The Underreported Story of Saudi Arms Deals

This was forwarded to me from my friend Max Keiser, globetrotting reporter and host of Decline of the Dollar on the BBC.

This is a story that is largely ignored in the US regarding Saudi threats to the British government to halt inquiries into potentially corrupt Saudi arms dealing:

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.

Lord Justice Moses, hearing the civil case with Mr Justice Sullivan, said the government appeared to have "rolled over" after the threats. He said one possible view was that it was "just as if a gun had been held to the head" of the government.

Here's some earlier coverage of these events from the Financial Times in December 2006:

Britain buckles before Saudi threats

By Philip Stephens, Financial Times, Dec 19, 2006

Consider the dry explanation of Britain's most senior law officer: "It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest." Now translate: "Faced with serious threats to the nation's security from the rulers of Saudi Arabia, I have decided to put aside the fundamental principles at the heart of our democratic system of government."

Little wonder that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, sounded almost contrite when he called a halt to the long-running criminal investigation into whether a British defence company had bribed members of the Saudi royal family. Here was the guardian of the law in a mature western democracy publicly announcing that it had succumbed to blackmail by a foreign government.

Almost as surprising, though, as the decision itself has been the muted reaction. Business and trade unions have united in backing Lord Goldsmith's decision to drop the Serious Fraud Office's two-year investigation into allegations against BAE Systems, Britain's foremost defence company. The opposition Conservative party has been largely silent. Only the Liberal Democrats have protested at the subordination of the rule of law to Britain's relationship with the Saudi sheikhs.

The establishment consensus has been that the Saudi authorities would have scrapped a multi-billion pound contract to buy Typhoon fighter planes from BAE. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of jobs would have been been at risk.

In Whitehall's corridors of power and in company boardrooms alike, suggestions that Lord Goldsmith should have let the law take its course are met with world-weary groans that arms deals in that part of the world are always dodgy: "It's the way of the world, old chap." If British companies had not paid "commissions" to Saudi princes, the business would have gone to the Americans or, worse, the French.

It should be stressed that BAE Systems has denied the allegation that it operated a £60m slush fund in association with the 20-year-old Al Yamamah arms contract. Lord Goldsmith has voiced doubts as to whether the investigations would have led to successful prosecutions. Yet surely it was more than a coincidence that the attorney-general halted them soon after the SFO had gained access to a number of Saudi bank accounts in Switzerland.

Lord Goldsmith said that commercial considerations had not played any part in his decision. To have done otherwise would have been to admit a breach of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's anti-corruption code. Instead, Lord Goldsmith invoked the broader national interest. He had taken advice from the prime minister, the foreign and defence secretaries and the intelligence services and concluded that the investigation jeopardised Britain's national security.

Tony Blair, prime minister, offered elucidation. Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia was "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". Whitehall officials translate this as follows: such was the fury of the Saudi princes at the possibility of their bank accounts being investigated that their threats went well beyond the commercial.

As the Financial Times has reported, the Riyadh government said it would withdraw all co-operation on security, including intelligence-sharing on al-Qaeda, and would downgrade its embassy in London unless Mr Blair scrapped the inquiry. Since Saudi Arabia was the main source of finance and Islamist ideology for al-Qaeda, this was a threat taken seriously.

Yet subverting the rule of law was not the answer. Though this government often seems to think otherwise, the rule of law stands above any and all individual statutes as the foundation for freedom and democracy. It gives citizens a vital guarantee of equality before the law and serves as the bulwark against arbitrary power. It demands the rigorous separation of executive and judicial decision-making.

All this should be familiar to Mr Blair and Lord Goldsmith. Both, after all, are lawyers. A recent constitutional reform act sets out explicitly the government's duty to uphold the rule of law. Yet all it takes apparently is a threatening missive from Riyadh and such principles are cast aside.

Those impatient of principles should reflect on the supposed realpolitik of Lord Goldsmith's decision. Britain, it says, is now content to be reliant on a regime so determined to be spared any embarrassment that it would even withhold information on al-Qaeda terrorists. How comfortable can any state or government feel in such a relationship? Not at all.

Perhaps the Saudis were bluffing. Either way, this affair has opened eyes to the nature of the Riyadh regime.

For Britain, it is a grave strategic error, as well as a shameful retreat from the rule of law, to buckle before such threats. Mr Blair often says that principle and realism in foreign policy are two sides of the same coin. He is right. A pity then that he decided otherwise in this case.

