually at the mercy of a partisan justice system for interpretation.
Those in government have rarely ever given up their ‘proprietary’ feeling towards their role. They own the government so no one else really matters. Unless or until that ownership is challenged, then we get more uplifting words to remind us of why we should surrender any rights to the various contenders.
Until democracy matures, and the ruling elites accept the full responsibility of their charge, grand corruption is going to be the price of government. Now petty corruption, that should remain to entertain for as long as the sun shines down on us

Keeping up with the scandals

Confused about who’s who in Canada’s Sponsorship Scandal? Or just want to find out more about the fattest snouts in the trough? Scandal files have posted the Wheel Of Shame with details of eight of the biggest snouts, from a former PM to corrupt executive. The site also features some key links to the best online resources on the scandal.

Don’t miss the monthly update on the Corruption Roll Call USA. It has been I big month for US scandal at the top. The Roll Call brings it all into focus with a Washington and state by state breakdown.

Another One Bites The Dust

British cabinet minister, David Blunkett resigns over new scandal!
The antics of British cabinet minister David Blunkett have been keeping Brits amused for years now. Some call him scandal prone, but the man comes across as more of an industry.
Blunkett entered Parliament for Sheffield Brightside in 1987, is one of very few blind MPs, and was the first to reach the front bench and the Cabinet. Considering not being able to see as simply "an inconvenience" it is obviously his lack of probity which is the real impairment.
So far Blunkett has many to achieve most of the major categories of scandal and corruption. There is sex scandal in their, conflict of interest, abuse of authority, false expenses claims as well as overseeing a looming pensions crisis in the country.
Resigned
Blunkett, announcing his resignation from the cabinet, (November 3, 2005 ) “said that he had reflected on the position and he believed his position to be untenable, and for the sake of both the Prime Minister and the Government he was therefore tendering his resignation which the Prime Minister reluctantly has accepted,"
The latest episode revolves around a series or extra-parliamentary jobs which Blunkett has consistently failed to divulge to the parliament’s oversight committee.
This second resignation from the cabinet almost certainly ends his career in frontline politics.

The Misdeeds

Sex Scandal: In 2004, serving as Home Secretary, David Blunkett, resigned amid accusations that he used his position to fast-track a visa application for his ex-lover's nanny.Blunkett's troubles began in August, when tabloid newspaper The News of the World revealed he was having an affair with a married woman.
She was later named as Kimberly Quinn, the American publisher of The Spectator magazine.
The affair became public after it had ended, Blunkett began legal proceedings to gain access to Mrs Quinn's two-year-old son William, who he claims is his.
As details emerged over the visa application fast tracking, contents of an email were revealed which had used the phrase "no favours but slightly quicker" about processing the application.

Abuse of Power
Blunkett has admitted breaking one of parliament's golden rules by writing on House of Commons stationery to oppose construction near a house he owns. he wrote to Wandsworth Council planners in south London last month objecting to plans to cut down trees and shrubs to build houses near a home he owns.
"As a former resident of Fulwood Walk which abuts Clevedon Lodge, I am deeply concerned about the effect on wildlife, on quiet enjoyment of the area and on the ecology," Blunkett wrote.
Nowhere in the letter does Blunkett mention that he still owns the neighbouring property, and therefore has a personal financial interest in any construction that might take place nearby. His office confirmed that the property is still his.
Blunkett claims that the use of the letterhead was an oversight. He forgot to stress that the letter should be written on plain paper. Regardless of the paper, the letter still stressed the point that he was an influential government minister..

Expenses Claims
Blunkett is also under fire, along with other MPs, for claiming ‘tens of thousands’ of pounds in London accommodation allowances, despite living in free "grace and favour" homes while in the capital.
Work and Pensions Secretary David Blunkett claimed £20,608, almost the maximum "additional costs allowance", in spite of living in the Home Secretary's townhouse in London.Blunkett had breached Commons rules by giving his former lover Kimberly Quinn a government rail warrant worth £179.

Conflicts
Blunkett had been under fire for days, prior to this current resignation, for accepting jobs while out of office, without going through a required procedure for former ministers taking private-sector work.Blunkett admits admit he erred in not consulting an advisory committee before taking up corporate positions following his resignation as Home Secretary last December, despite three letters warning that he should.
Ministers are supposed to consult the advisory committee before taking private sector work within two years of leaving office, although they are not required to take the advice the committee gives them.
While he was out of government, he took a directorship at the firm DNA Bioscience. He was also a paid adviser to the World Organisation for Research and Technology, an international Jewish development charity.
Accusations of a conflict of interest were fueled by the DNA company being poised to bid on government contracts. It was also revealed that the company was not accredited for DNA testing work in Britain and should not have been eligible to seek lucrative testing contracts in Whitehall.

