|
|
|
|
Research support
for this editorial was provided by the Investigative Fund of
The Nation Institute. Alexa Danner provided research
assistance. |
he editorial page of the
New York Times
recently led with a justifiably outraged condemnation of George W.
Bush's choice for United Nations ambassador--John Bolton, a famously
outspoken anti-UN and antimultilateral ideologue. How ironic, then,
that the
Times's news editors had previously dispatched to
the UN a reporter tight with the same Boltonite unilateralist
clique--a reporter who has written about alleged wrongdoing at the
UN in such an exaggerated way as to cast the organization and its
leadership as almost beyond redemption.
When she began her work at the UN, Judith Miller was still under
a cloud for her starring role in the Iraq Invasion Follies, in which
she hyped Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and
Al Qaeda ties--claims that greatly buttressed the White House case
for war but that ultimately proved unfounded [see Baker, "'Scoops'
and Truth at the Times," June 23, 2003]. The
Times, which has since published a series of mea culpas,
placed Miller in a quasi quarantine, according to insiders at the
paper. Yet she re-emerged, amazingly, still writing about Iraq--now
from an oblique angle: the UN's alleged mismanagement of the Iraqi
Oil for Food program.
In January 2004 the Iraqi daily Al-Mada
listed 270 people suspected of profiting while enabling Saddam's
government to evade oil sales restrictions. By April an independent
UN inquiry was under way, headed by former Federal Reserve chair
Paul Volcker. In May Miller was put on the story. Several
Times sources say they believe Miller requested the
assignment. Miller did not respond to interview requests, and
Times executive editor Bill Keller declined to comment.
To be sure, the UN is an institution needing reform, and the Oil
for Food program, troubled. Volcker found that the Oil for Food
chief, Benon Sevan, acted in a way that "presented a grave and
continuing conflict of interest" and was "ethically improper"--and
can't explain cash he received. The report did not, however, suggest
that Sevan's actions indicated widespread or higher-level graft. But
an examination of Miller's work shows that she used contrivances of
tone and framing and selective citation of biased sources to create
a headline-generating super-scandal--one that Volcker's newest
(March 29) report confirms to be thus far without serious
foundation.
Since October 22 she has produced no fewer than twenty-one
articles on the matter, nine of them centered on criticism by
Capitol Hill figures with no love for the UN. She reported the
scandal, GOP senators and House members investigated and she
reported the investigations themselves as evidence that corruption
was far more widespread than the facts indicated. And through many
of her articles echoed the mantra of Republican senator and key
source Norm Coleman's Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Kofi Annan
Must Go."
In January, when Volcker released internal UN audits, Miller's
framing was subtly but significantly different from that of other
journalists. The LA Times lead characterized the audits as
showing "lax oversight," while Miller attempted to tie the
shortcomings directly to Annan, reporting that the audits "criticize
an office, led by a former top aide to...Annan." Only in Miller's
thirteenth paragraph do we read that "Mr. Volcker said that the
internal audits 'don't prove anything,' but do show how the United
Nations was urged to tighten up its supervision of the program.
'There's no flaming red flags in the stuff,' he said."
When Volcker's February interim report similarly failed to
sweepingly condemn the institution, Miller's tone turned disdainful.
Casting the document as "eagerly and skeptically awaited by United
Nations critics" and "months overdue," she pointedly reported that
"conservatives and other critics have accused [Volcker] of being
insufficiently impartial and independent." Miller left it to
others--including the Financial Times's Claudio Gatti--to
suggest that violations of the Oil for Food rules had been tacitly
tolerated by US authorities. Miller's articles also conspicuously
dismiss the program's role in keeping Iraq WMD-free, a point that
would remind readers of her transgressions in the pre-war period.
Miller's bias has been most apparent in her spotlighting of
consulting work Kofi Annan's son did for a Swiss-based company,
Cotecna Inspection Services, which won a UN contract for monitoring
Oil for Food deliveries into Iraq. Granted, nepotism makes for poor
governance and great newspaper copy--and Kojo Annan's behavior
raises serious questions, but Miller's Times articles have
relentlessly sought to tie UN problems directly to the elder Annan,
long a target of America's unilateralist right.
In one piece, Miller practically dragged Ambassador John
Danforth, well-known for his moderate views and comparative
affection for the UN, to the witness table. "Pressed by reporters on
Monday...Danforth...specifically declined to say he had confidence
in Mr. Annan's leadership," wrote Miller on December 1 In
comparison, the Washington Post's UN correspondent, Colum
Lynch, also quoted Danforth but left out the "declines to support"
formulation, even though Lynch was presumably one of the "reporters"
who, Miller claimed, were pressing Danforth.
Similar slant was evident in advance coverage of the latest
Volcker report, chiding Kofi Annan for inadequate vigilance over his
son's dealings with Cotecna. The Associated Press leads with
"investigators...will not accuse [Annan] of corruption," and the
Wall Street Journal notes, "The panel has concluded that
there is no evidence Mr. Annan rigged...procurement...exerted
undue influence...or ever sought or received improper financial
benefits." [emphasis added.] But Miller's piece (bylined with UN
bureau chief Warren Hoge) says that the report "will come as a
setback for the beleaguered secretary general," and waits till
paragraph seven to offer a more reluctant vindication of Annan: "the
commission has not uncovered any evidence [of corruption]."
Another co-bylined Miller piece, in the March 29 Times,
focuses on Volcker revelations that Annan's former chief of staff
had assistants toss Oil for Food files. Only lower in the article,
under the subhead "Oil Report to Say Aide to Annan Culled Files," do
we read that the files were his personal copies of originals stored
elsewhere, and that he insists it was a routine culling to clear out
space. The Times story the next day on the report itself, written by
Hoge alone, somewhat grudgingly acknowledged the panel's conclusion
that Annan "had not influenced the awarding of" the contract to his
son's former company. Miller, too, was in that issue--with another
itty-bitty alleged malfeasance. "United Nations diplomats" (not
American, by any chance?) released an internal UN report about a UN
office with a thirteen-person staff and a budget of $2 million
criticizing such practices as sexual innuendo and using staff for
personal errands--hardly unique in corners of vast enterprises. The
report, dated February 16, was conveniently provided to journalists
as the new Volcker report appeared.
Given the consequences of Miller's shilling for Bush
Administration unilateralists during the run-up to the UN-opposed
Iraq invasion, it seems remarkable that her editors would grant her
a similar role in covering the complex Oil for Food
scandal--especially given the Times's unique role in setting
the global news agenda and establishing perceptions. As one diplomat
from a Western country put it to me, "I think there is a more
balanced and nuanced picture of the Oil for Food program to be
presented." In a brief conversation, Hoge told me that Miller had
been brought into this story specifically to do investigative
reporting. But her work bears little resemblance to classic
journalistic gumshoeing.
So what's her real contribution? I asked another Times
colleague who has worked with Miller. He replied, "They feel that,
through her work, people in positions of power speak on the pages of
the New York Times. Whether it is true or not is another
issue."