The Great UN

[rushmc 23]

UNITED NATIONS — A former Russian top spy says his agents helped the Russian government steal nearly $500 million from the U.N.'s oil-for-food program in Iraq before the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Sergei Tretyakov, who defected to the United States in 2000 as a double agent, says he oversaw an operation that helped Saddam's regime manipulate the price of Iraqi oil sold under the program — and allow Russia to skim profits.

Tretyakov, former deputy head of intelligence at Russia's U.N. mission from 1995 to 2000, names some names, but sticks mainly to code names. Among the spies he says he recruited for Russia were a Canadian nuclear weapons expert who became a U.N. nuclear verification expert in Vienna, a senior Russian official in the oil-for-food program and a former Soviet bloc ambassador. He describes a Russian businessman who got hold of a nuclear bomb, and kept it stored in a shed at his dacha outside Moscow.

The 51-year-old Tretyakov had never spoken out about his spying before this week, when he granted his first news media interviews to publicize a book published Thursday. Written by former Washington Post journalist Pete Earley, the book is titled "Comrade J.: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America after the End of the Cold War."

"It's an international spy nest," Tretyakov said of the U.N., during an interview this week with The Associated Press. "Inside the U.N., we were fishing for knowledgeable diplomats who could give us first of all anti-American information."

His defection was first reported by the AP in 2001. Shortly after, the New York Times broke the news that he was not a diplomat, but a top Russian spy who was extensively debriefed by the CIA and the FBI.

Some of the people named or referenced by a code name in the book have denied Tretyakov's claims. The Russian mission to the U.N. said Friday it would have no immediate comment.

Stephane Dujarric, a spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, described Tretyakov's allegations as potentially serious violations of law and U.N. rules.

But Dujarric said it would be up to others to prosecute if the allegations are substantiated: "Since the U.N. can't prosecute, it is now up to national governments to prosecute."

An 18-month investigation into the oil-for-food corruption, led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, culminated in an October 2005 report accusing more than 2,200 companies from some 40 countries of colluding with Saddam's regime to bilk the humanitarian program in Iraq of $1.8 billion.

The program was aimed at easing Iraqi suffering under U.N. sanctions imposed after Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. It allowed Iraq to sell oil provided the bulk of the proceeds were used to buy food, medicine and other humanitarian goods and to pay war reparations. Volcker's reports blamed shoddy U.N. management and the world's most powerful nations for allowing corruption in the $64 billion program to go on for years.

Tretyakov defected to the United States with his wife and daughter in 2000, after serving as a double agent passing along secrets to the U.S. government. He calls his defection "the major failure of Russian intelligence in the United States" and warns that Russia, despite the end of the Cold War, harbors bad intentions toward the United States.

The decision to defect, he said, was made only after his mother died in 1997, and he had no other close relatives alive in Russia who could be used to blackmail him. The Tretyakovs now live in retirement in an undisclosed location.

"I got extremely disgusted with the Russian government, and I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. I'm not very emotional. I'm not a Boy Scout," said Tretyakov, who was accompanied during the interview by his wife, Helen, and Earley. "Knowing people who are running Russia, I started feeling that it's immoral to help them. And finally in my life, when I defected, I did something good in my life. Because I want to help United States."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325827,00.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[christelsabine 1]

OK, read it. And your opinion on that is which?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 23]

Quote

OK, read it. And your opinion on that is which?

Your kidding right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

OK, read it. And your opinion on that is which?

Your kidding right?

No, of course not. May I repeat? WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THAT??

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, read it. And your opinion on that is which?

Your kidding right?

No, of course not. May I repeat? WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THAT??

On what?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Am I to believe you think the UN is one of the great institutions in the world?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[christelsabine 1]

No dear, it's not. YOU posted something about it (UN concerned), so what's YOUR opinion on that, why did you post it?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 23]

To inform

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Love the topic! … & I’m not being at all facetious.

