14206:SADDAMAWB:PARTNERS IN THE CRIME

fwd-16-Feb-2006

SADDAM-AUST.WHEAT.BRD: PARTNERS IN THE CRIME

AddedNote: The trail of Iraq-Australian joint operation on UN sanction busting scheme did go back to the Year 2000. The Saddam regime appears blackmailing AWB, to which the Australian (with the government ministers knowledge) bend its knees and paid the bribe through the Jordanian Trucking company.

In an extra-ordinary move, the government "ordered" its public servants not to "answer" any question on this subject to the Senate Committee. By this fact alone, we --the general public-- can conclude that the Australian government, since inception of the scandal in 1999-2000, knew full well about this bribary scheme.

I do not think the government has been 'kind' to the public servants by issuing such a gagging order. What if some criminal culpability exist by those involved in this transaction ? The Cole inquiry has given the AWB Executives the chance to confess about their wrong doings. Then what about the public servants ?

In a democratic country, the elected governments come and go. The public servants have to continue serving the country. Any government should take into account of these public servants' welfare.

-- In solidarity, U Ne Oo.

-----------

AWB ASKED: CAN WE BREAK RULES?

By Richard Baker and Leonie Wood

AUSTRALIA'S wheat exporter asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade if it could break United Nations sanctions by establishing a special account to reward Iraqi agencies for unloading wheat shipments quickly.

Documents tendered as evidence before the oil-for-food inquiry show AWB in August 2000 told the department of delay problems at the Iraqi port of Umm Qaser and asked whether the UN would allow it to set up a trust account to provide incentives for the Iraqi regime.

AWB wanted to set up an account where Iraqi agencies would be given financial incentives to discharge vessels.

In an email to DFAT's then Middle East head, Bob Bowker, AWB middle east manager Dominic Hogan "We have identified several conditions which are non-commercial and hinder our ability to conduct cost effective business with Iraq.

"Consequently, we would like to investigate the possibility of changing several terms, and we seek your advice as to whether these changes would be accepted by the United Nations."

Mr Bowker, now Australia's ambbuttador in Egypt, received advice from DFAT's legal branch that said: "AWB's proposal to establish a trust account for Iraq as an incentive to unload shipments more quickly breaches current UN sanctions."

The department's legal branch advised Mr Bowker that it could be possible for Australia to ask the UN to consider other methods to encourage Iraq to unload wheat more quickly, such as providing incentive payments from the UN account that was responsible for the proceeds of Iraq's oil revenue.

In October 2000, Mr Hogan sent a fax to foreign affairs official Jill Coutney, telling her AWB was "extremely keen" to solve discharge problems in Iraq and was about to enter discussions with a "transport company in Jordan with an aim of introducing a performance incentive scheme".

Mr Hogan's itinerary for October 2000 reveals he had an informal meeting with Trade Minister Mark Vaile in Cairo on October 20. Mr Hogan and his boss at AWB, senior executive Charles Stott, travelled to Iraq that month to discuss a series of issues affecting the company's business there.

On the same day that Mr Hogan had organised to meet Mr Vaile in Cairo, Mr Stott sent a letter to Iraq's then trade minister, Mohammed Saleh, suggesting Iraq drop its "trucking fee" to allow a problematic wheat deal to proceed. Before sending the letter to Mr Saleh, Mr Stott sent a draft to Mr Hogan on October 18, 2000.

-------

Opposition angry over Senate AWB gag

PM - Monday, 13 February , 2006 18:18:00

Reporter: Peta Donald

MARK COLVIN: The Federal Government infuriated the Opposition today with the decision to prevent public servants from answering any questions at a Senate Estimates inquiry about the monopoly wheat exporter AWB and its bribes to Saddam Hussein.

The Government argues it'd be wrong to allow such questioning while the Cole Inquiry's looking at the AWB's dealings, but Labor alleges a despicable cover-up aimed at avoiding accountability.

As it launched into another week in Parliament on the attack over the AWB affair, the Opposition produced a 2003 report from the US Government warning of kickbacks and over-payments in the oil for food program.

It went to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, a body on which Australia was represented, and the report specifically mentioned AWB.

