Volcker Hits Back on Confidentiality Breach (Updated May 10th) (Second Update May 16th)

At IIC Chairman Paul Volcker's request, the United Nations filed papers in US District Court to restrain access to the documents provided to the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations by ex IIC investigator Robert Parton. Fox News reports May 10th that US District Court (Washington DC) Judge Ricardo Urbina issued a temporary restraining order which will freeze access to the documents for ten days to permit the parties to work to resolve the matter. Volcker has also written to House National Security Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Shays about his concerns that breach of IIC confidentiality would hamper his continuing investigation and put his investigators at potential risk. His May 5 letter to Shays states that "what is at stake is the ability of the IIC to go about its work effectively, maintaining the confidentiality and staff protection essential to investigatory activity." Volcker was also critical of Robert Parton for breaching his obligation to respect this confidentiality. "In the present case," Volcker wrote, "all IIC staff members have willingly agreed to srict confidentiality obligations....Moreover, staff members have the further protection of the privileges and immunities inherent in theUnited Nations itself.... Staff members who have voluntarily assumed the privileges and responsibilities associated with work with the IIC cannot, in my judgment, reasonably and honorably unilaterally violate those pledges of confidentiality and acceptance of immunity at the expense of their former colleagues and the investigation itself." (UPDATE MAY 16TH -- The US District Court May 16th ordered Robert Parton to provide to the Volcker committee "the opportunity to inspect and copy all materials that {Parton} allegedly copied, removed or otherwise ... obtained from the IIC."

With regard to the findings in the IIC's second interim report Volcker writes, "The question, so far as I am aware, revolves around a single point -- what you cite as 'an oddly muted and almost purposefully vague' finding of the Committee that evidence 'was not reasonably sufficient' to show the Secretary General knew about the Cotecna bid. In that connection, you should be aware 'reasonably sufficient' was the standard adopted by the Committee at the beginning of its work to determine a finding. The conclusion reached by the Committee indeed was 'muted' precisely for the reasons cited in the Report - the absence of definitive evidence." Volcker and his fellow IIC members went further in their "Accompanying Statement" issued May 6, 2005. In that statement, the IIC Says "...there was active debate within the Committee , and now outside, about evaluating evidence that the Secretary-General might or could have been aware that Cotecna... was bidding for a UN inspection contract. The Committee concluded that, in the absence of any documentary or reliable reports by third parties, 'the evidence is not reasonable sufficient' to show the Secretary-General knew at the time that Cotecna had submitted a bid. That 'non-finding' is hardly an endorsement or exoneration. On the basis of the facts reported; others may (and have) drawn other inferences or judgments."