Mistake? A big one!
British media speculated on whether someone capable of, in his own words a "mistake, misunderstanding and misinterpretation" on matters of probity was really fit to hold office. The prime ministers Office replied “the key question was not did or did not Mr. Blunkett make a mistake, but rather, was that mistake such that it stopped him doing his job.” A journalist immediately interjected the observation; "incompetent, corrupt or dishonest".
One of Prime Minister Tony Blair's closest allies, Blunkett has been considered a valuable electoral asset.
Blind boy, risen from the slums to reach high office, is the usual assertion.
The ideal man to put in charge of cuts to disability assistance and pensions. But I wonder if his real value was in deflecting attention from others in the government by his own propensity for personal scandal.

Hats off to Corruption Fighters

Monday’s release of the first Gomery Report, culminating from the enquiry into Canada’s Sponsorship Scandal, was the third major corruption report within as many working days.First there was special prosecutor Fitzgerald’s report on the White House CIA leak affair, followed by Volcker’s report on the UNs Oil for Food Scandal.
While the real message and impact of these three substantial reports will continue to surface, the three messengers have left an indelible legacy.
Under pressure cooker conditions the three ‘investigators’ have maintained tight, focused probes into their respective investigations.
The language by each, throughout their deliberations and in their reports has been measured, targeted and thoughtful.
More to the point, given that each had to work with a purpose built organisations, and with many other assisting organisations, proceedings were invariably water tight.
There must be a lesson in this for the administrations for which they were conducting their respective examinations.
The vital importance of how these enquiries were conducted and the findings delivered cannot be downplayed.
Each held the ‘powers’ to destabilize the governing bodies for which they were probing corrupt activities. Each had the potential to ‘play politics’, to push their own agenda. There are very many ways in which each, emulating the body politic, could have produced chaotic results rather that the measured tone we have seen.
It is a sad testimony that the worlds leaders need this kind of oversight, that they cannot conduct themselves with a measure of probity and dignity.  Still, it is a fact.
The people meeting this need of audit and oversight, like these three, are proving to be real models of what our political leaders should be.
Hat’s off these corruption fighters. It seems, out of the mire, we are being given some clear examples of proper leadership. Their efforts will not stop corruption, but the insights delivered make exposing it a great deal easier.  

Reporting Gomery

For a very comprehensive coverage of the whole Federal sponsorship scandal, try CBC News. They have been compiling reports for the duration of the drama.

Commentators say former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his associates will take the worst beating in the release of the first Gomery report Tuesday morning.
The news to watch for includes:

* Prime Minister Paul Martin has forwarded the Gomery Report to the RCMP.

* According to his lawyer, Chretien may ask court to review report.

Martin is right to refer the report straight to the RCMP for further ‘police’ investigation. The only question is, why have they been so reluctant to get involved with this scandal from the outset?

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser, after a report on three Groupaction contracts in 2002, launched a full investigation of her own and asked the RCMP to probe the matter. At that time the RCMP raided Groupaction's Montreal office, removing files and documents.

CBC, Globe and Mail and other Canadian media have been publishing sordid details since at least 1999.

Former Groupaction vice-president Alain Richard says he raised concerns about irregularities at the firm. Richard claims he alerted RCMP years ago that Groupaction was creating invoices that claimed he worked hundreds of hours on specific government contracts.

That the RCMP were recipients of some of the Sponsorship funds, around $1.3 million in 2001, should not be sufficient cause to close their eyes to proper investigations. If that is the case the country really has something to be concerned about.
However, with the Prime Minister making this latest request for action so public, we might see some real action at last from that quarter.

That Jean Chretien should be contemplating leagal action really puts the icing on the cake. His lawyers are suggesting that there is no documentary evidence to implicate the Prime Ministers Office.
The cover up and lie, after the fact, is the norm for political scandal. That is generally the rap, in lieu of the real crime.
Here we have a case where documentation of the movement of large amounts of government money simply does not exist. All the harder to prove wrongdoing!
The lack of a paper trail is a corrupt practice and should constitute a crime in its own right.
In the end it hardly matters. Chretien will be hard pressed to vindicate himself, evidence or no. That this sordid affair even took place on his watch does the former PM no credit. That he appointed cabinet ministers of dubious background, and despite advise of their unsuitability makes matters worse for him.
This is ‘crony capitalism’, to use the Americanism, at its worst. I would not be on my own in suspecting that Chretien has been sheltered during the enquiry process. There has been plenty of incentive from a number of quarters to keep the fallout limited.
He should be careful now not to open a ‘Pandora’s box’ for himself. A court action would be, at best, an exercise in semantics and legalisms which will not sell to a cynical public. At worst, Chretien could find himself facing real charges, not just the finger slapping of the Gomery Report.

