Pragmatopian Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7244051.stm In one letter, BAE expressed concern that the disclosure of payments to agents and consultants involved in the deal would be seen by the Saudi Arabian government as a "serious breach of confidentiality by the company and the UK government". It said this would "adversely and seriously" affect diplomatic relations between the UK and Saudi Arabian governments and "almost inevitably prevent the UK securing its largest export contract in the last decade". A piss poor reason to stop a criminal investigation. I really hope the High Court overturns the decision (under extreme duress) of the SFO and slow the UK's descent into moral bankruptcy at the hands of the gutless wonders we call politicians. The Saudi government is bad - the saying that "power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely" has never been more apt. If we condone their activities by turning a blind eye then we are nothing more than cheap undignified whores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macmannin Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7244051.stm In one letter, BAE expressed concern that the disclosure of payments to agents and consultants involved in the deal would be seen by the Saudi Arabian government as a "serious breach of confidentiality by the company and the UK government". It said this would "adversely and seriously" affect diplomatic relations between the UK and Saudi Arabian governments and "almost inevitably prevent the UK securing its largest export contract in the last decade". A piss poor reason to stop a criminal investigation. I really hope the High Court overturns the decision (under extreme duress) of the SFO and slow the UK's descent into moral bankruptcy at the hands of the gutless wonders we call politicians. The Saudi government is bad - the saying that "power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely" has never been more apt. If we condone their activities by turning a blind eye then we are nothing more than cheap undignified whores. you should get out on the sauce more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Interesting. Don't know what to make of this - if anyone knows more about the case I'd like to know, but my understanding is that the deal was basically a stitch up between the UK government and the Saudi Government - BAE was just in the middle. The deal included the Saudi Government giving huge sweeteners to the Prince(s) who were setting up the deal. There wasn't a fraud in the sense of money being stolen, though if I was a Saudi Tax payer I suppose I'd be pissed off - but just a sec - there aren't any Saudi Tax payers - I think government money comes entirely from oil! The payments were known about and approved by the Saudi government; they were just using BAE as a conduit to move money between themselves. BAE accepted the money from the Saudi gov and put it into the Prince(s)' bank account in Switzerland. This goes on for years - then the UK brings in new legislation making such payments illegal - BAE carry on - I think with the full knowledge of the UK gov - they didn't want to break the contract with the Saudi's and BAE definitely didn't. Then the Serious Fraud office gets involved. BAE squirm and squirm - "we are simply doing what we were contracted to do in a contract set up between the UK and Saudi governments". And when the Serious Fraud Office start pushing for the Bank account numbers the Saudi's go ballistic. The UK government after ignoring the issue suddenly get landed on and pull the plug. I'm not sure what to think - Saudi is basically a kleptocracy with the House of Faud using it as a personal piggie bank. But they are sovereign and so the right of Kings etc sort of kicks in - If they all get strung up "once the revolution comes" - well you reap what you sow, but their society accepts their right to sovereignty and they take what's given! The tribal loyalties etc are beyond my comprehension - but basically there is a deal - the House of Saud maintains the balance of power, buying off tribes for loyalty and is allowed to get away with it. Now back to BAE, the UK Government, and the Serious Fraud office. I presume initially BAE and the UK Government were bemused but happy to play along as long as they got the contract. At the time it wasn't illegal - I'd almost say it was probably common practice when dealing with certain parts of the world. It was only with Nu-labour and their ethical foreign policy bollox (which Jack Straw promptly forgot about once he realized what real-politic means) that things got complicated as they drafted legislation which contradicted their own way of doing business with those same parts of the world. There is a lot of money tied up in giving the Saudi's guns, and that does mean real UK jobs - I've actually worked on the periphery of some of the BAE contracts with Saudi - technology transfer and all that. Its not only the Tornados - the typhoon will bankrupt the MOD unless they can flog these cold war relics around the world and their great hope is the Saudis. Then there are the issues of what the Saudi's would do if the bank accounts and details had been published. I think it is reasonable to presume they'd have ended all cooperation with MI6, and considering a large proportion of the worlds terrorists and inspirers of terrorism are financed by Saudis or are Saudis themselves this would have been a pretty big deal. Governments dealing with Governments, especially when there are arms, or oil involved is a dirty business. But I don't think we should be naive and say we can be as white as a lilly and still be involved. So should we be involved - the UK defence industry is too small unless it has an international market. Guns are nasty, but necessary things. I'd like to hope we can give "our boys" the best kit - that means we need a competitive defense industry. Getting rid of it would be panglossian, but would genuinely hurt. Letting the Saudi's corruption be exposed - would it change anything - probably not, but it would genuinely hurt the UK's intelligence gathering and defence industry - taxes would rise a bit to pay for the shortfalls, fewer people would have jobs around Blackpool. Part of me feels the whole thing is mess due to badly drafted legislation which simply doesn't take account of the grubby reality. They should have redrafted the contracts - fool on them for not doing so. My understanding is that the US has much tougher legislation, but also much better lawyers who know how to structure the deals to keep all sides happy! If that had happened are people still complaining - probably, but its more the reality of a nasty world than any bit of law that's the issue. As far as I know no UK money was nicked, no BAE or whitehall mandarin got rich at our expense - they just allowed the Saudi's pass money between themselves. If that's the case I'm not too bothered. I don't like the fact that its a nasty world, but it is and you have to live in it and deal with it. If I'm wrong and there is more corruption than I'm aware of I suppose I'd change my opinion - any one got links/more info? