As we recently reported, investigators are now tripping through evidence that Saddam Hussein was using money obtained through the corrupt U.N.-Iraq Oil for Food program and illegal oil smuggling to buy friends in a number of countries including France, Russia and China.

Saddam’s motive for using his ill-gotten gains to purchase influence with three of the five permanent Security Council members is all too obvious. He needed help from those three nations to have the tough U.N.-imposed sanctions against his nation lifted so that he could once again buy weapons and other supplies necessary for propping up his regime and pursuing his regional power goals.

And one doesn’t need to pull Machiavelli’s book from the shelf to understand why France, Russia and China were happy to help. After all, there’s nothing like cash to help a nation understand its national interests. Had the sanctions been lifted, companies from France, Russia and China would have been the first in line to legally broker Iraqi oil and sell Saddam the weapons and weapon systems that he so desperately longed for. Certainly, this triumvirate was happy to oppose U.S. plans for regime change because the end of Saddam might compromise their business interests in Iraq (which, by the way, it did) while sending a clear signal to the United States that balance of power politics is still alive and well. Machiavelli would have been proud.

Any fool can see that the triumvirate’s opposition to regime change in Iraq, and their previous support for weakening sanctions, was motivated by considerations far more worldly than a concern for the Iraqi people or some altruistic desire for peace.

That brings us to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

In a recent interview with British television network ITV, Annan inexplicably rejected the evidence of corruption and offered his own conclusion:

Annan’s comment is so absurd it’s almost difficult to discuss with a straight face. Indeed, it would be easy to dismiss it out of hand as an obvious — albeit pathetic and disingenuous — attempt to stand up for his Security Council supporters. In this view, Annan did not believe what he was saying and was simply lying to the world in order to protect his political agenda. While one might sarcastically celebrate his courage for volunteering to march to his death for his brethren, viewed from this perspective, Annan’s comment confirms once again that he has neither the credibility nor the judgment to be an effective leader.

Nevertheless, let’s assume for a moment that Annan really believes what he said. As we’ve shown, the evidence is so overwhelming and the conclusions so obvious that Saddam did, in fact, buy friends around the world with his billions, that for Annan to believe otherwise is either ignorant or naïve.

In either case, the United Nations does not profit from Annan’s continued leadership. In fact, given world body’s culture of corruption, mismanagement, and failure to successfully pursue even its most basic objectives, it remains clear that Annan’s leadership of the United Nations has been — and will continue to be — a complete failure.