Comments

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

It's no coincidence that most (15 out of 19) of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/05/911_hijackers_tied_to_saudi_government_graham_says_in_book/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html

It's no coincidence that the Saudi Royal family gave Bill Clinton $10 million for his library, which was approximately the same amount given to G.H. Bush for his library.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html

There is a very worrying connection between George Bush's long term backer with Saudi connections; Alan Quasha, and his connection to Senator Clinton and Terry McAuliffe.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/baker_federman

The Saudis have been funding terrorist and extremist groups in the United States and O/S as well as directly funding Al Qaeda.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1668

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/us-saudis-still.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001296.php

[Dansden]

The 'SHADOW' knows....!

Thanks, Alec, for your insight and insistence upon the truth in politics...

we all know that BUSH is a 'Saudi Prince Wannabee'- he has as much said that, 'Things would be better if I were King...' or somerthing to that implication....

A very good QUESTION to American citizens:

HOW MUCH OF AMERICAN MEDIA DO THE SAUDIs OWN?

[CyberCitizen]

Saudi Arabia sounds like a situation of corruption on steroids. One of the most repressive regimes, with one of the greatest bankrolls, run by a family with nearly absolute power.

[ltcollins]

The enemy is always within and yet we don't know it. Just look at our family courts for example on how they are breaking our families apart, the children are the victims. Our governments look at getting money now. It doesn't matter if it is the Saudis to family court judges. This is a cancer that will destroy western civilian. The Moslem and Asian Worlds are playing into our destruction because they will be the sole benfactors.

You need to check out http://crispe.org they are right on with their assessments.

Robert

[BoulderSue]

WOW! And I thought King George's purpose in life was to spread democracy and the American way! Oh yeah, corruption fearmongering and blackmail are part of the American way with GWB...

[Dolphin]

A useful and healthy reminder in times when things reported in media tend to be a one way street.

It is a bit sad reading now when it comes to the Clinton-Obama-McCaine tour with recent mud slinging to and from the people concerned. That helps nobody, not them, not their voters.

[Barrack69]

So whats your point? So the sheiks shake down the plane manufactuers for a kickback. Big deal.
What Bandar is saying is, "embarass us in public and you will pay."

The freakin Saudis finance the entire Western world. If they demand payment of the Treasury's they are holding, The United States definitly goes bankrupt. Probably Britain too.
They own us. Get over it!

[MiraMcB]

And you're ok with that? Wow...

Here... I have this nice djellaba and shemagh you can wear.

[ptah]

The events being described in this article have been unfolding for quite some time. Keiser has documented these events which can be viewed on youtube to great effect. For example, How Markets Are Rigged clearly outlines why the markets are in such bad shape - most of these films where made even before the so-called credit crunch became so high-profile!

What I find staggering and so disappointing is that mainstream media will not report the fully corroborated facts brought to light by Max, the FT, The Guardian, NewsNight and yourselfs. I want to see Max on prime-time BBC pre-watershed. Big Ben.... followed by Max at 10, cus here is the news.

[maryUK]

The UK Government would do anything so as not to upset the Saudi Regime, they refused to admit that Britons were being tortured in the most barbaric way in 2001, my childrens father was held for over 2 years and was subjected to hideous torture, flung on TV made to confess to serious bombings, he was starved and beaten daily, they smashed his teeth out of his head, beat the soles of his feet daily and left him a broken nan, I was told I must never upset the Saudi Royals, I in time spoke to the press and it was myself hauled on the carpet for that, our Gov carried on as usual throughout the time the men were incarcerated bowing and scraping to the Saudis demands, yes they can do what they like, human rights are at the very bottom of any agenda when it comes to that country, my family has been destroyed and sacrificed for oil.

[Rachel36]

maryUK,

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. I hope you and your family will secure peace and safety in your lives.

[MiraMcB]

I'm glad you posted this. Personal pet peeve. Shame on Blair and Goldsmith and the lot of them. We won't fare any better...

Every time I see a picture of the Bushs arm in arm with the Al Sauds, grinning that sh*t-eating grin, I feel as though I'm about to yak up a fur ball. Same feeling I used to get when I saw W chummying it up with Vincente Fox. Georgie should have just worn a sign: "Look at all the sweet deals I'm gonna get when I'm out of office."

For the Bushes and their ilk, governing and representing the best interests of the U.S. comes just about dead last on their list of priorities. In their universe, the really important relationships and loyalties are external to the U.S. Only time and history will tell the whole tale of how badly we've been sold down the river.

[aznurse]

I wonder if this story was reported during the hundred inquiry into the death of Diana? Kind of like how crap stories are used here to keep the masses enthralled.
Thanks Alec! How do you find the time?

[Dem02020]

The saudi "royals" are super-rich in this world, and getting mega-richer every day (what record high price is oil at this moment? What's the limit?)

They're as wealthy as any single collective concern or corporation (outside of the U.S. Treasury) as exists in this world today... they are both a private wealth and a Government too, saudi arabia being an absolute monarchy, and an "invisible kingdom" at that...


