According to this article in the Guardian their sources in Washington agree with Newsnight sources I reported on the 13th of March that the United States Department of Justice will conduct a criminal investigation into the Al Yamamah arms deal.
Interesting stuff, here is my original article. As I said then, this could be fun!
Showing posts with label Saudi Arms Deal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saudi Arms Deal. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Al-Yamamah arms deal blowing up in Tony Blair's face!
I have been watching the latest developments with some interest.
The Al-Yamamah arms deal was signed when Margaret Thatcher was still in power, and things were different then.
It appears that part of the deal was that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia would get "commission" for "negotiating" the contract.
He insists he has done "nothing wrong" and that is of course true as far as it goes. I suspect he has broken no Saudi law, and indeed at the time of the negotiations, no British one either.
The problems are of course twofold. Firstly it is now illegal to make these sorts of payments in the UK (though they have been made in the USA, hence the Department of Justice investigation) and secondly no matter what the state of the law is, these sorts of payments are politically unacceptable both here, in the USA and in Saudi Arabia.
It therefore comes as no surprise to me to hear that the Sunday Times now reports that Prince Bandar personally lobbied Tony Blair to get the Serious Fraud Office investigation dropped.
The case goes from bad to worse. Firstly we passed a law, which we did need at some point to pass, but without due consideration to historic considerations, then we instigated an investigation, which Whitehall must have known was going to expose the way these sorts of deals have been done in the past, and after all that we have had the most botched attempt to get out of the always very obvious implications of all this.
Deals used to be done this way. It is wrong now, and ought to have been wrong then, though it serves no useful purpose to view yesterdays world through today's eyes. Ultimately the French would have done a similar deal if we had not, and the USSR would of course have given them arms for free for influence.
We are where we are, and we are there because this government has no sense of history and no sense of how to move forward with care. When it started to blunder into the Al-Yamamah deal however the die was cast, and it now looks sordid to try and get out of it this way. If they had done this 5 years ago the story would have died. Not so now, Tony Blair has no political capital left to spend and he would have been better off letting the situation run it's course.
Meanwhile the Guardian has this one what Lord Goldsmith may or may not have known.
For more on the Al-Yamamah deal, see here.
The Al-Yamamah arms deal was signed when Margaret Thatcher was still in power, and things were different then.
It appears that part of the deal was that Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia would get "commission" for "negotiating" the contract.
He insists he has done "nothing wrong" and that is of course true as far as it goes. I suspect he has broken no Saudi law, and indeed at the time of the negotiations, no British one either.
The problems are of course twofold. Firstly it is now illegal to make these sorts of payments in the UK (though they have been made in the USA, hence the Department of Justice investigation) and secondly no matter what the state of the law is, these sorts of payments are politically unacceptable both here, in the USA and in Saudi Arabia.
It therefore comes as no surprise to me to hear that the Sunday Times now reports that Prince Bandar personally lobbied Tony Blair to get the Serious Fraud Office investigation dropped.
The case goes from bad to worse. Firstly we passed a law, which we did need at some point to pass, but without due consideration to historic considerations, then we instigated an investigation, which Whitehall must have known was going to expose the way these sorts of deals have been done in the past, and after all that we have had the most botched attempt to get out of the always very obvious implications of all this.
Deals used to be done this way. It is wrong now, and ought to have been wrong then, though it serves no useful purpose to view yesterdays world through today's eyes. Ultimately the French would have done a similar deal if we had not, and the USSR would of course have given them arms for free for influence.
We are where we are, and we are there because this government has no sense of history and no sense of how to move forward with care. When it started to blunder into the Al-Yamamah deal however the die was cast, and it now looks sordid to try and get out of it this way. If they had done this 5 years ago the story would have died. Not so now, Tony Blair has no political capital left to spend and he would have been better off letting the situation run it's course.
Meanwhile the Guardian has this one what Lord Goldsmith may or may not have known.
For more on the Al-Yamamah deal, see here.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Where the SFO left off, the DOJ will continue
I watched an interesting report on Newsnight about the ending of the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
It featured an interview with Robert Wardle head of the Serious Farce Office, who still maintains that it was his decision, and that he reached it after discussions with the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, the Solicitor General Mike O'Brien and our Ambassador in Saudi Arabia.
Robert Wardle claims he made the decision in the public interest. However there are doubts. Firstly as I have said before in this article, it is not his job as he still does not have all the information and it is still a political decision, then we have this about Sir John Scarlett's letter saying there were no concerns about our relationship with the Saudis. Apparently the Americans who have had anti corruption laws for years are not convinced either.
Well according to the Newsnight report the United States Department of Justice is actively looking at the case and may well carry on and seek to get a conviction. What is more they get easy extradition terms from us. Could be fun.
