I have no idea what truth lies behind these headlines, but they make intriguing reading, especially in date sequence:
19 Oct 2006: Probe into BAE arms deals widens
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has widened its investigation into corruption allegations at UK defence giant BAE Systems.
1 Dec 2006: Paris 'threatens' BAE Saudi deal
French and Saudi officials are in talks over the sale of Rafale fighters, planemaker Dassault has admitted.
14 Dec 2006: Fighter aircraft fraud probe ends
The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a £6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia.
"Attorney General Lord Goldsmith said the SFO was "discontinuing" its investigation into Britain's biggest defence company, BAE Systems.
The probe had related to the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.
Lord Goldsmith told the Lords he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".
He said the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.
Lord Goldsmith also said that Prime Minister Tony Blair had agreed that the continuation of the investigation would cause "serious damage" to relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia.
Job fears
It emerged earlier this month that French and Saudi officials were in talks over a possible alternative deal, which could scupper the BAE sale.
The Saudi government was reported to have been angered by the SFO investigation into allegations of a slush fund for members of the country's royal family."
So to recap:
- Huge armaments deal comes under investigation for alleged fraud;
- Customer (Saudi Government) says the deal is at risk because the investigation is offensive;
- Competitive French aerospace deal emerges as a viable alternative, should the UK deal be rejected;
- The investigation is halted because a prosecution "could not be brought" because of the 'balance' between public interest and the rule of law.
Those lines don't seem to leave a huge amount of room for reading between: "if there's a risk of (a) losing 6bn, (b) offending the Saudis and (c) - horror of horrors - losing the deal to our French neighbours, then the rule of law takes a back seat". It all just seems a little... well, blatant.
Incidentally, the leader writer of the Financial Times appears to favour a similar interpretation, describing the U-turn as a 'damaging' one which 'should cause dismay', and the attorney general's justification as 'specious'. This may be a reference to the claim that 'damaging UK relations with the Saudis effectively threatens national security'.
I used to think that maintaining national security while doing things of which other governments don't approve was the reason we have professional diplomats in place (one definition of a diplomat being "someone who can tell you to go to Hell in such a way that you feel you would benefit from the journey"). But then again, that would require that the government takes notice of the views of those professionals.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}
Posted by RichardVeryard on December 15, 2006 at 08:19 AM GMT+00:00 #