Jumping the Gun

In a bout of premature ejaculation, this week, Canada’s Conservative opposition leader, Stephen Harper, highlighted one of the real impediments to understanding and fighting corruption.
A reasonable person would expect that a long running enquiry would be satisfactory in revealing much of the truth of the country’s ‘sponsorship scandal’.
Not content with that, Harper shot from the hip and predicted; “the prime minister's office will leak ‘slanted versions’ of the Gomery report before it's made public...”
The predictions and second guessing are part of the ‘political games’ of corruption enquiry. On one side the spin doctors, over the other side those who are looking for the worst possible outcome.
Well, Martin’s office did not leak any version of the findings. I guess, in reality, there was no real reason for them to jump the gun when the report was going to exonerate the Prime Minister.
Harper missed the mark with his comments, and continues to display an immaturity which does not sit well on a Prime Minister in waiting.

The idea of independent enquiries and commissions, often chaired by highly experienced legal administrators, is to gather information in an environment of complete integrity. If you can’t trust the enquiry then the process is doomed.
It was the media, in Washington last week, hoping and praying for a leak from Fitzgerald to cover up their previous lack of engagement with the CIA leak. The media do have an interest in sensationalising and at times demonizing, just as the politicians do.
To their credit, Gomery and Fitzgerald both maintained a watertight security on their findings.

There are two sides to the enquiry process. The first is obviously the need to get the facts and evidence to prosecute wrong doers where they exist. The second is the opportunity to build an understanding of the dynamics of corrupt activities to better protect against them.
Perhaps, as part of developing anti-corruption methods, wide contempt provisions should be put in place around enquiries. This is not to suppress ‘fair comment’ and reporting, but reduce speculation, leaks and sensationalizing proceedings and findings.
Similar provisions exist in most ordinary court jurisdictions. In the heated political atmosphere this kind of provision is essential.

The USA Corruption Roll Call October

The USA Corruption Roll Call is your monthly guide to all the juice. From the white House, right across the nation, we have gathered highlights of this month in corruption.
If you thought October ended with a bang, there is more where that came from. The Bush administration is mired in scandal which just won’t go away.
The October Corruption Roll Call has it all, now. On Scandal Files…

Patriotism be damned!

While at the New York Times they are beating their collective breasts, the latest White House scandal has opened wider media issues. There are now serious questions about US media in general, and the White House media gallery in particular.
A couple of years down the track, and an intensive prosecution investigation, the media were caught, at the last, flat footed.
In part, to be fair, Fitzgerald’s ‘tight ship’ kept everyone guessing. Still, media reporting on speculation from other media is not good journalism. If the gallery had been fully engaged with this story along the way the reporting might have been a good deal more professional.
The temptation to raise the spectre of ‘Watergate’ was not passed over. However the fact that the media, led by the Washington Post, put serious resources to that story from the outset kept them well in the loop.
The NYTs should be scourging themselves. Their inside player was playing for the other team and they didn’t notice. Apart from Miller, who was obviously well and truly bought, what happened to the rest?
Is Rove so effective that he can divert journalists from their job? Was it intimidation, payoff or perhaps sleight of hand?
I suspect, well speculation is the flavour of the month, that the Gallery were intimidated by the twaddle about patriotism, security and terror. It is clear that they dropped the ball right back when the lies were first being told. Perhaps they and their publishers were happy to see the media potential of a war.
This is an appalling blot on US media and reporting. Adopted ‘moguls’, such as Murdoch, have turned serious news organisations into ‘infotainment’. Forget the primary roll, give them bread and circus and always look to the bottom line. Their journalists have acquiesced, perhaps fed too long on entertainment as news.

Even the language of the reporting is a second rate rehash of past scandals. Like the stunned rabbits, caught by the glare, the writers are simply rolling out the tired phrases of the past. It isn’t even good entertainment.
The irony is the lies of the war, underlying this scandal, were exposed in other ‘allied’ countries. Of course the rhetoric of war overshadowed the truth, but at least it was out there.
Even Murdoch’s Australian and British holdings had to report the truth, albeit with their customary bias. It did not change the outcome, but it didn’t harm the media or journalists in those countries either.
There was a healthy discussion, right at the start, about the value of embedded journalists. Neither of the countries mentioned went down that path. The journalist ethics would simply not tolerate it.
The media have led the fight against Australia’s own neo cons ramming draconian anti terror laws through parliament.
Exposure, exposure, exposure! Sooner or later it pays off and the truth filters through the mind numbing tabloid twaddle.
Patriotism be damned! Or as Oliver Hardy would have it “this is another fine mess you have gotten us into”.

Logging The Shame

Scandal Files’ USA Corruption Roll Call for October is due to be published next Tuesday. The focus this month is fair and square on the White House. Roll Call shows that the ‘Scooter’ Liddy fall is just the beginning for the beleaguered Bush Administration.
Scooter has taken the fall for this one. Apparently 'ministerial responsibility' or 'the buck stops here' is no longer operative. If it was Cheney would be gone as well.However, for Cheney and the rest of the administration, this is just the beginning. The raft of scandals, indictments and investigations, many reaching into the White House, promise a rocky ride for the Bush team.
Rove is on notice that he is under scrutiny over the CIA leak affair. But that is just one issue on Rove’s plate. His dealings with lobbyist ‘Casino Jack’ Abramoff have caught him up in a web of suspected corruption.

