Did a Rightwing PR firm bribe NYT, WSJ, MIT and other?

Ed Leefeldt at the Washingtonpost and Clay Risen of TNR both separately wrote very interesting investigative reports that many or you may have missed. First Mr. Risen writes:

On March 7, 2007, a "media and research" company called eSapience filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against C.V. Starr & Co., the California investment firm helmed by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg.

What makes this suit so interesting is not C.V. Starr's alleged actions, but the services eSapience was hired to perform. That's because, far from being a typical p.r. firm, eSapience, run by a clique of conservative, free-market academics, is in the business of buying and manipulating influence at the very highest levels of academic and intellectual circles--a cynical strategy laid out in deep detail by the lawsuit. The suit, in fact, is a Rosetta Stone into the extremes to which a group of right-wingers have taken the phrase "marketplace of ideas"--and it has exposed the lengths to which some people will go to buy intellectual influence.

As many have noted the Right-wing has a much stronger and more extensive network. They use this network to sell their ideas and push their public narratives. They do this it at several different levels, government, media, and academic.

Very little information exists about eSapience outside the suit. Its website, eSapience.org, goes directly to something called the "eSapience Center for Competition Policy" (eCCP), a sort of virtual think tank that organizes conferences, promotes papers, and even publishes a journal, all of which have a decidedly conservative, free-market bent (the journal's editorial board, for example, features a bevy of University of Chicago legal scholars and economists, including Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook). All of this seems dryly academic and above board--in fact, there is hardly any explanation of what eSapience itself actual is

This is typical of Right-wing think tanks. For all the glamor of the CATO and Hoover institutes, most of the real damage is done, by these faceless nameless institutes. There conservatives toil away in obscurity, underminig everything we love about this country.

The lawsuit, though, shows otherwise. According to the suit, the firm, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a coterie of high-end academics--the chair is David Evans, a visiting professor at the University College London; a managing director is Richard Schmalensee, dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management; Richard Epstein, the highly regarded Chicago legal scholar, is an affiliate--who use their connections in academia, the media, and the business world to improve their clients' public image. (eSapience declined, through its lawyer, to comment for this article.) According to an accompanying confidential memo to C.V. Starr, obtained by THE NEW REPUBLIC, eSapience promises to "blunt and/or change the conversations that influential people, including public intellectuals, have about the set of issues we are asked.

I hope you read that correctly. They exist in order to misdirect and/or change the very CONVERSATIONS that our leaders are having! WOW!

ESapience planned and executed three such events, on September 12, 14, and 15, 2006. One of them, co-sponsored with the Federalist Society, took place in (where else?) Greenberg Lounge at New York University. Titled "Does Procedure Dominate Substance? Of Class Actions and Pretrial Motions," it appeared no different from the sort of stultifying but edifying conferences that happen several times a week on university campuses. The keynote speech was by the eminent lawyer David Boies; the participants were drawn from top-25 law schools. Two of the participants I contacted knew little beyond the fact that eSapience was a co-sponsor; they were certainly unaware that it had planned the event as part of a scheme to improve Greenberg's image. For them, it was just another academic klatch ("If Hank Greenberg thought this resuscitated his reputation, that is beyond my knowledge or understanding," says NYU Law Professor Samuel Issacharoff). Did the Federalist Society know of the eSapience-Greenberg connection?

OK, so influencing the Federalist Society is one thing. They already are a well know Right-wing outfit. But the next part of this tale should give all of us pause.

Beyond the September events, eSapience also promised to use its existing "channels"--presumably the eCCP and its journal--to further sway opinion, and to "secur[e] a New York Times journalist who might be inclined to write an article related to the lawsuit filed by the new York State Attorney General's Office against Greenberg." It also hired Dan Senor, famous as the Bush administration's spokesman in the early days of the Iraq war, and Mark Corallo, John Ashcroft's former public affairs director, to help in the effort, though the suit doesn't explain their roles further. All this, while billing C.V. Starr at rates between $400 and $1,000 an hour, per person. In about six months, it had run up some $2 million in charges. No wonder C.V. Starr balked at paying.

Did you get that? to further sway opinion, and to "secur[e] a New York Times journalist who might be inclined to write an article related to the lawsuit filed by the new York State Attorney General's Office against Greenberg." They billed someone for "paying off" a NYT reporter! For those who don't know, Hank Greenberg was the former CEO of AIG (one of the nations 10 largest insurance companies), who was ousted after Elliot Spitzer charged him with fraud. AIG and the State of NY settled out of court. Greenberg and the State of NY are still going to trial.

