Benon Sevan

A commission investigating the United Nations' oil-for-food program in Iraq has issued an interim report that sheds some light, but not much, on the nature and scope of this much-ballyhooed scandal. The panel has found persuasive evidence that Benon Sevan, who ran the program, used his influence with Iraq improperly to help a small company gain profitable rights to sell Iraqi oil while he was simultaneously urging the U.N. to provide greater help in rebuilding Iraq's oil equipment. That was a clear conflict of interest that raises the possibility that Iraq bribed Mr. Sevan. If the allegations are true--Mr. Sevan claims that he is being scapegoated--they would constitute the first real evidence of corruption at high levels of the program.
But whether this amounts to small-scale corruption by a greedy official or a large-scale subversion of the entire program is not clear. Nothing in this initial report gets at the core element of the scandal: how was Iraq able to manipulate the program to amass perhaps $2 billion in illicit revenues to sustain the regime and buy embargoed goods?
The most disturbing findings, according to Paul Volcker, the panel's chairman, are that Mr. Sevan, a Cypriot, asked senior Iraqi officials to grant oil allocations to Africa Middle East Petroleum, a small company owned by a distant relative of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former U.N. secretary general, and was evasive in answering questions about it. The company resold the allocations for a $1.5 million profit. The report does not charge that Mr. Sevan profited personally, but it notes that he claimed to have received $160,000 in cash from an aunt, an elderly woman who lived modestly and would not plausibly have big wads of cash to give away.
During this period Mr. Sevan also urged the U.N. to increase the funds for oil-machinery repairs in Iraq and release "holds" put on oil parts destined for Iraq. The report stops short of accusing him of taking a bribe to do Iraq's bidding, possibly because he had long sought to rebuild Iraq's oil facilities and might have championed that cause even without the oil allocations. But Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was shocked at Mr. Sevan's behavior.
The other major charge in the report is that the U.N. violated its own competitive bidding rules in hiring three major contractors. That seems undeniably true, but how heinous it is remains murky. Mr. Boutros-Ghali, then the secretary general, for example, picked a French bank to handle the program's escrow account because Iraq wouldn't accept an American bank and the United States opposed using a Swiss bank that was deemed the top choice by U.N. procurement officials.
The choice of a Dutch company to inspect oil shipments out of Iraq and of a British company to inspect imports of humanitarian goods also violated U.N. bidding procedures. The Dutch may have been favored because they were deemed tough on enforcing sanctions, and the British may have been chosen to spread the contracting around. Whatever the motivation, the U.N. official most centrally involved faces disciplinary action.
Still to come are a report on the role of Kofi Annan's son in working for a contractor and a final report that will delve into the sensitive issue of whether members of the Security Council knew that Iraq was getting illicit revenues from the oil-for-food program and separate trade protocols but did nothing to stop it.
NYTIMES.COM

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez plants a tree at the Lagoa do Junco Landless Workers Movement settlement, Jan. 30, in Tapes, 130 km from Porto Alegre, southern Brazil. (AFP File Photo)

Hugo Chavez, the leader of VenezuelaÕs Bolivarian Revolution, was at first kept at armÕs length by many of the progressive movements worldwide. The Left, shy of state power after the collapse of the Soviet bureaucratic bloc, tended to view ChavezÕs inauguration in 1999 with skepticism or even contemptuous dismissal.
But with experience the pejorative jabs, such as ÔBonapartistÕ (Marxist for unprincipled centrist) or Ôpro-capitalist demagogue,Õ have largely dissolved into critical support and even, in some cases, adulation.
Hugo Chavez has emerged as an iconic figure in the anti-imperialist and social justice movements. More than just a symbol, of course, his contribution and the development of the social revolution in Venezuela deserve close study and examination.
Chavez, Venezuela and the New Latin America, a new documentary from the Australian-based Ocean Press, makes an important contribution to our understanding of the Venezuelan process. Though the film, which features an extended interview of Chavez by Aleida Guevara, CheÕs daughter, does at times verge on hagiography, its importance lies in its examination of the profound causes of VenezuelaÕs social and political upheaval.
The documentary traces the recent history of the Bolivarian process only briefly, as excellent productions such as The Revolution Will Not Be Televised have already covered in riveting detail the events surrounding the April 2002 coup against Chavez. Rather, this new production features a number of interviews with the protagonists of social change, speaking with political organizers in the barrios of Caracas, and in the pro-Chavez wing of the military.
The interview with Chavez is revealing. The Venezuelan leader is playful, hyper-active and always charismatic in responding to GuevaraÕs questions, whether speaking of his early baseball exploits, or reveling in the Òperfect mixÓ of African and Indian that makes up the Caribbean people.
This is clearly a politician with an eclectic yet profoundly radical political orientation. His efforts to recover and highlight the most explicitly anti-imperialist and progressive content of the continentÕs nationalist heroes like Simon Bolivar closely resembles Fidel CastroÕs invocation of the legacy of Cuban national hero Jose Marti.
There are a number of other parallels to the revolutionary process in Cuba that are striking; the film shows a massive demonstration celebrating the failed insurrection that Chavez led on February 4, 1992 against the countryÕs former regime. Much like CubaÕs continued celebration of the Moncada assault of July 26, 1953, Chavez seems determined to turn a bitter defeat into an inspiration and rallying point.
The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, though, is a process without historical precedent, and is certainly not destined to simplistically attempt to follow the Cuban model. A deep-going, if uneven, radicalization of the poor and working classes is underway, and its outcome or final direction is yet to be decided.
One disappointment is that Chavez, Venezuela, and the New Latin America fails to look too much at the contradictions or to examine too closely the potential struggles ahead. ChavezÕs invocation of Òwinds of changeÓ crossing Latin America rings somewhat hollow when the only examples given are Kirschner and Lula, the presidents of Argentina and Brazil who have come, increasingly, to represent the disappointing results of centre-left elected governments on the continent.
ZMAG.ORG