You could say the Bush administration are the architects of their own potential downfall.
The crazy part, for the US and its economic partners around the world, is that the woes of the White House are based in their focus on dubious social and ‘defense’ priorities. The Iraq war, investigations are slowly revealing, was prosecuted on a package of lies and misinformation.
The social agenda, part of the cost of Bush’s support base, is further destabilizing the administration.
Social issues, such as abortion, might quickly raise the political temperature, but they are not, at heart, valid political issues. Where this administration should have had its eye on matters economic, they have been diverted by ‘lifestyle’ issues which can never be successfully legislated.
In the meantime the economy is, at best, shaky. This has serious consequences far beyond US borders. As the self proclaimed keeper of the dollar, the US has a responsibility to the rest of the world to ensure sound economic policy.
The war ‘that should never have been’ has led to Liddy’s fall. Rove’s much trumpeted dalliance with the religious right will lead to more scandal in the coming weeks.
Overriding all of that, the greed implicit in the second area of electoral support, the big money, has been tendered to so conscientiously, good sense and probity was all but forgotten.
Yes, the Bush Administration is in deep kakka. It is not something to gloat about. The fallout from their time in office will hurt far more people that the trumped up war on terror.Clinton said, ‘it’s the economy stupid!’ It sure is.

Where have all the political giants gone?

All of my life, it seems, there have been giants of the political stage to look to and admire. More often than not, to be sure, they each showed their feet of clay at some time.
For the current crop those feet seem to extend to their ears.
I was born into a world of remarkable, firebrand pollies in Australia. The notorious ‘Doc’ Evatt, who on the plus side, moved heaven and earth to see his dream of the United Nations Organisation come into being.
The giant figure of Robert Gordon Menzies dominated the Australian stage during my childhood. His gray conservatism was challenged by a new American president in the early 60s.
The Vietnam War spawned an array of giant figures, on the Australian scene again, one Edward Gough Whitlam. Throughout the years there were many either in power or simply powerful, to give some impression of leadership.
Even the ‘less than upright’ showed qualities which made politics compelling to many of us.

Watching today’s lot is like watching a top football series plagued with second rate players. These thoughts were spurred by a headline in Newsday: A 'brain' drain if Rove goes, by Ellis Henican.
For a start, if Rove is credited with having brains, that leaves Bush looking dumber than he actually seems. The actual article was more circumspect on mental powers, referring ‘to the crafty mind and nimble arm twists’ of Karl Rove
The point is, it doesn’t take brains or intelligence to exert enormous power, simply guile and numbers. Current methodology is more often related to bully tactics than intelligent strategy.

The fundamental shift in politics, in part, has much to do with the ‘robber baron’ mentality which now dominates our institutions of power. The delegate authority to govern for the common good has been hijacked for the acquisition of personal wealth.
The political culture of individual selfishness and self-absorption, Margaret Thatcher’s "There is no society there are only individuals" is empty of the ‘duty of care demanded of those in power.
When our lawmakers, and by extension their advisors, believe it right to break the law to achieve their ends we are in real trouble.
Worse is the way errant political troops are simply cut adrift when corruption is exposed in high places; sacrificed on the alter of the false gods of politics.
There was a convention in western politics famously encapsulated in Truman’s ‘The buck stops here!”
The convention was based on the fact that responsibility in politics devolved to the top.
Under the Westminster System of Government, and to a degree the US model,

“even without knowledge of an infraction by subordinates the minister [secretary] approved the hiring and continued employment of those civil servant.
If misdeeds are found to have occurred in a ministry the minister is expected to resign. It is also possible for a minister to face criminal charges for malfeasance under their watch.”

It makes sense in systems where civil servants and non elected officials have no real voice with which to defend themselves. But more to the point, the individual given the delegated authority, on our behalf, was expected to take full responsibility for those under that charge.
We have allowed our elected leaders to slowly but surely escape that responsibility. We have allowed them to get away with as much as possible, until such times they can no longer simply pass the blame on to underlings.

Deflecting and diminishing
The indictment of ‘Scooter” Liddy is a case in point. Robert Parry in Consortiumnews.com makes the point:

“One of the common myths of official Washington is that most political scandals result from overly aggressive aides operating out of control – the Watergate “third-rate burglary” or Iran-Contra’s “men of zeal” – with top officials getting in trouble only later by trying to cover the mess up.
But the reality – which is relevant again amid the probe into the outing of a CIA officer – is that a principal official is almost always lurking somewhere in the background of the original crime, sending signals or pulling strings with the expectation that, if caught, a subordinate will take the fall.”

Then there are the degrees of corruption, according to said Joe Lieber, a political analyst at Washington Analysis:

“If it's just Scooter Libby that gets indicted, it's a minor scandal. If Karl Rove gets indicted, that will be a little more damaging.”

