Jump to content

Corruption, in the arms industry, say it isn't so!


DeMascus
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Government felt it right to side against due legal process with a Royal Autocracy, with an appalling human rights record, in the same week that the PM was being questioned over the cash for peerages!

 

All because It may harm the UK Economy, or maybe they will just have wasted a perfectly good bribe??

 

Quite a nice article:

http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/2006/11/29/corruption-its-in-the-national-interest/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We cant be having a criminal investigation into british-saudi arms dealing corruption when there is some killing for economic profit to be done! What! What!"

 

According to this, BAE systems is above the law!!! and "BAE's shares soared almost 7 percent Friday, adding almost 900 million pounds ($1.8 billion) to its market value." 8O 8O 8O

 

Under the pressure from a non-democratic state with an appauling human rights records, plus information from the intelligence community (the same intelligence community that supplied the information on Iraq!!?) and under the auspices of "national security" (ie beneficial economically/politically/diplomatically for our current leaders) the legal process was stopped!!!!!!

 

disgraceful!

 

"oh noooo nothing to see here! move along! please go and look over there! look! Yes! the X-Factor final, christmas, eastenders, diana, ASBO, fear! we have some killing to be getting on with! Good Day!"

 

Conservative say nought, because they get donations from Saudi's!!!!!

and a whimper from Liberal Democrats........

 

What a wonderful political system we have!!

 

:P 8O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like DeMascus hints in the title it is hardly a surprise. Its now just slightly more of an open secret than it was before.

 

I'm undecided on this one. Whats more important? international diplomacy, or internal corruption?

 

Probably better are the BBC's questions:

Do you agree with the SFO decision?

Are the Liberal Democrats right to criticise the move?

Is it in the national economic interest to prosecute or not?

Would continuing with the inquiry jeopardise jobs?[1]

 

What worries me about most of the issues I hear about and find interesting is the lack of coverage in the mainstream media.

 

Can anyone explain to me how a fraud investigation into an arms deal between a brittish company (basically a brokerage contract) and Saudi Arabia is a serious threat to our national security, but invading Iraq was not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably better are the BBC's questions:
Do you agree with the SFO decision?

Are the Liberal Democrats right to criticise the move?

Is it in the national economic interest to prosecute or not?

Would continuing with the inquiry jeopardise jobs?

 

I would have to answer no and yes to the last 2. The first 2 really just look at the bigger picture, and like I say I'm not decided on that.

 

What worries me about most of the issues I hear about and find interesting is the lack of coverage in the mainstream media.

 

Nothing new about the selective media coverage, anyone aware that their has been an islamic military coup in Thailand?

 

Can anyone explain to me how a fraud investigation into an arms deal between a brittish company (basically a brokerage contract) and Saudi Arabia is a serious threat to our national security, but invading Iraq was not?

 

2 things come to mind. Firstly, general diplomacy in the region. If we start digging up dirt on Saudi officials, when it comes to asking for a spare runway to park our bombers on the next time we decide to attack one of their neighbours, they might not be as willing. Secondly, if we give them the guns then at least we know what guns they have. Iraq is a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to answer no and yes to the last 2. The first 2 really just look at the bigger picture, and like I say I'm not decided on that.

 

I think that the issue is a large one and shouldn't be swayed by smaller and more transatory issues like employment economy or national interest.

 

Nothing new about the selective media coverage, anyone aware that their has been an islamic military coup in Thailand?

 

I know I shouldn't be surprised, I guess I can be a tad naive.

 

2 things come to mind. Firstly, general diplomacy in the region. If we start digging up dirt on Saudi officials, when it comes to asking for a spare runway to park our bombers on the next time we decide to attack one of their neighbours, they might not be as willing. Secondly, if we give them the guns then at least we know what guns they have. Iraq is a different matter.

 

Parking bombers for use in attacking neighbouring countries is hardly diplomacy, though I understand the realpolitik of the situation, diplomacy comes trough legal conventions which foster stability. For example:

CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS

...

Article 5

Enforcement Investigation and prosecution of the bribery of a foreign public official shall be subject to the applicable rules and principles of each Party. They shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another State or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.

...

Which the UK ratified! It seems pretty clear.

 

To clarify the governnments stand, Hilary Benn said on the 9th of December, which is International Anti-Corruption Day:

"Tackling corruption wherever we find it - whether here or abroad - is essential. We will not tolerate those who extort, corrupt and deceive. Together we can make progress and by strengthening the institutions of government, promoting better transparency and accountability and giving a voice to those who are hit hardest by corruption - the world’s poorest - we can make a difference."