When this article appears the Iraqi elections--however questionable their legitimacy--will be over. The elections, the Iraqis hoped, would result in new balances between ethnic and sectarian groups and between the people and the government. Other avenues remain open, alternatively poised to dismantle Iraq entirely, weld it back within a new ideological casing or keep it staggering in the smoke and blood of chaos.
When it is finally written the history of this period will relate how the Jordanian fundamentalist, Abu Musaab Al-Zarqawi, came to define the hostility between the fighting camps in Iraq. What concerns Al-Zarqawi is not ending the American occupation and securing the Iraqi people's right to self-determination, nor defending the poor and needy or the freedom of all Iraqis regardless of their ethnic origins or beliefs.
He has identified democracy as a crusading ploy aimed at empowering Israel, a contention that has been aired in the rhetoric of other Arab political forces, not all subscribing to the fundamentalist school. He has also offered his own definition of democracy, a system in which "the people are the source of power, including legislative power. This is exercised through the choice of popular representatives who undertake the task of formulating legislation and promulgating laws. In other words, the legislator who must be obeyed in a democracy is man, not God. This means that with respect to lawgiving and the power to sanction or forbid, it is the people--human beings, God's creations--rather than God Almighty who are to be held sacred, worshipped and obeyed. This is pure blasphemy, heresy and falsehood."
Al-Zarqawi comes down unequivocally in favour of God, as he and his supporters and those he has ruled qualified to pass judgment see Him. The rest are details that follow logically from this premise. The freedoms of religion, belief and opinion are, as he put it, "known in our religion to be false and invalid".
It comes as no surprise whatsoever, therefore, to hear his contempt at the prospect of control by the "Defectors"--the Shia--over the state and its sources of wealth. It is a stand that has brought Iraq to the verge of civil war between Sunna and Shia that all patriotic forces are attempting to avoid. Even less of a surprise is the vehemence with which he denounces "all who seek to establish that system [democracy]" as "pretenders to divinity and divine power" and those that elect them as "idol worshippers who have forsaken God".
These are the boundaries of the political battle that is taking place in Iraq, a battle that will reverberate beyond the elections and beyond Iraq's borders. They have been defined by one of the most militant, perhaps one of the most destructive and certainly one of the most broadly supported and active factions in Iraq. And this faction is not just opposed to Iraqis who work or cooperate with the occupation, or even those who support a solution to the Iraqi predicament based on the resolutions of the UN and the principles of international legitimacy. It is opposed to anyone who favours the idea of democracy. In short, it has targeted the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people.
This is nothing less than fascism, which loathes the very thought of the people as a source of authority and which views authority as a sacred and eternal abstract the keys to which are vested solely in the organisation or group that fate has mysteriously ordained to accomplish holy missions and perform historic roles.
WEEKLY.AHRAM.
ORG.EG