I don't want to falsely accuse people, or commit libel. But I did my own search of NYT archives. I noticed there was a bunch of articles with titles like:
Two Views of a Rising Star: Populist Warrior or Reckless Foe of Big Business? and also like: Spitzer Fights Criticism That He Is a Hothead. Was this just regular campaign reporting? Or was it something more? The problem with an issue like this is it's very hard to ever know. It's also why it's so evily effective.

But It didn't stop there as the Washington Post reports

Greenberg had been rumored last November to be interested in buying New York Times Co. (NYT.N).

Why just "secure" a reporter, when you can "secure" the whole outfit!

Furthermore, Ed Leefeldt reports that:

Additionally eSapience tried to engage a "best-selling author" to ghostwrite Greenberg's autobiography, the suit claims.

ESapience said in the suit that its work for Greenberg from May through September was successful in getting Greenberg an article in the front section of The Wall Street Journal.

ESapience said it was told to bill the costs of the campaign to C.V. Starr, a private company where Greenberg is the chairman and chief executive, according to the suit. C.V. Starr runs insurance brokerage operations.

The Wall Street Journal SOLD (or was influenced into?) placing an article in its front section! To add credence to this tale, a real company was billed for this service! Why has the MSM ignored mostly ignored this? Are their more Judith Miller's out there at the NYT and WSJ?

One more disturbing fact

Under the heading "Independent Channels" eSapience promises to "leverage our relationships with important and highly credible channels including AEI, AEI-Brookings, Hoover Institution, MIT, University of Chicago Law School and the Federalist Society, among others. These organizations will work with us to host conferences, Capitol Hill briefings (if appropriate), co-author papers, link to our Center web sites, and distribute our materials on their web sites, among other things." These organizations may or may not have known of eSapience's plans to abuse their intellectual standing. They clearly didn't get a cut of the profits.

What exactly do Universities need to support a position? Are Professors being "paid off"? Is there a quid pro qou were large donations are being made to the schools? (at the University of Chicago for example, eSapience was a sponsor of the UCL Antitrust & Regulation Forum)I am only speculating, I really don't know???

If I may suggest a few action items.

1. If you are an alumn of MIT or the University of Chicago Law School, ask them what their relationship with eSapience is/was? Have they done research for them? Request items written for them, or events co-hosted by them. I hope a few readers are big donors, I think they will have a bigger influence.

2. Start emailing the New York Times and Wall Street Journal asking the comptroller about this story. Have they done an internal investigation?

3. Keep an eye out for any trial procedings from this. Post them on Daily Kos. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. The more we see of the Right-wings shady dealings, the less effective they become!

.
.
.
My letter to the NYT

Dear Mr. Byron Calame,
I have read a recent article in The New Republic and Washington Post with some alarm and concern. It seems a PR firm named eSapience is billing a Mr. Hank Greenberg (former CEO of AIG Insurance) for among other things, "securing" a reporter from the NYT. On the face of it I would find such a claim outrageous, but in light of the Judith Miller story, it has given me some pause. My question is, has the NYT completed an internal investigation into this claim? I and many concerned readers would like to know the answer to this. I have been posting a diary on Daily Kos, under the screen name dopper0189, concerning this story, and would like to post any response to this letter you feel inclined to write.

My letter to the WSJ

Dear Mr. Bill Grueskin,
I have read a recent article in The New Republic and Washington Post with some alarm and concern. It seems a PR firm named eSapience is billing a Mr. Hank Greenberg (former CEO of AIG Insurance) for among other things, "securing" an article in the front section of The Wall Street Journal.. On the face of it I would find such a claim outrageous, but the fact that there are ongoing court proceedings for this billing has given me some pause. My question is, has the WSJ completed an internal investigation into this claim? I and many concerned readers would like to know the answer to this. I have been posting a diary on Daily Kos, under the screen name dopper0189, concerning this story, and would like to post any response to this letter you feel inclined to write.

--by dopper0189

Selective Service to test draft machinery; Selective Service to test draft machinery

Was anyone wondering where Bush's 70,000 new troops(bribes to the military to follow him into endless wars) were coming from?
Related

VA head: 'Society would benefit' from re-instating the draft
---
Selective Service to test draft machinery
By KASIE HUNT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Selective Service System is making plans to test its draft machinery in case Congress and President Bush need it, even though the White House says it doesn't want to bring back the draft.

The agency is planning a comprehensive test - not run since 1998 - of its military draft systems, a Selective Service official said. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.

Scott Campbell, the service's director for operations and chief information officer, cautioned that the "readiness exercise" does not mean the agency is gearing up to resume the draft.

"We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf," Campbell told The Associated Press. "Unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' ... we're still on the shelf."

Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson prompted speculation about the draft Thursday when he told reporters in New York that "society would benefit" if the U.S. were to bring back the draft. Later he issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft.