 

If we have a problem with the Convention we should not have ratified it, and if we really want to look after the world's poorest I think there are better things we can engage the economics of our country in than creating high-end millitary weaponary for dictatorial states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diplomacy is about 2 parties getting along together. It can come in the form of a legal contract, engagement protocol (e.g. wearing a shirt and tie) or simply in the form of not pissing someone off when you talk to them.

 

If someone gets annoyed when prodded, and you don't want to annoy them, you better stop prodding. That's what I think has happened here.

 

You say "I think that the issue is a large one and shouldn't be swayed by smaller and more transatory issues like employment economy or national interest. ". While I'm not sure I fully understand you, I'll respond anyway ( :) ). You are comparing a case of bribery against employment, and against our national interest in the middle-east. Firstly, when it comes to diplomacy in the middle-east, we are effectively talking about world peace - thats a bit of a biggy :wink: When compared with employment it might not be so clear, but what I would say is that this is a very old case. Would you rather risk hundreds (?) of jobs just so that one or two of BAEs less moral ex-employees go to jail?. I don't think anyone would have wanted to pay a bribe, and I think if "we" hadn't someone else would've.

 

In fact I think I am starting to err on the side of this being a good decision. Suprising, I'm usually the first to take the moral high ground.

 

PS: That is a belter of a quote from the "CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY....". It pretty accurately describes what has happened, you could have bolded more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diplomacy is the art of negotiation, and the strategy of negotiation between countries generally involves power-play with each party taking whatever it can to the negotiating table to win influence. Currently, if you discount some liberal examples, there is very little ideological or moral points put forward.

 

If someone gets annoyed when prodded, and you don't want to annoy them, you better stop prodding. That's what I think has happened here.

 

Yes, if the Saudis have enough that they can threaten the UK with and the UK isn't willing to lose. IMHO I think there are better ways of doing things. With rafts of international conventions adopted recently governments have agreed on certain ideological principles, that they believe will be for the benefit of everyone.

 

You say "I think that the issue is a large one and shouldn't be swayed by smaller and more transatory issues like employment economy or national interest. ". While I'm not sure I fully understand you, I'll respond anyway ( :) ). You are comparing a case of bribery against employment, and against our national interest in the middle-east. Firstly, when it comes to diplomacy in the middle-east, we are effectively talking about world peace - thats a bit of a biggy :wink: When compared with employment it might not be so clear, but what I would say is that this is a very old case. Would you rather risk hundreds (?) of jobs just so that one or two of BAEs less moral ex-employees go to jail?. I don't think anyone would have wanted to pay a bribe, and I think if "we" hadn't someone else would've.

 

I would say that all diplomacy is in the interest of world peace, but on top of that we have gone trough multiple incarnations of diplomacy with war and poverty, both of which I believe are tools used in, lets say realpolitik diplomacy. The crurrent mass of international legislation comes from identifiable legal restrictions, with the purpose of tackling these problems.

 

Your argument above does not take into consideration any ideological principles, of which behalf this legislation was concocted, or the possible damage to international law, and with accepting raw bribery as a legitimate tool in diplomacy, a real swing in the current market system of economics in the favour of anyone with large resources of capital against those without. You also veto your right to complain whenever another party uses this tool to win contracts over our own domestic companies, risking hundereds (???) of jobs!

 

In fact I think I am starting to err on the side of this being a good decision. Suprising, I'm usually the first to take the moral high ground.

 

I would have to say I am definitely not in favour of it, I'm sure Transparency International or possibly even the OECD is looking into challenging the decision, and if that comes to fruition, anyone who didn't challenge it themselves better not look surprised.

 

PS: That is a belter of a quote from the "CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY....". It pretty accurately describes what has happened, you could have bolded more.

 

Yes, "If this prosecution had gone forward, all that would have happened is that we would have had months and potentially years of ill-feeling between us and a key partner and ally and probably to no purpose," Said Blair, "the potential effect upon relations with another State" says the CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY..., and he's a lawyer!

 

PS: I know I have expanded my use of the term diplomacy but in my previous post I used the word to define how I think it should be in relation to it's current state. I have never thought of using a PS a forum post, but I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

thread resurrection

 

Anyone see Panorama last night, you can see it again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm

 

I only caught it from about half way through, I find it interesting that someone like Prince Bandar a high ranking official of one of the most repressive regimes in the middle east, who would threaten a business deal over a fraud investigation, and attempt, well, possibly succeed in putting pressure on officials of our country to stop it, would be described as a partner in the war on terror. With friends like that, eh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Panorama, Tony Blair's reason for stopping the enquiry was that Prince Bandar (now Saudis Head of National Security) threatened to stop co-operating in the "war on terror".

 

Presumably that doesn't mean he was going to stop financing the violent terrorist propaganda flooding mosques and bookshops across the west :roll:

 

Keep your friends close....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...