Editing Oil-for-Food Programme (section)

===GAO investigation===
After the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] and subsequent [[Multi-National Force – Iraq|Coalition]] victory over the [[Iraqi Army]], the US [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) was given the task of finalizing all Oil-for-Food-related supply contracts made with the now-defunct regime and of tracking down the personal fortunes of former regime members.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04651t.pdf |title= Observations on the Oil for Food Program |date=2004 |website=gao.gov |access-date=2020-04-04}}</ref> During the execution of this task, the GAO found weaknesses in the programme that allowed kickbacks and other sources of wealth for Saddam Hussein. The GAO estimates that the Saddam Hussein regime generated $10.1 billion in illegal revenues. This figure includes $5.7 billion from oil smuggling and $4.4 billion in illicit surcharges on oil sales and after-sales charges on suppliers. The scale of the fraud was far more extensive than the GAO had previously estimated. A [[United States Department of Defense|U.S. Department of Defense]] study, cited by the GAO, evaluated 759 contracts administered through the Oil-for-Food Programme and found that nearly half had been overpriced, by an average of 21 percent.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d04579thigh.pdf |title=Preliminary Observations on U.S. Efforts and Challenges |date=18 March 2004 |website=gao.gov |access-date=2020-04-04 |archive-date=16 April 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050416114012/http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d04579thigh.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Unlike the 661 committee, members of the Security Council had the authority to launch investigations into contracts and to stop any contract they did not like. The British and the Americans had turned down hundreds of Oil-for-Food contract requests, but these were blocked primarily on the grounds that the items being imported were dual-use technologies.

To quote the GAO report, in its summary:

: Both the UN Secretary-General, through the Office of the Iraqi Programme (OIP) and the Security Council, through its sanctions committee for Iraq, were responsible for overseeing the Oil-for-Food Programme. However, the Iraqi government negotiated contracts directly with purchasers of Iraqi oil and suppliers of commodities, which may have been one important factor that allowed Iraq to levy illegal surcharges and commissions.

Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the General Accounting Office, told a House hearing that UN auditors had refused to release the internal audits of the Oil-for-Food Programme.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040429-120918-1334r.htm |title=GAO denied access to oil-for-food audits |work=The Washington Times|date=29 April 2004 |access-date=7 December 2011}}</ref> [[Benon Sevan]], with support from [[Kofi Annan]], had written letters to all former Oil-for-Food contractors asking them to consult Sevan before releasing any documents to GAO or US congressional inquiry panels.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/05/03/un.oil.for.food.letter/ | publisher=CNN| title=U.N. defends oil-for-food letter | date=3 May 2004 | access-date=2010-05-20}}</ref> Throughout its history, the programme had received both complaints from critics saying that it needed to be more open and complaints from companies about proprietary information being disclosed.

The United Nations has denied all requests by the GAO for access to confidential internal audits of the Oil-for-Food Programme.

While attempting to determine the complexity of the Oil-for-Food Programme for articles in ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', [[investigative journalist]] [[Claudia Rosett]] of the [http://www.defenddemocracy.org Foundation for the Defence of Democracies] and the [[Hudson Institute]] discovered that the UN treated details such as the identities of Oil-for-Food contractors; the price, quantity and quality of goods involved in the relief deals; and the identities of the oil buyers and the precise quantities that they received as confidential. The bank statements, the interest paid, and the transactions were all secret as well.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Rosett%20Testimony--%20(cleaned%20up%20version).pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=5 May 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040512103249/http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Rosett%20Testimony--%20%28cleaned%20up%20version%29.pdf |archive-date=12 May 2004 }}</ref> Rosett has come under harsh criticism from [[Denis Halliday]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/19/i_dl.01.html|title=Archived copy  |publisher=CNN|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070311042257/http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/19/i_dl.01.html |archive-date=11 March 2007 }}</ref> and [[Benon Sevan]],<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/04/i_dl.01.html | publisher=CNN| access-date=2010-05-20 | title=Breaking News}}</ref> who have claimed that many of Rosett's claims (such as Oil-for-Food funding the approval of an Olympic stadium, and where responsibility for various issues lay according to the UN resolutions) were incorrect.

The US House Committee on International Relations investigated the Oil-for-Food Programme and discovered that money was provided by [[Sabah Yassen]], the former Iraqi ambassador to Jordan, to pay the families of [[List of Palestinian suicide attacks|Palestinian suicide bombers]] between $15,000 to $25,000. From September 2000 until the invasion of Iraq, the families of Palestinians killed or wounded in the conflict with Israel (including 117 responsible for suicide bombings in Israel) received over $35 million. It is alleged that this money came from the UN Oil-for-Food Programme.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saddams-suicide-bomb-funds/|title=Saddam's Suicide Bomb Funds|last=Grace|first=Francie|date=2019-11-17|publisher=CBS News|language=en-US|access-date=2019-06-10}}</ref>