I’ve met Tariq Rauf (professionally), the IAEA verification chief, who is accused of being a Russian spy – the “Canadian nuclear weapons expert who became a U.N. nuclear verification expert” mentioned in the article above. Last week’s Congressional Quarterly article named him.

The whole issue & the book’s thesis are far from just ‘old’ politics – it’s very much interconnected with the recent Iran nuclear weapons program NIE; differences/antagonisms with folks in the White House and Israel toward the conclusions of the NIE; the ongoing debate within the UN Security Council on punitive sanctions against Iran, which the US is heavily pushing (some characterize as “demanding”) and Russia is protesting; and that NATO proposal I mentioned last week advocating pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile back at Foggy Bottom, former DepSecDef & World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has been tapped to chair the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board. The ISAB mission is “arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military issues, and international security and related aspects of public diplomacy." (My prediction, if a Dem gets the White House, Joe Cirincione, who's got a scathing indictment of Wolfowitz in the linked Bloomberg News piece from the Boston Globe, will get Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security or Asst Sec for IS and Nonproliferation at State.)

Per the CQ article:

“The book’s sensational allegations, however, conveniently allow U.S. intelligence to showcase old news — that the Russians have been spying and pulling “dirty tricks” on the United States and its allies as much, if not more, than they were during the Cold War — on a new platform.

“Likewise, some see the hand of the Bush administration in Tretyakov’s allegation that the IAEA’s top nuclear verification official is a Russian spy. It could be used to taint IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who drew the wrath and scorn of the White House by contradicting its claims that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate has also opposed administration threats to attack Iran.

“But if Tretyakov is right about Moscow’s spies, how come nobody he’s fingered has been charged, much less arrested? (He gave the names of his alleged spies to Canadian security officials years ago.)

“Because he’s making it up, suggests James M. Olson, a former CIA chief of counterintelligence who now lectures on intelligence issues at Texas A&M University.

“Tretyakov, obviously egged on by his publisher, needed something sensational to sell his book,” says Olson, who worked against the Russians for three decades.”

The book attempts to discredit the individual (Rauf) who is responsible for getting and keeping IAEA nuclear inspectors in Iran. So much of that is personal dynamics dependent. To make a rough analogy, it would be like someone publishing in Parachutist an article alleging you (general, not specific “you”) were a SkyRide agent.

Potential US action toward Iran remains an active foreign policy issue.

Rauf has publicly called the allegations “nonsense” and indicated that he may challenge them in court. He & I (along w/other folks) are scheduled to attend a meeting at the end of March. I am confident the issue & allegations will come up, if only at dinner.

Quote

Am I to believe you think the UN is one of the great institutions in the world?

Yes – & not just because the US helped design & build it. Like any institution or organization composed of fallible human beings -- be it the US Congress, USPA, Major League Baseball, or these Army Rangers snagged in a cocaine sting .

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

Wow! So what you're saying is that the UN managed to siphon off about what one executive at Enron did. Have them do that a half dozen times and they'd be in Enron territory.

[freeflydrew 0]

First off, the UN is an organization, not an institution. I know it's a confusing distinction, but at least now you know the correct terminology for it. I bet that you would learn a lot about the United Nations Organization if you went to the headquarters and took a guided tour. At least that way, your posts would appear to come from a more informed position.

So after the US led invasion of Iraq in the 90s, the UN, which includes the US, placed sanctions on Iraq. The Oil for Food Program was started so that the citizens of Iraq could have food provided to them.. Remember that the US is part of the UN, and a key contributor to its decision making process and oversight. So the oil was sold, and the money put towards a system which provided food to the Iraqis. At some point in the programs history, unethical decisions were made by upper level people involved which allowed them to profit from the program. The program continued to sell oil and provide food to the iraqis, except now, certain individuals were profiting from this system.

