Australian PM Rejects Scandal Allegations 

By Meraiah Foley
February 21, 2006
Forbes.com
Original Source: http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/02/21/ap2543413.html


Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Wednesday rejected the latest allegations suggesting his government knew about alleged kickbacks paid by the country's monopoly wheat exporter to Saddam Hussein under the U.N. oil-for-food program. 

The denials came one day after evidence emerged that senior officials in Howard's government were warned by an Australian diplomat in April 2001 that Iraq was demanding bribes from Australia's main wheat export company, AWB Ltd., in violation of U.N. sanctions. 

The evidence came in the form of a diplomatic cable written by an officer at Australia's mission to the United Nations, and sent to Howard and members of his Cabinet. 

The cable alerted government officials that Iraq was seeking to extract a 50-cent fee from AWB before the company's wheat shipments to Iraq could be unloaded. 

Howard denied the cable signaled any wrongdoing by AWB, and said there was no reason for the government to have investigated the claims further. 

When you read the cable you find, in fact, that the diplomat in New York told the government in Canberra that they had received assurances from AWB that kickbacks had not been paid, Howard told Southern Cross radio. 

AWB, formerly known as the Australian Wheat Board, was the largest supplier of humanitarian goods under the U.N.-sponsored oil-for-food program. In 1997-2003, the company sold 6.8 million tons of wheat to Iraq and received payments from the U.N. of more than $2.3 billion. 

A government-backed inquiry is examining whether AWB executives knowingly paid up to $222 million in bogus transport fees to a Jordanian trucking firm company partially owned by the Iraqi government. Investigators say the money was paid to secure wheat contracts in Iraq and was funneled straight into Saddam's coffers. 

Senior AWB officials have not denied making the payments, but some have suggested they had no reason to believe the fees were bogus or that they violated sanctions.