This blog has taken a certain interest in the relationship of the Annans père et fils. Today, buried deep in the Volcker Committees latest report (after the predicted defenestrations of Benon Sevan and Alexander Yakovlev) was the following tidbit, according to the Guardian:
The report touched briefly on Mr Annan and his son, Kojo. The inquiry said new emails suggesting that Kofi Annan knew more than he had said about his son’s involvement in the programme “clearly raises further questions” that would be answered in the final report.
Kojo Annan worked for a Swiss company that won one of the Iraq contracts.
The final report is scheduled to be published at one of the worst possible times for Mr Annan. It threatens to overshadow a special UN summit in September, to be attended by heads of government, to discuss UN reform and meeting goals for reducing poverty.
How far will that final report go? Time will tell. But I wouldn’t want to be Paul Volcker at this moment, trying to concoct a “judicious” wrap up to his investigation while an Internet’s worth of bloggers wait to examine his every word, weighing them for posterity. Volcker would be well to remember that the rules have changed. The media is returning to the citizens. And we are more dogged than the press. We have more eyes.
UPDATE: A pdf file of the Volcker Committee’s third interim report is here. Portions relevant to Kojo can be found on page six. Also of interest, if only for entertainment value, is Appendix B in which Kofi lieutenant S. Iqbal Riza, he of the busy shredder, complains of being harshly treated by the committee.
MORE: The Globe and Mail reminds us that Kofi’s new right-hand man is covering for his boss. Mr. Annan’s chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, told reporters that the Secretary-General was disappointed that the Volcker committee had raised the new questions, and then left them hanging for a month.
Mr. Malloch Brown noted, however, that Mr. Volcker indicated there was no evidence to dispute the committee’s earlier findings that Mr. Annan had not interfered with the awarding of the Cotecna contract.
Technically, perhaps. But if you read page 6 of the report as noted above you will see there already has been lying about the cited email. More to come, doubtlessly.