The George Galloway Puzzle

British Member of Parliament George Galloway stands accused of accepting bribes from Saddam Hussein. But some of the evidence looks suspicious.

By Michael Nicholson: 5 May 2003

Firebrand British left-winger George Galloway has lots of enemies, including powerful members of his own ruling Labour Party. Prime Minister Tony Blair is said to find him most distasteful, not least for the visits he paid to Iraq over the past ten years and the photos he posed for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Now, Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper has discovered documentary evidence in Baghdad that Galloway was possibly in the pay of Saddam's regime, allegedly receiving around $600,000 per year in funds diverted from the UN-monitored Iraqi oil for food program. If the accusations turn out to be true, he could potentially be charged with corruption and be deselected as a parliamentary candidate. For his part, Galloway is suing the Daily Telegraph for libel.

The outspoken British Parliament representative from the working class constituency of Kelvin, in north Glasgow, has not done much to ingratiate him to Tony Blair's government. A fierce opponent of both the war in Iraq and the current military occupation by US and British forces, he has publicly described both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair as "wolves".

He recently stated that "the real traitors to our (British Army) boys are those who have sent them into a dirty, illegal war to support the political purposes of George Bush." And he has described the Blair administration as "a government of liars, war criminals and murderers."

Guilty as Charged?
While Galloway is sometimes his own worst enemy and his acid tongue has often landed him in trouble, the real question is whether he is guilty as charged. Daily Telegraph reporter David Blair (no relation to the Prime Minister) found files on Galloway in two boxes labelled "Britain" among the burnt-out remains of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry in Baghdad. The files appear to name Galloway as a recipient of large sums of money.

Just how the incriminating files survived the bombing, burning and looting of the Foreign Ministry remains unclear. "The file was found in a tiny room adjoining the Foreign Minister's office," explained David Blair. "Everything else had been burned to a cinder. Why the contents of the room with the box file survived is a mystery."

The core document is a supposed memorandum from the chief of Iraqi security to Saddam Hussein's office and forms the basis of the serious allegations against Galloway. The document reads: "his projects (Galloway's) and future plans for the benefit of the country (Iraq) need financial support to become a motive for him to do more work. And because of the sensitivity of getting money directly from Iraq, it is necessary to grant him oil contracts and special commercial opportunities to provide him with a financial income under commercial cover without being connected to him directly."

Commenting on the wording of the document, Sabah al-Mukhtar, former president of Galloway's charitable Marian appeal fund and an Iraqi-born lawyer stated "this is not an Iraqi thinking". In other words, the tone and language of the incriminating document did not match accepted norms used by Iraqi officials writing memos in Arabic.

Further, the signature at the bottom of the memorandum is illegible and impossible to identify. If it was signed by the chief of Iraqi intelligence or even his subordinate, as purported, it must be possible to match their signatures. If either man is alive, they should shortly become available for interview.

Stylistic Difficulties and Curious Dates
Other correspondents have identified stylistic anomalies and difficulties in concluding from the document the precise business opportunities allegedly available to Galloway. Another puzzling aspect is that the relevant documents are dated between February 1 and March 1, 2000, and yet they refer to Dr Amina Abu Zaid, Galloway's Palestinian-born wife, as his spouse, even through they were not actually married until March 28, 2000.

A political loner, Galloway has nevertheless received support form some credible sources. Tam Dalyell, the widely respected Father of Britain's House of Commons - the title conferred on the country's longest-serving parliamentarian - told The Inquisitor: "I travelled to Baghdad in 1994 with George Galloway and Tim Llewellyn, the veteran Middle-East Correspondent of the BBC. We were all appalled at the results of (UN economic) sanctions, in particular the shortage of medicines at the children's hospital in Baghdad and at the hospital at Um Quasr. From that moment George has honourably campaigned for a different approach to Iraq. Both Tim Llewellyn and I are agreed that he behaved absolutely properly on that visit."

Former UN weapons investigator and US intelligence officer Scott Ritter recently wrote of Galloway as "a man for whom I have great respect ... I was also shocked because of the timing of these allegations. Having been on the receiving end of smear campaigns designed to assassinate the character of someone in opposition to the powers that be, I have grown highly suspicious of dramatic revelations, conveniently timed, to silence a vocal voice of dissent."

Rumours have circulated among the foreign press corps in Baghdad that the CIA swept the Saddam's government ministries for information and files after the city fell to US forces. Indeed, it would have been odd if this were not so. Yet, intriguingly, no memos have so far surfaced concerning visits to Iraq by British ministers, French government officials, Russians or any number of international arms salesmen, even though these trips are known to have occurred. In fact, of all the Westerners to visit Iraq throughout the 1990s, George Galloway is the only person about whom information has come to light.

"How very convenient," comments Scott Ritter.

Time will certainly tell whether the allegations turn out to be true. For if Galloway did accept such large sums - $600,000 per year over perhaps three years - it will likely prove impossible to conceal.