No, it is not simply a minor scandal; it is a corruption symptomatic of political leadership around the world.
The US media, at least the Washington arm, has, to a great extent, tried to hide from this particular affair. S
ure it is complex, but it is also vitally important. Not enough it seems for any media organisation to put any real resources into the coverage.
In fact, the main role of the media has been to deflect rather than demand answers.

All in all, this latest imbroglio highlights the moral corruption we the voters, the media and our representatives, have allowed to develop.
Unless we all demand better it will surely get worse.
The implications of this ‘scandal’ are far reaching, well beyond the borders of the USA and well beyond mere cynical use of power. Over 2000 US servicemen are dead as a result of a war justified by the lies uncovered in this saga.
The US and other allies’ populations have been cowered by fearsome predictions of terrorist retaliation. Retaliation for actions taken on the basis of lies.
President Bush and vice president Cheney, if they had an honour and calling, would take responsibility for this mess. Instead of perpetuating this age of second rate political figures, they should resign.

Volcker's greed report

Now the Volcker catalogue of Iraqi oil corruption is final, everyone is talking about the money and the companies. I want to get down to the nitty gritty and look at how all the schemes involved really worked, the mechanics of the corruption.
In 1996 the world community, through the UN modified sanctions, on Iraq’s shipment of oil to address a growing humanitarian need in that country. Cut off from oil income the people of the country desperately needed food and medicine.
While the UN was to oversee sales and shipping of oil, and the purchase of bona fide food and medicines, Iraq had control over buying and selling.
It is this control which allowed the regime to turn a humanitarian plan into a vast money grab. Saddam’s regime received $1.8 billion in illicit income from surcharges and kickbacks on the sales of oil and humanitarian goods during 1996-2003.


International Intermediaries
First up, Iraq used a system of little known intermediaries companies to affect the initial sales. These companies then sold the oil on to established industry players. The process was a smoke screen to make monitoring of sales as difficult as possible. The oil went from A to B, but the paperwork went through a confusing chain of people.
For Iraq, the benefit of this method was in their ability to impose an illicit surcharge, which could not be easily spotted.
Those manipulating the program ranged from established trading companies to front companies set up for the purpose, and included some companies of international reputation as well as many well known in their home countries.
The scheme came to the UN’s notice at the end of 2000 when the Iraqis got greedy and demanded as much as 50c a barrel surcharge. When many buyers balked at paying the extra, Iraq concentrated on four buyers who would play their game.

War Profiteering
All the oil companies’ contracts included a no premium clause. This, despite the well know fact that Iraq would not deal unless the extra payments were made.
As the premiums were illegal, the companies needed to find ways of hiding them.
These payments were often disguised as items such as ‘commissions’ and ‘loading fees’.
The companies saw these charges as simply ‘commercial transactions’ despite the fact that the money was being used for military rather than humanitarian purposes. In other times these actions would have been called ‘war profiteering’.


Smuggling
Two other oil companies devised a scheme, in 2001, to smuggle oil out under the noses of the UN. The scheme basically revolved around ‘topping’ up ships which had already taken on a load of authorized oil.
Apparently it was easy to bribe the UN ‘contracted’ inspector to go for a coffee while this extra oil was loaded. The scheme came under very quickly when a tanker captain complained to authorities outside Iraq.

Aide profiteering
The other side of the coin was the ‘foods and medicines’ being purchased with the oil money. To a great degree, these were legitimate purchases. The Iraqi regime developed ‘kickback’ schemes, often paid into Iraqi controlled, offshore bank accounts. The schemes were simple enough, suppliers were obliged to pay the extra secretly or lose the deal. Other schemes to defraud the humanitarian program include:

Transport
The regime would instruct suppliers to use certain trucking companies whose prices were wildly inflated. The difference was funneled back into the regime’s banks to fund for armaments. While Iraq could have claimed these ‘extra’ costs directly from the UN they preferred to have the money deposited secretly in off shore accounts.

A web of agents
Like the oil sales, purchases were often handled through a web of agents and third parties. In this way, although brazen, the trail was difficult to follow or disrupt. They used ‘front companies’ partly owned or controlled by the government or compliant suppliers and agents overseas.
Inspection contractors, rather than overseeing the proper working of the program, are alleged at times, to be involved in the illicit trade and payments

I’m going to keep reading this fascinating document. There are sure to be some gems of malpractice still to come. I’ll keep you posted.

Corporate Theives

The final Volcker Report into the oil-for-food scandal promised to be a real eye opener. It is not the UN, which comes out of this scandal fairly cleanly, but big business which will take the knocks.
Critics of the Iraq war have consistently argued that the war had little to do with terrorism and everything to do with business profits.
Americans, mourning the deaths of over 2000 servicemen in Iraq, might like to dwell on the growing evidence from Volcker, the CIA leak enquiry and other sources, as to the reasons behind that needless toll.
The actual corruption in the program was almost all between the regime of Saddam Hussein and international bankers, energy traders and other assorted hucksters, some connected to the Bush administration.
The report will reveal more than half the 4,500 companies which took part in the U.N. oil-for-food program paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein.
Those manipulating the program ranged from established trading companies to front companies set up for the purpose, and included some companies of international reputation as well as many well known in their home countries, the investigators said.

