Panelists stressed the importance of the relationship between the United States and the World Food Program. The United States is the largest donor to the World Food Program in general, and also to Sudan, specifically. Last year, the US was responsible for 80% of the food aid for Darfur. While donations are far below the WFP request, the US has funded 27% of the appeal, which is 85% of the donations up to this date. Moreover, the President announced on May 8th that the US will provide $225 million in emergency supplemental funding as additional food assistance to Darfur. The supplies from that emergency supplemental request will most likely not reach Darfur before November, however. In the meantime, the US is redirecting approximately 50,000 metric tons of food aid that will arrive to the region from May through September.
Saddam Hussein gave advisers to Russian President Vladimir Putin allocations for more than 90 million barrels of Iraqi oil as thanks for Russia's support in the United Nations, a U.S. Senate investigative panel said today.
Most other countries have done little or nothing to come clean.France, which was given preferential oil allocations, has only a lone prosecutor moving ahead, with little support from the Elysee Palace. Russia, which facilitated the oil allocations and blocked moves on the Security Council to investigate kickbacks, refused to assist Paul A. Volcker, much less prosecute anyone. Ditto for China, which received huge oil allocations, and Vietnam, whose state-owned food companies paid kickbacks in exchange for business contracts.
Regarding the UN, Cole notes: "The UN knew that Iraq was breaching sanctions by requiring payment of inland transport fees and surcharges or after-sales service fees. It knew this between 1999 and 2003 ... It took no steps to publicise or warn member states of the Iraqi practices, and it took no steps to stop the practices." Mark it down as another coda to Kofi Annan's disastrous legacy as Secretary-General.
I take a much more relaxed attitude towards sending aid unilaterally than I do towards invading unilaterally.
When you go in with the support of some 40 nations (far more than the support the US or UK had when going to war against Nazi Germany), I would hardly call it unilateral. But I guess the lie has been repeated so often it has become the accepted truth...
America got itself bloodied in Somalia (another "unilateral" action, this time on humanitarian grounds). Our people got used for target practice for third world warlords.
I am strongly tempted to say send massive weapons shipments to both sides in Sudan, let them kill each other off, and be done with it. I've had it up to HERE with humanitarian causes in violent third world countries. Let's do what the French, Russians and Chinese do and not get involved unless our own national interests are directly at stake.
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7): Cfalk From United States, joined exactly 6 years ago today! , 9181 posts, RR: 56
A little off topic, but I just saw that. 6 years already... Jeez...