The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that policy has not changed and no proposal to reinstate the draft is being considered.

The "readiness exercise" would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and its network of appeal boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, Campbell said.

The Selective Service will start planning for the 2009 tests next June or July, although budget cuts could force the agency to cancel them, Campbell said.

President Bush said this week he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Military officials have said the Army and Marine Corps want to add as many as 35,000 more troops.

Recruiting new forces and retaining current troops is more complicated because of the unpopular war in Iraq. In recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.

In remarks to reporters, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels "in the common purpose of serving."

Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said such a proposal would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress' priority list.

Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.

The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. Reincorporated in 1980, the Selective Service System maintains a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.

---

Associated Press writers Sara Kugler in New York and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.

US accused of using aid to sway votes in UN security council

Heather Stewart, economics correspondent
Sunday December 17, 2006
The Observer

The US uses its aid budget to bribe those countries which have a vote in the United Nations security council, giving them 59 per cent more cash in years when they have a seat, according to research by economists.

Kofi Annan, the outgoing UN Secretary-General, expressed his frustration at the power the US wields over the UN in his parting speech last week. In a detailed analysis of 50 years of data, Harvard University's Ilyana Kuziemko and Eric Werker provide the clearest evidence yet that money is used by the council's richest member to grease the wheels of diplomacy.

---

---

Anti-poverty campaigners reacted angrily to the findings. 'Aid should go to the people who need it, not as a political sweetener,' said Duncan Green of Oxfam. 'In recent years most rich countries have been making progress on this, but showering bribes on developing countries just because they sit on the UN security council is clearly a step backwards.'

Charities often complain that the US uses its aid as a political tool, and this new evidence of what the authors call 'vote-buying' will raise fears about whether the surge of aid money that was promised at last year's Gleneagles G8 summit will be fairly spent.

Ten of the 15 seats on the security council are filled for two years at a time, by rotation. Kuziemko and Werker found that, in years when they have a seat, countries get an average of more than £8m extra in foreign aid from the US.

'I don't think it's surprising this goes on; but I wonder whether countries being aware that it goes on might have some salutary effect,' Kuziemko said.

Countries with a security council seat also receive an average of £500m extra from the UN itself, most of it channelled through its children's fund, Unicef, over which the US traditionally has been able to exert control. President George Bush recently provoked controversy by appointing a close political ally, former Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, as Unicef's chief.

When there is a controversial vote in prospect, the premium for countries with a security council seat is even higher. US aid surges by as much as 170 per cent, bringing in a £23m windfall, while the UN spends an extra £4m.

'Some countries serve on the security council during relatively calm years, whereas others, by chance, are fortunate enough to serve during a year in which a key resolution is debated and their vote becomes more valuable,' the authors say. They highlight controversial resolutions over issues including the Korean War, Suez, the Falklands and Kosovo - though the period they study does not include the notorious 'second resolution' over the invasion of Iraq, which never came to a vote.

David Woodward, of the New Economics Foundation, who is writing about the paper for a forthcoming edition of the Lancet, said the findings suggest the UN should be radically reformed.

'As long as one country wields such influence, there will always have a degree of control over what goes on, and they will be likely to abuse that.'

'The biggest obstacle, in both the IMF and the World Bank, as well as the UN, is that the countries that now have power can use that power to block reform - and they do.'

Documents
Volcker commission report on UN oil-for-food

Useful links
UN website
Wikipedia: Kofi Annan

The arms deal they called the dove: how Britain grasped the biggest prize

The Saudis want Iran whacked. Time to go after these sumbitches, folks.
---
· No expense spared as UK wooed Saudi politicians
· US and France lost out on tens of billions

David Pallister
Friday December 15, 2006
The Guardian

The deal of the century, as it came to be known, took three years to complete. But when it was finally signed by Prince Sultan, the Saudi defence minister, on the Caribbean island of Bermuda in 1988 it provided British Aerospace with a stream of revenue worth around $2bn (£1.02bn) a year, with a current total that stands at more than $40bn.

It involved the sale of 72 Tornado fighters and 50 Hawk jet trainers, the construction of two airbases and a host of other equipment, training and spares, serviced by more than 3,000 UK experts stationed in Saudi Arabia. They called it Al-Yamamah: the dove.

---

---

Britain's role as one of the world's top arms exporters was guaranteed by the partnership, but it was a close-run battle. In 1985 the Saudis were desperate to upgrade their defences. They were concerned even then about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism touching their Shia citizens in the oil-rich east, as well as the possibility of being drawn into the Iran-Iraq war, in which they took the side of Saddam Hussein. They approached France for its Mirage 2000s and the US for the F-15E, in the face of strenuous opposition from the Israeli lobby.