The Syrian media have not shown any serious signs of change since the Baath Party assumed power in a 1963 coup. Indeed, Syria's media sector is one of the most tightly controlled in the Arab world. Most publications are state-owned, and rarely express nonconformist opinions. The coming to power of young President Bashar Assad in 2000 raised hopes that the regime would loosen the reigns significantly. But after a brief period of decompression in 2001 known as the "Damascus spring," Assad enacted a publications law that consolidated government control; he allowed the licensing of just one "independent" political magazine, owned by the son of the minister of defense; and he cracked down hard on dissent.
Despite the overall gloomy picture, however, in recent months there have been indications that reform-minded members of the regime are willing to allow the voicing of limited dissent in state-owned outlets, particularly in the print media.Ê
The president recently appointed several reform-minded ministers in his October 2004 cabinet reshuffle. The new interior minister, retired general Ghazi Kanaan, quickly pronounced the Syrian press "unreadable" and called for criticism of government performance to be expressed in the state-owned media. The task of modernizing the state media falls to the new information minister, Mahdi Dakhlallah, himself a journalist and the former editor of Al-Baath, the Baath Party's official newspaper.
In his last editorials before assuming his ministerial post, Dakhlallah questioned the need for continuing the state of emergency in place since 1963, and called for the adoption of serious democratic reforms, contending that there was no basic incompatibility between Baath ideology and democracy. Since his appointment, Dakhlallah has supervised the restructuring of several state-owned media institutions with an eye toward making them more professional.Ê
In the meantime, state-owned newspapers have published articles by well-known dissidents. Of particular note was a piece by Hakam al-Baba in the daily Tishreen that criticized the continuous harassment of dissident journalists by the country's numerous security apparatuses. Baba cited his own experiences, and named Dakhallah personally as having instigated one such round of detention and questioning when he was editor of Al-Baath. The article marked the first time since the Baath came to power that the role of Syria's security apparatus had come under such public scrutiny.Ê
Yet, a genuine media "glasnost" requires more than these haphazard and anecdotal gestures, no matter how brave or promising they might seem. Without the state's clear and public commitment to open up the media sector, to permit truly independent newspapers and other outlets, and to cease harassing journalists and activists, such informal moves will never acquire the necessary credibility among the country's dissidents; nor for that matter among international observers, who continue to denounce Syria's record on freedom of expression.
Syrian dissidents have yet to take full advantage of the small but significant new freedoms allowed in state-owned outlets. Writing articles that touch upon taboo issues is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Activists should offer concrete proposals, programs and demands to facilitate the reform process and to build a grassroots constituency for democratic change--something that does not yet exist in Syria.
For as we know, freedom of the press represents the first frontier of any genuine democratization process, because, once instituted, it allows for monitoring government performance and for holding regimes accountable to the people. Thus, if Syrian reformers fail to test the boundaries of these new freedoms, however scant or fleeting, how can they assess the regime's seriousness or push it to undertake real reform?
Ammar Abdulhamid
CARNEGIE
ENDOWMENT.ORG/
ARABREFORM

Despite all of the good deeds performed by Americans, the United States Government is the most hated in the world, not least because America's resources have been placed under the control of the kleptocracy in Tel Aviv doing business as the government of "Israel".
The latest act of thievery by the Israeli kleptocracy (it affords this gang of murderers and thieves too much dignity to call them a "government") has been the wholesale theft of Palestinian lands using the construction of a "security fence" as a pretext to steal land on one side of the fence from its lawful owners who are fenced out on the other side of the barrier. I have been watching this scandal percolate for the past few days, initially in the pages of Ha'aretz, a respected Israeli newspaper; then in pro-peace Israeli commentaries in response, such as that of Yossi Beilin condemning the annexations; and now by the stunned silence and shock in Washington.
No doubt the malignant Soviet refugee Anatoli Sharansky will soon rise to the crescendo of calling the condemnation of Israeli land thievery "anti-Semitism". There is nothing anti-Semitic in condemning the blatant thievery and contempt for humanity of the Israeli kleptocracy. Imagine if you will be in a situation where the local government cuts off your back yard with a fence, using the false pretext that the fence is being placed there to prevent you from committing unlawful acts on adjacent properties. Then the government takes away your backyard and legally confiscates your land saying you "abandoned" it when they built the fence. That is what the Israelis are attempting to accomplish.
This scheme is so pathetic that it makes one wonder whether the Sharon-Sharansky kleptocrats have lost their minds. They can't even steal straight any more.
Of course, this latest act of kleptomania comes in the wake of Vice-President Dick Cheney's claim last week that Israel's young men have now become George Bush's official storm troopers, and that we can eagerly await an attack on Iran by Israelis in the de facto employ of the United States. Iran, of course, like the victims of the land theft, has attacked no one. But an American-inspired Israeli attack on Persia will be the doom of Israel.
Why innocent Americans must die in the Middle East to protect this Israeli thievery is beyond me. We have been lied to, drugged and rendered senseless by the propaganda of the Bush administration, and now we are being promised Israelis will fight America's dirty wars. We can all sit back and relax and let Ariel Sharon steal property from innocent victims of Israeli kleptocracy as his paycheck. For shame.
Of course, the Israelis have been stealing land for over 50 years, and no one has done anything to stop them. So maybe they think they can get away with it again. Unfortunately, George Bush has mortgaged the decency and prestige of the American people behind the murderers and thieves in the Tel Aviv mafia doing business as the Israeli government.
One of the basic principles of the common law is that a thief acquires no lawful title to his stolen loot. Israelis take notice. It took American Indians over 100 years to begin to receive just compensation for the theft of their lands; we are still paying the bill, and the US government is still in court. Palestinians will eventually obtain justice; it is just painfully slow in coming.
Andy Martin
METIMES.COM