I'm under the impression that the saudi "royals" not only purchase western property and capital (businesses) with all that wealth, but take an active role in the use of such capital...

How much of a stake do the saudi "royals" own in Time-Warner/CNN?

It's a good question, seeing as we're talking about what saudis do, as being "underreported" in the "media"...

How much of our "media" is saudi-owned?


Before you think me conspiracy-minded: when the Dubai Ports World deal (to control the security of U.S. ports) was scuttled here in the U.S., I noticed CNN to be actively promoting that deal... specifically that wolf blitzer went to Dubai, live and for a whole week's worth of reports, to sell America the deal...

And I took the time to find out, that the saudi "royals" had recently (then) purchased a stake in Time-Warner/CNN, by way of using carl icahn as a broker or agent of sorts... a stake worth somewhere near 5% (if my memory serves), maybe more...


I'd ask the same about other publicly traded U.S. "media" companies...

How much stock in them do the saudis hold, and to what degree are they active in that capital ownership?


How can what is cited above, by Mr. Baldwin, be "underreported" in our privately-owned U.S. "media"?


The same can be asked about the "underreporting" of the Conclusions (Part Four) of the Joint Congressional Inquiry's Report on the attacks of September 11 2001, and the suppression of those 28 pages which tell us what foreign government financed and directed those attacks... suppressed and classified by George W. Bush.

[Dem02020]

Just about all of you have seen the movie "Network", and liked it too, because it tells a truth about our televised "media", and about the televised "news" also.

And I bet you think that truth is about television and television "news", as being ratings-driven, and prone to whatever it is that sells, sensational or crazy or insulting or whatever... and as far as truth and the information so necessary to a healthy Democracy, well truth finishes behind ratings (revenues) and behind sensational stuff and behind the power of manipulating the American People's opinions... truth finishes no better than fourth place, in television ratings.

"Network" had more than that to say about television, and you might have missed it, or don't recall it.


What was it that got Howard Beale into such trouble, that he got called on the carpet personally by the Chairman of the Board Mr. Jensen (Ned Beatty), and screamed at and intimidated into a stupor, by Jensen there in the board room...

What did Howard Beale say on-air, that got him into so much trouble?

When Hackett (Robert Duvall) found out, he was on the west coast, and didn't know until after it was broadcast, and he was called in a panic by an aide, and he thought it was the end!

At a late-night meeting, he was telling those there "I'm dead! I'm finished! Howard has killed us! What Howard said on-air has killed us all!"

Those at the meeting asked "Is it true what Howard said?"

And Hackett replied "Yes, every word of it... and I'm on tonight's red-eye, for a private meeting with Mr. Jensen, and I have to take Howard with me...

...Howard has killed us all, with what he said on the air!"


It's a significant truth in the movie "Network", what Howard said on television that got him into trouble with the Chairman of the Board that owned his "media" company.

It's as topical today, and to this issue of the saudis and the things they do, being underreported in our privately-owned "media".

[luziannagirl]

Prince Bandar...Bandar....hmmmm....that name rings a bell...Oh, yeah, THAT Prince Bandar.

Bandar Bush, the "brother" of our President. They grin at each other, walk hand in hand and kiss each other on the face whenever they meet. That Prince Bandar.

I knew I'd heard that name somewhere before.

[Rachel36]

I think you mean King Adullah.

[luziannagirl]

No, it was Bandar. I remember, because I thought "Bandar Bush" had a nice ring to it. I've seen him on TV too, and he's actually kind of cute, in a scary way.

And, yes, as someone commented later, it is a real shame to find out all the incredible, horrendous things Bush has done these years. It's also amazing and quite telling, that despite all these many revelations, and Bush's record abysmal public approval rating, the news media is STILL not picking them up much.

Contrast that with media feeding-frenzy treatment of the Clinton administration at the height of the Monica scandal, (so much so that certain media continued spewing off about it into the next administration) yet Clinton's public approval rating stayed through the roof the entire time.

Hmm. Could there possibly be something amiss with the media?

[HomerFink]

Keiser is usually right about this stuff. He predicted several things in the last year including the meteoric rise of of GOLD.

Max Keiser. Visionary.
Alec Baldwin for New York Governor NOW!!!

[realitytrumpsbull]

I believe our country, the US, that's 'us', should get out of the business of selling pretty hate machines to ANYbody. Sell em a wrist rocket and a can of paint balls, but the rest of it, take it out and melt it. Build Toyotas. Light ones, that don't model after Detroit's golden age of Heavy Metal. Better yet, build motorcycles.

[profound]

With all that has happened in the past 8 years nothing really surprises me anymore. It's like a domino chain effect where everything that Bush touches falls apart. I am relieved that we have two outstanding candidates running for president; Clinton and Obama. I prefer the latter but Clinton would not be a bad choice either.