Bringing Corporations into line
The governments of the ‘coalition of the willing’, specifically the USA, British and Australian governments, should respond with sanctions against named corporations.
Those corporations cited should be immediately stripped of any government contracts and barred until such time as they either clear their names or make positive social restitution for their corrupt activities.
This is profit by deception, theft and murder! These corporations must pay back in full, to their own nation’s and Iraq’s citizens before they should be allowed back into the game.
The ‘corporation’, as an entity, has now grown to rival many ‘sovereign states’ in economic clout. The problem is they seem to be accountable to no one, and use their influence to subvert our democracies.
Government must develop the guts to demand compensation for corporate corruption and institute independent oversight programs to keep them in reign.

The difficulties, however, are manifest. Corporate influence has become so intertwined with government that it is becoming impossible to see the edges anymore.
One of the architects of the Iraq war, Dick Cheney, dragged a bag load of corporate interest into the White House. He had already been involved in dubious corporate practices before becoming VP.

"When Cheney was running Halliburton, it sold more equipment to Iraq than any other company did. As first reported by The Financial Times on Nov. 3, 2000, Halliburton subsidiaries submitted $23.8 million worth of contracts with Iraq to the United Nations in 1998 and 1999 for approval by its sanctions committee.” Press Action.

Halliburton also has had dealings with Iran and Libya, both on the State Department’s list of terrorist states. Halliburton’s subsidiary Brown & Root, the Texas construction firm that does much business with the U.S. military, was fined $3.8 million for re-exporting goods to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions.

In Australia, the old flagship Australian Wheat Board, now corporatised as the AWB, is on the Volcker list.
The Australian government is currently trying to ram through highly restrictive anti-terrorism legislation. To counter resistance, the government is using all the terrorist scare tactics it can muster to reign in detractors.
In that climate it is not surprising that Australian farmers are furious that their produce might be funding the bloody insurgency in Iraq.
Desperate to develop new markets, AWB became the largest supplier of wheat to Iraq under Saddam, and sold about 10 million tonnes of grain under the oil-for-food program.
Chairman of West Australian farmers group Western Grain Growers, Leon Bradley, said

"This destruction [Iraq] has been partly funded courtesy of the AWB, It's ironic that our Government forces farmers to supply their wheat to an organisation that steals food out of the mouths of children."

AWB has always strongly denied any deliberate wrongdoing in its dealings with Iraq, saying it never knowingly paid kickbacks. For the country's grain growers, they had better be right. It is difficult to see how the major grain marketer of a country could be penalized without hurting thousands of growers in the process.
Penalising after the fact is never as satisfactory as proper oversight and avoidance of implications of corruption.

Act of Will
It will take a massive act of will, and a process of instituting strong anti corruption agencies with a brief for corporate as well as public sector governance to beat the greed and corruption infecting our institutions.
It will also take a massive act of will by ordinary people to get of their behinds and start demanding change.

The Political Machine Stinks

So Dick Cheney laments the weakening of the presidency after Watergate. “In 34 years, I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job,” Cheney declared on ABC in 2002.
One report has it:

Avoiding scandals has become one of Cheney's obsessions, and the vice president has repeatedly fought to expand executive privilege to create an informational firewall around the presidency.

Therein in, one would think, might be the problem. Politics, in the US and elsewhere, accepts that corruption is a serious problem, and steps need to be taken to protect from being caught.

With a former aide to French President Jacques Chirac was found guilty of corruption, we are seeing the same misuse of office being played out in Europe.
Michel Roussin, who was Chirac's chief of staff when the president was mayor of Paris before becoming head of state in 1995, was found guilty of involvement in a kickback scheme run between 1989 and 1995.
The scam provided illegal funds to politicians in exchange for contracts to build or repair Paris-area schools.
By the end of the trial both right and leftwing political parties were revealed to have received illicit donations from companies tendering for public contracts.
While these politicians and their cronies line their pockets the rest of the community suffers.

If you take the Cheney line, however, the real crime is getting caught and implicating a President.
So how have we reached this stage where our body politic (speaking here of my very own Australian governments as well) have developed such a skewed view of probity and ethics?
How is it that the job of elected representative has evolved (or is it intelligent design?) into outright plunder of the public purse?

It seems that we are kidding ourselves with the sham of public election. It would be far more cost efficient, leaving even more plunder, to simply appoint known crooks and thugs.
The worst part now is that when a politician utters the words ethics, probity or voices opposition to corruption, there is no guarantee of how they define the terms. But in all probability you can expect a self serving definition.
The standards of the body politic stink! The ethics of those ‘buying’ high office are not in accord with real community leadership. And we won’t get any better until people start screaming from the rooftops and demanding better.
It’s the old question of ‘why do dogs lick their privates?’ Because they can! We let them!