From Canberra, Peta Donald reports.

PETA DONALD: The leader of Government Business in the Senate has sat for hours today, coolly enduring the wrath of Labor senators, including John Faulkner.

NICK MINCHIN: Your idle threats really are quite childish. We're not going to

LABOR SENATOR: I'll tell you what, I'll hold

SPEAKER: Let the Minister finish.

NICK MINCHIN: 'engage in some sort of, you know, response to your witch hunt.

JOHN FAULKNER: Let me butture you that asking reasonable questions about this sort of departmental process has never been interpreted before by ministers at the table as a witch hunt. Latest''

I don't ever recall anyone suggesting that such questions, which to my mind are pretty straightforward, process questions about how a department works and operates, to interpret that as a witch hunt is, I think, a pretty clear indication of how guilty you are. How guilty you are.

PETA DONALD: The Opposition had been looking forward to a chance to grill officials in the Prime Minister's Department about what they knew of AWB's secret payments to Saddam Hussein, and what they might have told their political masters.

So when Senator Minchin announced no questions on AWB would be answered while the Cole Inquiry is underway, there was furious response.

When it came to Question Time in the Lower House, Opposition leader Kim Beazley took up the case.

KIM BEAZLEY: Prime Minister, isn't this arrogant abuse of power all about protecting the Prime Minister and the five ministers now embroiled in the wheat-for-weapons scandal?

What do you have to hide, Prime Minister?

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The Honourable the Prime Minister.

JOHN HOWARD: Mr Speaker, I can butture the Leader of the Opposition that if I had anything to hide I wouldn't have established the royal commission.

(Sound of MPs in disagreement)

It's as simple as that, Mr Speaker.

PETA DONALD: Labor moved on, producing a report written in 2003 from the US Government to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

It names AWB as a company potentially involved in over-pricing in its contracts to sell wheat to Iraq.

The Opposition's Kevin Rudd fixed the Trade Minister Mark Vaile in his sights.

KEVIN RUDD: Minister, given that the US Defence Department's report was addressed to the Coalition Provisional Authority'

(Sound of disagreement)

" which had Australian Government representatives at a senior level, and given that it referred to the AWB by name and requested immediate action from the Coalition Provisional Authority, does the Minister expect this Parliament to believe that the Government was not aware of this report?

SPEAKER: The Honourable the Deputy Prime Minister.

(Sound of disagreement)

MARK VAILE: Mr Speaker, the Member the Griffith clearly indicates the report was to the CPA. The CPA has acted, the UN has acted and'

(Sound of noisy disagreement)

' the Australian Government has acted by establishing the most far-reaching inquiry of any Government'

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

MARK VAILE: 'd a business involved in the oil for food program.

PETA DONALD: Mr Rudd persisted.

KEVIN RUDD: Is it not a fact that by turning a blind eye to this report that the AWB's corrupt contracts with Iraq continued to run for another 12 months after the September 2003 warning?

(Sound of debate amongst politicians)

SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Prime Minister.

(Sound of MPs saying: "No, no.")

MARK VAILE: Mr Speaker, the Government didn't turn a blind eye to anything.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Yes, you did.

(Sound of MPs disagreeing)

PETA DONALD: Back before the Estimates Committee, Senator Nick Minchin was batting away Labor claims, backed by the advice from the Clerk of the Senate, that the silence imposed on public servants is unprecedented.

JOHN FAULKNER: Why was a cover-up appropriate for this royal commission and not for the other recent ones that I've just mentioned?

NICK MINCHIN: Well, you might just as well ask why a cover-up of Coronation Hill was appropriate for your Government in 1989.

LABOR SENATOR: Well, I'm asking you'

NICK MINCHIN: That's how stupid it is.

JOHN FAULKNER: But you could have asked those questions at the time and it's now your turn to answer questions and it's legitimate for us to ask.

LABOR SENATOR: What's become 'why has past practice suddenly'

NICK MINCHIN: I told you the Government has not made any general decision with regard to Estimates questions that occur at the time of royal commissions. We will deal with each case on its merits.

MARK COLVIN: Senator Nick Minchin ending Peta Donald's report.