
There is a delicious irony to the final report of the Paul Volcker Committee investigating the United Nations-administered Oil for Food programme in Saddam Hussein8217;s Iraq. It has laid bare a history of sweetheart deals, listed companies and entities that either bribed Saddam8217;s regime to receive lucrative contracts 8212; under the programme, Saddam could choose his suppliers, for goods that had to be certified as kosher by UN inspectors 8212; or were given oil coupons as pay-offs. Other than indicting numerous Indian companies, the report names two important political entities as recipients of Saddam8217;s illicit largesse: the Congress and Union foreign minister K. Natwar Singh. The irony is in the fact that only a month ago the party 8212; with its communist allies 8212; dismissed charges of bribery by the KGB, levelled in The Mitrokhin Archive II.
It is important to distinguish between business corporations and political functionaries mentioned in the Report. Companies do sometimes create slush funds. These are criminal acts, but not in themselves threats to national security. The prospect of a foreign minister who may have been compromised by a foreign government 8212; and possibly by third countries that have access to Iraqi documents 8212; is altogether different. Neither is Volcker a faceless bureaucrat as Mitrokhin was. Former head of the US Federal Reserve, he has extraordinary name recall.
How does India digest this extremely bitter pill? True to tradition its politicians can either call the report a CIA conspiracy or demand a spate of resignations, depending on political affiliation. Both approaches are flawed. This is a moment for statesmanship. Perhaps the very structure of the Volcker Committee suggests a way. It was an independent panel set up by the UN to investigate even the secretary general8217;s office. Similarly, India needs a truth commission to clarify the extent of foreign 8220;dirty money8221; on its politics. From KGB agents to Saddam8217;s fellow travellers, India must know who8217;s innocent 8212; and who8217;s not.