Fortunately, it was not the UN organization who took advantage of it, instead a select group of greedy people who basically skimmed from the top. It wasn't the Secretary General, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the World Meteorological Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labor Organization, or the International Civil Aviation Organization who took advantage here, it was a handful of people directly related to the Oil for Food Program.

I think that the UN is so much bigger than this one program and it is funny that you use this specific event to dismiss it as an institution... err organization.

[shropshire 0]

>

I've found that, that particular nugget falls on rather stoney ground in these parts

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

First off, the UN is an organization, not an institution. I know it's a confusing distinction, but at least now you know the correct terminology for it. I bet that you would learn a lot about the United Nations Organization if you went to the headquarters and took a guided tour. At least that way, your posts would appear to come from a more informed position.You want to be an ass you will get replyed to in kind. Screw you

So after the US led invasion of Iraq in the 90s, the UN, which includes the US, placed sanctions on Iraq. The Oil for Food Program was started so that the citizens of Iraq could have food provided to them.. Remember that the US is part of the UN, and a key contributor to its decision making process and oversight. So the oil was sold, and the money put towards a system which provided food to the Iraqis. At some point in the programs history, unethical decisions were made by upper level people involved which allowed them to profit from the program. The program continued to sell oil and provide food to the iraqis, except now, certain individuals were profiting from this system.

Fortunately, it was not the UN organization who took advantage of it, instead a select group of greedy people who basically skimmed from the top. It wasn't the Secretary General, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the World Meteorological Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labor Organization, or the International Civil Aviation Organization who took advantage here, it was a handful of people directly related to the Oil for Food Program.

I think that the UN is so much bigger than this one program and it is funny that you use this specific event to dismiss it as an institution... err organization.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

First off, the UN is an organization, not an institution. I know it's a confusing distinction, but at least now you know the correct terminology for it. I bet that you would learn a lot about the United Nations Organization if you went to the headquarters and took a guided tour. At least that way, your posts would appear to come from a more informed position.

So after the US led invasion of Iraq in the 90s, the UN, which includes the US, placed sanctions on Iraq. The Oil for Food Program was started so that the citizens of Iraq could have food provided to them.. Remember that the US is part of the UN, and a key contributor to its decision making process and oversight. So the oil was sold, and the money put towards a system which provided food to the Iraqis. At some point in the programs history, unethical decisions were made by upper level people involved which allowed them to profit from the program. The program continued to sell oil and provide food to the iraqis, except now, certain individuals were profiting from this system.

Fortunately, it was not the UN organization who took advantage of it, instead a select group of greedy people who basically skimmed from the top. It wasn't the Secretary General, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the World Meteorological Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labor Organization, or the International Civil Aviation Organization who took advantage here, it was a handful of people directly related to the Oil for Food Program.

I think that the UN is so much bigger than this one program and it is funny that you use this specific event to dismiss it as an institution... err organization.

IMO which I am allowed to have the UN is an institution wanting only to take for itself. You wish to worship it so be but dont expect civil replies to the shit you posted toward me.

The list of shit done by this "group" is unending. They wish to control our consttitution by implimenting what they believe gun control to be and the list goes on.

The US is a fucking joke

Oh and I expect a warning from billvon. One that I an sure you will not get.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

>

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>

And that is why you hate it so

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

Cheers mate

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

One problem huh.

Worship away if YOU want to

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=scandals+of+the+UN&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Cheers mate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freeflydrew 0]

3 things...

1st why did you write that the "US is a fucking joke"? The irony in your typo. LOL

2nd, I don't worship the UN. I do however respect it as an international organization.

3rd - I know what has happened on UN missions. Is it wrong, yes. Do the people involved deserve to be punished, yes. Are sexual offenses against women prevalent across many African nations regardless of UN presence, yes. Considering that the majority of problems involved troops, doesn't that say more about members of the military from around the world than the UN as an organization?

