Part 20 (1/2)
They take a survey of more than seventy thousand households in ninety countries to measure ”perceptions and experiences of corruption.”7
They interview business executives who export goods and services to learn ”the perceived likelihood of their firms [having to] bribe” officials in each nation to whom they sell.8
They issue a Global Corruption Report, which explores corruption in particular sectors or spheres of government operations.9
Finally, they conduct a ”series of in-country studies providing an extensive a.s.sessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the key inst.i.tutions that enable good governance and integrity in a country (the executive, legislature, judicial, and anti-corruption agencies among others).”10
Based on this extensive research, Transparency International rates every nation on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 meaning that it is highly corrupt and 10 meaning that it has quite high standards of honesty and integrity.
The results are dismal. Corruption is the order of the day in most countries of the world-the very nations that would rule any global government to which we a.s.sent!
About three-quarters of the countries of the world-132 of the 182 nations rated-received less than a 5 (on a 110 scale), indicating that they were badly corrupted. Ninety-two (half the countries) got a rating of 3 or less, indicating that corruption had penetrated to its very core. Only fifty of the 182 nations got better than a 5 on the corruption scale!
Here are the rankings for each country:11
Are these the nations to whom we are thinking of surrendering our sovereignty, giving them a one-nation, one-vote right to govern us and control our economies, the sea, the Internet, our industries, and many other key aspects of our lives?
But it is not just the member states of the UN that are hopelessly mired in corruption; it is the United Nations itself.
This inst.i.tutional tolerance of corruption was much in evidence in the 1990s as the UN administered the Oil-for-Food program in Iraq. Established under UN auspices to channel revenues from Iraq's carefully regulated sale of oil to provide food and medicine for its people, starving under the impact of international sanctions, the program became a poster child for corruption. The money mainly went into the pocket of the dictator, Saddam Hussein, and into those of the UN officials charged with administering the program.
The UN corruption demonstrated by the Oil-for-Food program is sickening. But worse-far worse-is the immunity and impunity of those who committed the larceny. They have not been punished or disciplined or even fired. They remain at their desks in the UN headquarters, anxious to see greater globalism enlarge their opportunities for personal enrichment and theft.
The oil-for-food program began in 1990 when the UN imposed economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein. To overturn the sanctions, Saddam worked to loosen the sanctions by pleading that they were starving his people and denying medical care to his children. So the UN decided to allow Saddam to sell limited amounts of oil to feed his people. As a result of his overt efforts to stir up sympathy for his starving people and his covert bribery of top UN officials, Saddam gradually expanded the amount of oil he could sell until the limits were ended entirely.
But the slush fund his oil profits generated found its way into the pockets of a plethora of international politicians often at the highest levels. The program included a 2.2 percent commission on each barrel of oil sold. Over the life of the oil-for-food program, the UN collected $1.9 billion in commissions on the sale of oil.12
The program was overseen by the Security Council of the UN, but subsequent investigations revealed that the leaders and UN delegates of three of the five permanent members-Russia, China, and France-were on the take, pocketing commissions as they rolled in.
France received $4.4 billion in oil contracts.
Russia received $19 billion in oil deals.
Kojo Annan, the son of Kofi Annan (then UN secretary-general), received a $10 million contract.
Alexander Yakovlev of Russia, senior UN procurement officer, pocketed $1 million.
Benon Sevan, administrator of the oil-for-food program, received $150,000 in cash.
France's former UN amba.s.sador Jean-Bernard Merimee received $165,725 in oil allocations from Iraq.
Rev. Jean-Marie Benjamin, a.s.sistant to the Vatican secretary of state, received oil allocations under the program.
Charles Pasqua, former French interior minister and intimate friend of former French president Jacques Chirac, received oil allocations.