Corruption Canada

Canada is economical with its scandals. The long running ‘Sponsorship Scandal’, and the ensuing Gomery enquiry, are crawling toward resolution.
Every possible ounce of righteous indignation will be drained from the sorry affair.
The processes involved in the various enquiries should, of itself, constitute a scandal, but I suspect everyone has just about had enough.
Regardless of the ‘Gomery’ outcome, the few heads which might ‘sort of’ roll; the payoff must be the establishment of effective oversight measures.
Treasury Board President, Reg Alcock, has been charged with putting a structure in place within his office. While I don’t doubt Mr alcock’s integrity or efficiency, this is an approach fraught with potential dangers.
Chief among the problems the proposed structure faces is that the civil service will be called on to investigate themselves. This, with the best will, is always a questionable practice.
A second issue, evident already in the process, focuses on rules of conduct puts the cart before the horse. We are talking about responsible adults here; they know the consequences of their behaviour. Specify the elements of corruption then prosecute those who breach that code. That is how the law operates.

Effective anti-corruption agencies must be both independence and stand alone. They must have a brief which details what constitutes corrupt behaviour. They must have the teeth to investigate and compel witnesses to testify, under standard perjury rules.
Experience has shown that the most effective model is an independent, standing commission. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) offers a ready made blueprint on how an effective agency is constituted.
During the legislation phase of ICAC’s creation, the NSW Premier Nick Greiner said:

"Nothing’s more destructive of democracy than a situation where people lack confidence in those administrators that stand in a position of public trust. If a liberal and democratic society is to flourish we need to ensure that the credibility of public institutions is restored and safeguarded and that community confidence in the integrity of public administration is preserved and justified."

Ironically, Greiner, a popular and likeable leader, was among the first victims of ICAC following a charge of cronyism. Charges of corruption against Greiner were later dismissed in court.

The ICAC have an established definition of corruption. You can find it on their web site. ICAC also have the powers of a commission which allow thorough investigation of issue to the point of recommending prosecution.
Canada’s Treasury Board has been promised the resources to establish an effective oversight. Those resources should now be transferred to a properly constituted, independent standing commission with the power to fight corruption within the system

The Big Lie

Outside the body politic it is called lying. It is part of the political culture which holds that the ends, their ends, justify the means.
The truth isn’t the only thing massaged, so does language. Lying to their constituents becomes; massaging the truth, spin, damage control, leverage, news management, issues management and on it goes.
Ironically, the word spin is said to have first appeared in the New York Times, sometime in October 1984, following the Reagan/Mondale debate. The irony being that the NYT is now deep in kakka for failing to detect one of its own journalists peddling spin.
We are talking here of the bias put on an issue, in order to make people believe an interpretation of events favourable to the teller, but not necessarily the full truth.

The question is, if these spinmeisters, beloved of the modern politician, are so good why are the ‘flak catchers’ of the world so busy at present?
In the US Bush’s pals ‘turd blossom' as he apparently calls his chief Aide Karl rove, Dick Cheney VP and his offsider ‘Scooter’ Liddy, are all supposed to be experts at political dissembling.
The current ‘scandal’ in the White House is a direct consequence of the lies and manipulations employed to sell the war in Iraq.
This was a cynical use of power, manipulation of information and potentially illegal activities. The latter, of course, is a matter for the courts, but the corruption is in misleading the public.

What I find particularly amusing now is the cry of ‘no fair, perjury was never part of the prosecutors brief.’ Perjury, by the way, is a legal word for lying.
We are all aware of the hapless burglar, jailed for ‘possession of house breaking tools’. This minor charge settled for because the prosecutor could not furnish the material evidence of the greater crime. ‘Never mind, he was bad and we nailed him anyway.’
Of course it would be better all round to ‘nail’ the guilty parties for their true misdeeds. Even so, the lies are part of their tool kit. If they lied on oath it is merely an extension of the underlying, corrupt, activities.

Australian’s gave a sort of tacit approval to the lies exposed prior to that country entering the alliance in Iraq. It is part of the national psyche; it seems, to accept the obvious lies dished up to them.
Security is a ‘hot word’ in Australia, as it is in the US. Having accepted the lies which led them into the war, then to its consequences of the frightening terror attacks in nearby Bali, they will accept the lies leading to a diminution of civil liberties.
They will willingly accept all of this, until it dawns on them just where their politicians have led them. What then? I can’t imagine under the proposed, draconian laws there will be much leeway to protest after the fact.
A terrorist will be whatever the Australian authorities deem to define a terrorist. If it means controlling a dissatisfied populous, or part thereof, by using anti terror laws, the government of the day will have the means.
These are dark days when countries are willing to surrender hard won civil liberties to political forces of dubious intent.
And behind it all, the spin, the lie, the fundamental corruption of our democracies.