[Royd 0]

Quote

3rd - I know what has happened on UN missions. Is it wrong, yes. Do the people involved deserve to be punished, yes. Are sexual offenses against women prevalent across many African nations regardless of UN presence, yes. Considering that the majority of problems involved troops, doesn't that say more about members of the military from around the world than the UN as an organization?

Yet, one or two American soldiers raping an Iraqi woman, gives the US a black eye, according to so many liberals.

Which is it?

[freeflydrew 0]

You don't think that one or two soldiers raping an iraqi woman shouldn't give the US Military a black eye? Just like the sexual offenses in UN Peacekeeping Missions shouldn't give the UN Peacekeepers a black eye? Women in other countries are probably scared that they will be raped by either of these militaries. That's fucked up. Those soldiers should be very very punished, and the US military and UN Peacekeepers and member states should review and change the oversight used to monitor soldiers behavior.

Neither incident is any reason to end any organization (US government or UN organization), but rather review problems in conduct of the soldiers.

If someone thinks that the US Military or rather Government isn't at fault for the actions of the US soldiers, how can they justify feeling that way towards the UN organization. Same goes for the opposite. I guess in one organization it's wrong for soldiers to rape a woman and in the organization it's sort of wrong or almost wrong?

I would think that liberals, conservatives, republican, democrats, or whoever, would all agree that soldiers raping an Iraqi woman gives the US a black eye...

What exactly was your point?

[billvon 3,120]

>Yet, one or two American soldiers raping an Iraqi woman, gives the US
>a black eye, according to so many liberals.

Yes, it does. If you think the rape and murder of a 14 year old civilian by US troops on duty should NOT be seen as a very bad thing - well, then, your values are very different than mine (and from most americans.)

Had a US soldier embezzled lots of money from the Iraqi government, that would also give us a black eye, but much less of one. Taking money is less serious than taking the life of a child.

Likewise, had a UN official used his UN position to rape and kill people in the countries he administered, that would be a huge black eye for the UN. Since he instead just funnelled money somewhere, it's somewhat less of a black eye (but a black eye nonetheless.)

In the end, though, very few people are suggesting disbanding either the US or the UN for stupid shit someone in their organization did.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

3rd - I know what has happened on UN missions. Is it wrong, yes. Do the people involved deserve to be punished, yes. Are sexual offenses against women prevalent across many African nations regardless of UN presence, yes. Considering that the majority of problems involved troops, doesn't that say more about members of the military from around the world than the UN as an organization?

Quote

Yet, one or two American soldiers raping an Iraqi woman, gives the US a black eye, according to so many liberals.

Which is it?

Neither – it’s a flawed dichotomy.


Perhaps unintentionally (?), you do bring forth an interesting point:
Should the UN, as an organization, be responsible for the actions of troops from member states?
Or should the states be responsible?
How does that reconcile with the concern that US citizens, including US uniformed service members, might be prosecuted or convicted (maliciously) as one of the main objections (#2, p. 7 of the CRS report) to the US joining the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (ICC) as a state party?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Royd 0]

Quote

I would think that liberals, conservatives, republican, democrats, or whoever, would all agree that soldiers raping an Iraqi woman gives the US a black eye...

What exactly was your point?

I believe that you implied that the organization or leadership of the UN shouldn't be held responsible for the rogue behavior of a number of field troops. Who should they answer to? The problem is that the UN is answerable to noone. Many people in the organization are corrupt in their own right, and simply wink at criminal behavior. Sort of like the Mafia policing itself to be upright citizens.
The oil for food program looked like a purely humanitarian program on its face, but you can bet that for every country involved in the scandal, the gears were turning from minute one, on how they could turn it to their advantage financially.
Now, my problem with liberals and the UN. It seems that many embrace, and find glee in the idea of any organization that can screw with the Good Old USA. I do not understand this mentality.
Why would anyone want a group of people who despise us as a nation, and they do, hold sway over our ability to rule ourselves?