Oil for What?

IN A SENSE, the showdown between George Galloway, the antiwar British member of Parliament accused of receiving "oil allocations" from former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), chairman of the investigations subcommittee that made the accusation, was a classic clash of British and American political cultures. Mr. Galloway did what many British politicians do well: He used fiery rhetoric and clever phrases, calling the committee "a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists" in advance of his testimony, then accusing Mr. Coleman in the Senate of inventing the "mother of all smokescreens," deliberately designed to "divert attention from the crimes you supported" in Iraq. He denounced the prewar sanctions, the U.S. occupation, President Bush and Halliburton, apparently shocking senators accustomed to significantly higher levels of deference.

What Mr. Galloway failed to do, however, was directly answer the charges made against him in the subcommittee's report, collected and compiled in wonkish, earnest American fashion by Senate staffers and officials working in Iraq, or discredit their work overall. It is true, as Mr. Galloway stated, that documents formerly used to allege his guilt have not held up in court. But the Senate staff did not rely on these or on an infamous Iraqi newspaper article that placed Mr. Galloway's name on a long list of oil allocation recipients. Their documentation comes, rather, from commercial invoices and other documents from the Iraqi oil ministry archives, as well as the testimony of current Iraqi oil company administrators and former regime officials. Much of it centers around the activity of Jordanian businessman Fawaz Zureikat, Mr. Galloway's representative in Baghdad. Mr. Zureikat's name appears in multiple documents as a recipient of oil. He is also recorded as a major donor to a charity run by Mr. Galloway. Mr. Galloway dismissed the idea that any of this might be relevant to his own case.

The subcommittee's work on Russia is better substantiated and far more important. Because of their access to the records of Bayoil, the U.S. company whose directors are already under federal grand jury indictment, staffers were able to come up with very precise numbers and documents linking at least two Russian politicians, Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Alexander Voloshin, to oil transactions in Iraq. The allegations, which both men have denied, would have profound diplomatic implications if confirmed. The report states that the Iraqis viewed such oil allocations as a way to "engender international support for the Hussein regime," meaning, in other words, that they were bribes designed to influence Kremlin politics.

The extent of the evidence should, at the very least, persuade the administration to begin discussing this issue with the Russians at higher levels. Certainly it is too early for Mr. Galloway, or for the Russian, French and other politicians under investigation, to be allowed to declare "victory" over this committee -- unless they believe that style counts for more than substance.