It featured an interview with Robert Wardle head of the Serious Farce Office, who still maintains that it was his decision, and that he reached it after discussions with the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, the Solicitor General Mike O'Brien and our Ambassador in Saudi Arabia.
Robert Wardle claims he made the decision in the public interest. However there are doubts. Firstly as I have said before in this article, it is not his job as he still does not have all the information and it is still a political decision, then we have this about Sir John Scarlett's letter saying there were no concerns about our relationship with the Saudis. Apparently the Americans who have had anti corruption laws for years are not convinced either.
Well according to the Newsnight report the United States Department of Justice is actively looking at the case and may well carry on and seek to get a conviction. What is more they get easy extradition terms from us. Could be fun.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
No plans to abolish The SFO
According to this rather scurrilous article in the Guardian last Friday, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney general was planning to abolish and or merge the Serious Fraud office. Some may think that is a fit of pique after the row over the BAE corruption investigation row.
Well, he has kindly written to the Guardian to say he has no plans to do so, and it is not like he would change his mind on a whim, by for example saying one week that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal only to say it would be perfectly legal next week. Oh no, our Lord Goldsmith is made of much sterner stuff than that! Isn't he?
Well, he has kindly written to the Guardian to say he has no plans to do so, and it is not like he would change his mind on a whim, by for example saying one week that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal only to say it would be perfectly legal next week. Oh no, our Lord Goldsmith is made of much sterner stuff than that! Isn't he?
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Attorney General and the Saudi arms deal
Apparently, according to the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, in a House of Lords debate yesterday it was the Director of the Serious Fraud office who decided to drop the corruption investigation in to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Apparently on grounds of national security.
Hold on. What is the Director of the SFO doing making decisions like that? It surely is not within his remit, nor does he have the intelligence information to back up such a decision. This is just plain wrong.
Now, if the cabinet met, and decided to drop the investigation, or the Attorney General decided on his own, fair enough. They are accountable and they will have the information, but the director of the SFO? I am sorry I just don't buy that. he should not be making decisions like that.
If it was in fact an executive decision, then the executive should stand buy it, not try and pass the buck.
The BBC has this report.
Hold on. What is the Director of the SFO doing making decisions like that? It surely is not within his remit, nor does he have the intelligence information to back up such a decision. This is just plain wrong.
Now, if the cabinet met, and decided to drop the investigation, or the Attorney General decided on his own, fair enough. They are accountable and they will have the information, but the director of the SFO? I am sorry I just don't buy that. he should not be making decisions like that.
If it was in fact an executive decision, then the executive should stand buy it, not try and pass the buck.
The BBC has this report.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Scarlett refuses Blair this time!
There is an interesting article in today's Guardian here, which says that John Scarlett, former Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee responsible in part for the dodgy dossier, and now head of MI6 does not endorse the government line that continuing the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into Saudi Arms deals would damage security cooperation.
Oh gosh!
Well the man has his Knighthood, so why would he? Seasoned observers will remember comment, particularly after the Butler report, that Scarlett was too easily Lent on because he could still move up, and so should never have been Chairman of the JIC.
Well, it now appears he does not want another promotion and recognises that Blair is history as well.
Just nice to know that someone who would sell his soul to Tony Blair is still prepared to deliver a well placed kick when the man is down!
Update 14:25
I note from this story on the BBC that Tony Blair has defended his position of the Saudi fraud scandal.
I was most amused by this quote:
but then we have this comment from Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats:
Oh gosh!
Well the man has his Knighthood, so why would he? Seasoned observers will remember comment, particularly after the Butler report, that Scarlett was too easily Lent on because he could still move up, and so should never have been Chairman of the JIC.
Well, it now appears he does not want another promotion and recognises that Blair is history as well.
Just nice to know that someone who would sell his soul to Tony Blair is still prepared to deliver a well placed kick when the man is down!
Update 14:25
I note from this story on the BBC that Tony Blair has defended his position of the Saudi fraud scandal.
I was most amused by this quote:
Asked if the secret intelligence services knew - at the time the probe was dropped of any specific threat by the Saudis to cut intelligence links with the UK, Mr Blair said: "I won't get into discussing the intelligence aspect of this.What? You mean like producing some sort of dodgy dossier for public discussion? MI6 not helping you out so you don't want to talk about intelligence any more? Git!
but then we have this comment from Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats:
But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "If these reports are true, they seriously undermine the government's case for ending the investigation into allegations of corruption involving BAE and Saudi Arabia.What? The Prime minister hasn't got any credibility left to undermine surely?
"In particular they undermine the reliability and credibility of the prime minister who publicly took responsibility for the decision and publicly sought to justify it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