MCBRIDE'S MEDIA MATTERS

Demise of the Christian Right?

There is a certain smell in the air which predicts the decay of the Bush administrations alliance with the Religious Right.
Lest my joy at these turn of events be taken the wrong way, let me say; I am in no way anti-American or anti-Christian.
What really concerns me is the enormous influence events in Washington have on other countries.
These influences in particular seem to embolden religious and economic conservatives where they might otherwise simply hover in the background.
But back to George W and his unholy alliance; with some notable exceptions, there has been a strange silence from leaders of the Christian right in recent times.
Doubtless many are wary of becoming tainted by the growing revelations and allegations surrounding senior Republican figures.
Some commentators go further, claiming that the CR feels betrayed by the Bush administration ‘which it put in power.’ That Bush is not delivering the agenda which was the basis of support.
Of course some are still in the fray. James Dobson, it seems, jumped into the Miers debate without looking first.
Ralph Reed is far too mired to simply extricate himself, unseen, and ride off into the sunset.
Pat Buchanan, rather than play the invisible man is sending a clear message, with comments like:

“While President Bush and his War Cabinet bear full moral responsibility for Iraq, they could not have taken us to war without the complicity of the ‘adversary press’ and ‘loyal opposition’.”

But don’t look at me, he seems to be implying.

Growing Unease
Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at The New Republic, cites the judicial line for growing unease:

“Mr. Bush's betrayal of the social conservative cause did not begin with Ms. Miers. His previous high court appointment, John Roberts, ought to have been taken as such. Mr. Bush all but explicitly promised to nominate justices like Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, but Chief Justice Roberts is not in that mold.”

That is to suggest an honorable retreat in the face of betrayal by Bush. After detailing a raft of CR policy failures, by the bush Administration, he asks:

“Why do social conservatives keep accepting this rotten deal? It's not because there are fewer of them than there are economic conservatives.”

Of course there are other, more fundamental, issues with economic conservatives which upset the CR agenda. In the old days of politics it was understood that an honest politician, when bought, stayed bought. Economic conservatives have changed market rules completely. Free trade is now the rule, a deal is only a deal until a better offer comes along.
Conservative leader Paul M. Weyrich says membership rolls and donations to groups on the right have fallen off. Conservatives fear increase of dissent in the ranks

“The conservative movement was on an upward path, even after the 2004 elections, but the growth has stopped," said Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation.
''People now say, 'I'm not sure that this is the right gang to belong to,' "

Weyrich, who runs a weekly strategy session, said last week.
That ‘gang’ is the White House and GOP leadership, both of which rely on a loyal cadre of self-described conservatives to win elections.

The alliance between the Christian Right and Republicans was a cynical exercise on both sides. Bush might talk the talk, but he will always put his own interests, as he perceives them, first. He won’t ‘walk the plank’ for the sake of policies imposed on him by these unelected partners.
Much the same can be said for each of the prominent CR leaders. They will not continue to expose themselves, and risk their own power bases, when they fail to deliver on the promises made to their own supporters.
In the quest for power, in a basically conflicting alliance, there can be no real compromise; there is too much at stake on both sides.

But slowly it will fall apart. From these first cracks in the alliance rifts can only grow. The scandal spreading through conservative politics will make it unsafe territory for the most desperate Evangelical power seeker.
Even in Australia where darling of the CR and bush toady, Prime Minister Howard, is showing signs of losing grip, the signs of decay are starting to show.
This trend of allowing sectional interests to control national agendas through legitimately elected governments is troubling.
The Christian Right has the same rights and opportunities to sell their values into the community as any other secular interest.
Like the economic conservatives, they do not have the right, in a democracy, to buy governments in order to set national agendas.
As this latest adventure begins to crumble my hope is that it will proceed with such
commotion as to alert all but the most deaf to the dangers inherent in allowing narrow sectional interests to influence policy.

Positive side of Scandals

There is a very positive aspect to seemingly endless news stories of political scandal around the world. Corruption is not a new phenomenon, and by its very nature it is a secretive one.
That so much official fiddling is being exposed does not suggest a growth in the trade, simply a greater awareness.
Organisations like Transparency International are, in part, responsible for driving public awareness. Although their ‘imperfect’ Corruption Perception Index is not well understood by the general public, it is eagerly sought out by media and political pundits.
The real danger now is that of ‘corruption fatigue’. Citizens everywhere have a right to expect their representatives to act in good faith. The constant publicity, now being given to corruption, tends to lead to hopeless cynicism in electors.
That is why it is vital that jurisdictions known for serious levels of public sector corruption must act immediately to put independent oversight structures in place.
These bodies, properly constituted, get on with the business of auditing malfeasance, regardless of public mood or political climate.
Sadly, many of our lawmakers seem incapable of operating honestly without someone watching over their shoulders. If this is the case then the creation of these bodies must be the positive outcome of the negative behaviour.