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Try Transparency International for details of corruption at government level and perceptions of corrupt states. The fact that the SFO are involved kind of makes me think this will go nowhere anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 It's all a bit pathetic really. If you want to do business with the Saudi Government then you have to grease the palms of the House of Saud - because they are the government. It's always been like that so it's not exactly news. Frankly if you're going to sell arms to the Middle East (and who isn't?) then surely Saudi is the "safest" place to do it. After all, they're not likely to invade anyone now are they. Despite the plain and simple fact that there are arms being sold to all sorts of dodgy countries in the area e.g. Somalia, Ethiopia, Iran etc etc the tree-huggers have picked up on this as it's such a soft target. As the SFO is centrally funded I would like to see the idiots who kicked this off being told to get real and to help them achieve this being given the bill for wasting everyone's time and money, because that's what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Despite the plain and simple fact that there are arms being sold to all sorts of dodgy countries in the area e.g. Somalia, Ethiopia, Iran etc etc the tree-huggers have picked up on this as it's such a soft target. As the SFO is centrally funded I would like to see the idiots who kicked this off being told to get real and to help them achieve this being given the bill for wasting everyone's time and money, because that's what it is. I was under the impression that rather than being driven by the 'tree huggers' as a moral issue whether to sell arms or not, this was being driven by disgruntled US arms dealers who see the bribes as having gained an unfair business advantage. And if the British drop the case, they and the Swiss are certainly going to take it up under their own jurisdictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The old goat Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 What is not realised is that the way of legitimately conducting business is not always the same the world over. If a business in Europe wishes to purchase a major piece of technology about which the people who write the cheques know little or nothing, it is common practice to employ an agent. It is also common practice for businesses in Europe to employ local agents to facilitate the negotiations and sale of goods and services to overseas clients. In both cases the agents require to be paid. In this case the individual acted in good faith as an agent in a perfectly acceptable manner. The Saudi government paid him for his services. What I do especially take issue with is the word “kleptocracy” in connection with the house of Saud. That is not only deeply offensive, it is also totally incorrect. In addition no one in Britain has the right to criticise government use of money in order to govern, the British government are using received taxes not only to provide services to the people but also to buy loyalty from sectors of the electorate, and even worse are borrowing vast sums of money to continue to do so and that IS corrupt by any standards. People in Britain really should realise that while they may think they are a rich nation they are in fact bankrupt and living on growing debt. A debt that it is increasingly obvious can not be repaid. The implications are not good for Britain, people there should keep their opinions to themselves, they can not afford to bite the hands that are now increasingly feeding them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 People in Britain really should realise that while they may think they are a rich nation they are in fact bankrupt and living on growing debt. A debt that it is increasingly obvious can not be repaid. The implications are not good for Britain, people there should keep their opinions to themselves, they can not afford to bite the hands that are now increasingly feeding them. In a perverse way you've hit the numb of it. Of course, we have no choice but to trade with some of the crappiest, most corrupt, and downright nasty regimes in this world because our economy relies on it. The US banking system is currently being propped up by Chinese and Middle Eastern money, this money is effectively bailing out the excessess of rampant consumerism fuelled by debt and very bad economic planning. The UK has exactly the same problem - indeed I see today that it may be the first western government to raise capital using Sharia compliant Treasury Bonds, not because it wants to build bridges with the East but because its economy up shit creek without a paddle and it needs those petro Dollars to plug the holes. So yes the balance of power is shifting between the West and East - but lets not delude ourselves that these governments are good governments - they have disgusting records on human rights, they do not have open market economies so their economies benefit only a very small band of kleptocrats, and they are using their vast sovereign wealth funds to score polticial advances in the West (which is fine by me). But as for your comment:- What I do especially take issue with is the word “kleptocracy” in connection with the house of Saud. Get real. Its nothing other than a kleptocracy - it keeps virtually every penny of the weath generated in Saudi in the hands of a very small number of people. If that is not a prime example a kleptocracy nothing is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The old goat Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 It is very clear that you know little (nothing?) about life in Arabia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 It is very clear that you know little (nothing?) about life in Arabia. Well I've only been there once - I wouldn't recommend it to any sane rational person. Its a very wealthy place and that's all it has going for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.