Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the Inner City to Wall Street to the United Nations

Galbraith Claims Disclosed Oil Interest to UN, Eide Leaked Before Leaving? Successor Tales

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 11 -- As the Norwegian press reports UN envoy to Afghanistan Kai Eide will leave the post in March if not before, the conflict between Eide and his former deputy Peter Galbraith has taken a new twist.

  In an e-mail to Inner City Press, Galbraith claims that he disclosed to the UN his interest in a Kurdish oil field, and expresses "surprise that a Norwegian tabloid happened to write a story about it within a week of my Washington Post Outlook piece describing Kai Eide's role in downplaying the fraud in the Afghanistan elections."

  The implication, spelled out by Galbraith's supporters, is that the UN and perhaps Kai Eide himself leaked Galbraith's financial information to the Norwegian press. Galbraith has refused, however, to release a copy of the financial disclosure form he filed with the UN.

  Inner City Press has asked the UN if Galbraith disclosed the oil interest. UN Ethics Officer Robert Benson responded that Galbraith filed a form, but that its contents will not be disclosed, even to the UN's executive 38th floor, apparently. The financial disclosure forms are filed with PriceWaterhouseCoopers. It is unclear who in the UN system vets them for conflicts of interest.

Additionally, the Norwegian media which reported Galbraith's interest were following a story between the oil company DNO and the Kurdish Regional Government. During their course of their inquiry, they stumbled on documents reflecting an interest in the oil field by a company which only later was discovered to be controlled by Galbraith.

  Still, UN officials have bad mouthed Galbraith both on and off the record. At a press conference at UN headquarters, the number two official of UN Peacekeeping Edmond Mulet said that Galbraith had an ulterior motive which would later be revealed. And a senior UN official from the 38th floor called UN correspondents to make them aware of the Norwegian stories.

  While Eide unilaterally announced he will stay until March, the word from the 38th floor -- read, deputy chief of staff -- is that Eide will leave after the conference on Afghanistan.

  A question is, who's next for the UN in Afghanistan? While Inner City Press joked on Friday with former Nepal envoy Ian Martin -- "next stop Kabul?" -- the smart money is on former UN envoy to Iraq Staffan de Mistura. The reasoning is telling: if the UN puts someone higher profile in, they will have to spend more on security. One wag also wondered whether de Mistura would bring his previous chief of staff with him.

  Jean Marie Guehenno was said to be in the running, but apparently France is not lobbying for him. Inner City Press sought to question Mr. Guehenno at an event on the Congo one week ago, but he declined to answer questions. Zut alors!

UN's Ban, Eide out of focus, Galbraith leak not shown

  Galbraith wrote to Inner City Press that:

Subj: Re: Press Q from UN: did you disclose oil interest
From: Peter Galbraith
To: Inner City Press

Dear Matthew,

I did disclose all financial holding and interests to the UN including the fact that I had a breach of contract claim in arbitration against DNO. (This is the accurate description of the interest and not as described in the NY Times.) The contents are confidential and, for lots of reasons, I intend to keep them that way. The key accusation in the NYT story--that I pushed through constitutional provisions for my own benefit is untrue and illogical. I was a private citizen and had no ability to push through anything. The NYT provides no source for this allegation and, in a breach of any standard of fairness, never asked me to respond to it.

My arrangement with DNO dates back to June 2004 or more than five years ago. I do find it surprising that a Norwegian tabloid happened to write a story about it within a week of my Washington Post Outlook piece describing Kai Eide's role in downplaying the fraud in the Afghanistan elections. But, I also find the UN's ever shifting public explanations for my firing also to be curious. Not one of them was ever mentioned to me at any time. And they all smell of desperation to come up with some rationale for firing a senior UN official who had a private disagreement with boss about whether UNAMA should be concerned about massive fraud in a UN funded and supported election.

On the chapter 6 stuff, you are all wet. If you read carefully the questions and answers, you will see they were replies to questions sent both to Amb Redman and me. They reflected the views of the US government, which I represented and not me personally. Since they were questions to the record, I may not have even seen them before they were submitted. (At this stage, I can't recall). The USG took the same position on enforcing the arms embargo as the UK, France, Germany and Russia. None felt legally obliged to report on violations. The only difference is that we were asked our view by the Croatians and the others were not. But their position and behaviour was the same. (except for Russia which was a major source of arms going to Croatia and Bosnia, in spite of the government's pro-Serb tilt.)

I appreciate very much your doggedness in pursuing the issue of how the UN handled the Afghan elelection fraud. Keep up the good work. Peter

Watch this site.