The head of the British agency investigating a $70 billion fighter-jets deal with Saudi Arabia has denied claims that his agency did not have enough evidence to press criminal charges in the case.
The Scotsman reports that Serious Fraud Office director Robert Wardle's comments "openly challenged" British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's assessment of the "controversially dropped" probe of corruption in the deal. Lord Goldsmith said that there were serious doubts over whether the probe would have led to criminal charges in the case, which prompted the government's halt of the investigation. |
|
|
|
|
Subscribe via RSS Feed:
    |
Tony Blair took full responsibility for the dramatic decision to ditch the long-running inquiry into BAE Systems' al-Yamamah contract, which was signed in the 1980s, citing national security concerns.
The bombshell came weeks after it emerged that the Saudis were threatening to pull out of a new deal to buy 72 jets from BAE, in protest at the SFO inquiry. Downing Street sources also claimed the Prime Minister was keen to maintain friendly relations with the Saudis to aid his attempts to force a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process.
The paper reports that for years Britain had resisted efforts to investigate the allegations of corruption in the deal with BAE Systems, Britain's largest defense contractor. The investigation was finally begun in July of 2004 when Serious Fraud officials were shown evidence that BAE set up a "slush fund" worth almost $120 million for the Saudi royal family in order to gain the contract (which was procured by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher), allegations BAE has denied.
The Times of London reports that Mr. Wardle also agreed with the view that British ministers had succumbed to the Saudi government's pressure over the investigation of the Saudi royal family, though he said that using the term "blackmail" is "slightly wrong."
[Wardle said,] "I think if that (the inquiry) happened, the Saudis simply weren't going to have anything to do with us. Call it blackmail, call it what you will. But you know they just didn't want that to happen."
The Australian reports that Mr. Blair made the statement about taking full responsibility for the decision to drop the probe Friday in Brussels. He said allowing the fraud investigation to continue would have risked doing "enormous damage" to British interests. Blair appeared to concede that economics played a large role in the decision.
"Leave aside the effects on thousands of British jobs and billions of pounds worth for British industry. Leave that to one side; our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel-Palestine," said Mr. Blair.
"That strategic interest comes first, particularly in circumstances where, if prosecutions have gone forward, all that would have happened is that we would have had months, potentially years, of ill-feeling between us and a key partner and ally, and probably for no purpose.
The Daily Telegraph reports that opposition politicians in England are putting pressure on the government to release the documents associated with the probe. The Independent reports that police conducting the investigation are alleging that they were being "bugged", and that the inquiry's security was repeatedly compromised. The BBC reports that several outside groups have said they may take the government to court over the decision.
"The government's commitment to fighting fraud means nothing if BAE Systems is placed above the law," [Nicholas Gilby from Campaign Against the Arms Trade] said.
"Democracy must not give way to bullying by arms companies."
The economic editor of the Guardian writes that the decision to drop the probe is a "victory of realpolitik over principle."
What does this say about the interface between politics and economics? Firstly, that there are some countries you bully and some countries you don't. There is a world of difference in getting tough with, say, Ethiopia, over its standards of government procurement and doing the same with the world's biggest oil producer. Abuses of human rights are always less serious in a big country with clout (ex: China) than in a country where the high moral ground can be occupied without fear of economic consequences (ex: Zimbabwe). But it is good to have double standards so clearly highlighted.
This is Money, a British financial website, reports that Britain may be "frozen out of international co-operation to fight corruption because of its shock decision to drop the bribery inquiry into [BAE]." The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, sometimes called the "rich nations' club," wants an explanation for the events of last week.
'Countries like to co-operate with those that work with them,' said an OECD source, who insisted the British authorities should justify their decision.
Meanwhile, Mark Pieth, chairman of the OECD working group on bribery, said: 'National security only counts in the extreme situation where it is your own defence. Selling arms to friends is not a national security interest.'
Raymond J. Leasey writes at The Huffington Post that the BAE contract is only the latest example of the Saudis throwing their weight around, including summoning Vice President Dick Cheney to Riyadh and threatening to support Sunni extremists if the US pulls out of Iraq.
It would be highly interesting to shine a bright light on the interface between our elected officials, our government agencies and the moneyed influence of the Saudis, beyond the Bush White House and the Baker law firm. Saudi Arabia's current relationship with the US could perhaps be best described, "ask not what we can do for you, but rather what you can do for us." And it is time that changed.
- Preparing for a civil war (Haaretz)
- Last Word: Jimmy Carter - Revisiting apartheid (Newsweek)
- New counterinsurgency manual hits net (IraqSlogger blog)
- Senator Reid: Brief troop increase OK in Iraq (Associated Press)
Feedback appreciated. E-mail Tom Regan.
RSS feed