Accountability is important. The nation will be ill-served if officials who didn't do all they could to prevent a terrorist attack, or led the nation into an unnecessary war, manage to shift the blame to someone else.
But those weren't the only big mistakes of the last few years. Will anyone be held accountable for the mishandling of postwar Iraq?
Last month we learned that the US, while it has spent vast sums on the war in Iraq, has so far provided almost no aid. Of US$18.4 billion in reconstruction funds approved by Congress, only US$400 million has been disbursed.
Almost all of the money spent by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq until late last month, came from Iraqi sources, mainly oil revenues. This revelation helps explain one puzzle: the sluggish pace of reconstruction.
But it creates another puzzle: given that the authority was spending Iraqi money, why wasn't it more careful in its accounting?
When a foreign power takes control of an oil-rich nation's resources, it inevitably faces suspicion about its motives. Fairly or not, the locals are all too ready to believe that the invaders came to steal their oil.
The way to deal with such suspicion is to let in as much sunlight as possible by appointing financial officials with strong reputations for independence, keeping meticulous books, and welcoming and cooperating with international audits.
What actually happened was just the opposite. Every important official with responsibility for Iraqi finances was a Bush administration loyalist. The occupying authority dragged its feet on an international audit, which didn't even begin until three months ago.
When KPMG auditors hired by an international advisory board finally got to work, they found that no effort had been made to keep an accurate record of oil sales, and that accounting for the US$20 billion Development Fund for Iraq consisted of "spreadsheets and pivot tables maintained by a single accountant."
The auditors also faced a lack of cooperation. They were denied access to Iraqi ministries, which were reputed to be the locus of epic corruption on the part of Iraqis with connections to the occupiers. They were also denied access to reports concerning what they delicately describe as "sole-source contracts."
Translation: they were stonewalled when they tried to find out what Halliburton did with US$1.4 billion.
By obstructing international auditors, by the way, the US wasn't just fueling suspicion about the misappropriation of Iraqi oil money -- it was also breaking its word. After former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's fall, the UN gave the US the right to disburse Iraqi oil-for-food revenues, but only on the condition that this be accompanied by international auditing and oversight.
A digression: yes, oil-for-food is the UN-administered program from which Saddam undoubtedly siphoned off billions. But we expect the US to be held to a higher standard.
There are also allegations that Saddam's revenue diversion was aided by corrupt UN officials. I think we should wait and see what Paul Volcker, the genuinely independent head of the UN inquiry -- the sort of person the US occupation should have employed -- has to say. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that these accusations are entirely based on documents that are purported to be in the possession of none other than Ahmad Chalabi, who has himself been accused of corruption.
And there are a few curious side stories. On the day the US raided Chalabi's offices, a British associate of Chalabi, who had been promising to come out with a devastating report, told London's Daily Telegraph that a remarkably effective hacker attack had destroyed all his computer files, including the backup copies.
After the US fell out with Chalabi, the oil-for-food investigation was taken out of the hands of Chalabi's allies. But the new head of the investigation was assassinated on July 1.
Meanwhile, the war, fed by the failure of reconstruction, goes on. The transfer doesn't seem to have made any difference: more US soldiers were killed in the first three weeks of this month than in all of last month, even though Knight-Ridder reports that the US military has stopped patrolling in much of Anbar Province, the heart of the insurgency.
And while the US has yet to disburse any significant amount of aid, the GAO says that war costs for this fiscal year alone will run US$12.3 billion above Pentagon projections.
Will anyone be held accountable?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath