The largest international "aid" scheme in history is coming to an end today, reports the BBC (HT: Bill Hobbs). I love that the BBC refers to the oil-for-food program as a "scheme".
The programme was, quite simply, the most ambitious experiment in aid ever undertaken by the United Nations.And that's why sanctions never work: they hurt the poor, oppressed population, while the political elite ride high on the hog. The oil-for-food scheme was designed to try to prevent that, but there were dozens of reports in the 1990s (and now, lots of proof) that most of the money was diverted away from the poor, and into Saddam's vaults.It became a test of the organisation's capacity to shield ordinary people from the potentially catastrophic impact of sanctions aimed at a political elite.
The spending will not suddenly stop though.Sounds perfect, to me.The American-led coalition has renegotiated almost all of the contracts and re-employed most of the local staff.
Ordinary Iraqis probably will not immediately notice the difference though.
There is just more than $4bn still left in the bank and the new trade ministry will gradually wind down the programmes over the next seven months.
The coalition official co-ordinating the handover, ambassador Stephen Mann, said whatever happens after that will be up to the new Iraqi Government to decide.
Your post reminds me that the U.N. still needs to provide an independent and open accounting of the program. This article by Claudia Rosett from March of this year. As she said, "...if you like Enron-style transparency, you have to love Oil-for-Food."
I don't know what kind of deal we cut with Kofi & Co., but I haven't heard boo about the suspected fraud since an accommodation was made in the Spring. This should be a priority item for someone, assuming we didn't agree not to press for a public accounting.
Sorry. Forgot to insert the link to the Rosett article. It's here, from the Weekly Standard.
This is the type of thing the Democrats could be hammering Bush on, if they were more interested in serving the country than in pandering to their (current) constituants. Lots of people would be concerned about this if they were aware of it, and the issue isn't too far afield for an isolationist like Dean.