In the end Britain triumphed, due, in large part, to the intervention of Margaret Thatcher. She assiduously cultivated Sultan on his private visits to London and developed a close relationship with King Fahd, whose opinion of the British prime minister verged on infatuation.

The British party that flew to Bermuda to sign the memorandum of understanding included Sir Colin Chandler, head of defence export services and now chairman of easyJet; air vice-marshal Ronald Stuart-Paul, head of the Saudi armed forces project at the Ministry of Defence; and John Weston, the British Aerospace director in charge of the project.

The deal was immediately controversial and perpetually shrouded in secrecy. It was paid for by the delivery of up 600,000 barrels oil a day, with the money going into a dedicated MoD account. But given the Saudi royal family's propensity for extravagance and corruption, the allegations of kickbacks soon surfaced and have never gone away.

It was not only princes and their officials who were said to have benefited but also, allegedly, Mrs Thatcher's son, Mark, through his friendship with one of the intermediaries, the Syrian/Saudi billionaire Wafic Said.

Campaigners against the arms trade argued that Britain should not be selling war planes and military equipment to an undemocratic regime that practised torture. They claimed that the British government refrained from criticising Saudi human rights abuses, even when British citizens were involved, in order not to upset the arms sales.

Such was the sensitivity of the arrangement that a National Audit Office report in the early 1990s was, unprecedentedly, suppressed. The official British line has always been that this was a government-to-government contract, and no agents were involved. But evidence that commissions or bribes were paid by BAE, as it now is, and some of its sub-contractors such as Rolls Royce, Thorn EMI and Royal Ordnance, have been seeping into the public domain for years. Rolls Royce was even sued in the high court by agents acting for one of the princes because it had reduced the level of its commissions.

The alleged principal method for concealing the bribes was to increase the price of the goods; so, it appears, the Saudi princes were stealing from their people.

But after Al-Yamamah 1, the deal just rolled on. It was renewed in 1993 when Saudis agreed to buy another batch of 48 Tornado war planes. In a third stage, signed last year, Britain is selling up to 72 more planes, this time Typhoons.

The Guardian disclosed that accidentally released Whitehall papers, including a telegram from Chandler, revealed how the price of the Tornados had been inflated by 32%. Another document in the archives quotes a dispatch from a British ambassador saying the family of Prince Sultan "had a corrupt interest in all contracts". Two years ago this newspaper also revealed something of the quantity of money that was allegedly being passed around when it published details of the lavish BAE Systems hospitality showered on Prince Turki bin Nasser, the deputy head of the air force, and his family.

By then, the Serious Fraud Office had launched an inquiry into allegations; laws that came into force in 2002 made paying bribes on overseas deals a criminal offence. SFO officers have been trawling seized documents and have arrested and interviewed some BAE officials.

They unravelled details of arrangements for commissions being paid through Swiss bank accounts, and appeared to be about to approach the Swiss authorities for access to them. The scale of the alleged slush fund, concealed in Swiss bank accounts of Panamanian companies, may be as much as £100m.

BAE and all individuals have always denied any wrongdoing.

All the allegations have infuriated the Saudi royal family, not least because they have fuelled the resentment against the regime by its own militants and fundamentalists throughout the Muslim world.

In the past few weeks there have mutterings - aired by BAE Systems itself - that the Saudis are upset, the new Typhoon deal is in peril, and thousands of jobs are at risk if the Serious Fraud Office continues its investigations.

Key dates

Mid-1980s
Saudis keen to upgrade defences; consider French and US-made systems as well as British.

1985
Al-Yamamah deal signed by Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan and then defence secretary Michael Heseltine. Britain's biggest arms deal, it provides for the sale of 72 Tornado and 30 Hawk warplanes to Saudi Arabia. Worth £43bn so far. Al-Yamamah means "the dove" in Arabic.

1989
Deliveries begin.

1992
National Audit Office scrutinises the deal following allegations that members of Saudi royal family and middlemen were secretly paid hundreds of millions of pounds in kickbacks. But report is suppressed over fears it would anger the Saudis.

1993
Al-Yamamah deal renewed. Saudis agree to buy 48 Tornados.

1997-1999
BAE sets up offshore accounts in British Virgin Islands and Switzerland to move around large sums of off-balance-sheet cash.

2002
Laws come into force making it illegal to pay bribes to foreign public officials.

2004
Guardian reveals scale of hospitality BAE showered on Prince Turki bin Nasser, deputy head of air force.

2004
SFO launches investigation into corruption, including allegations that BAE Systems ran a multimillion pound "slush fund" to secure the Saudi arms deals.

2005
Third phase of deal sees Britain sell up to 72 Typhoon aircraft in £6bn deal.

2005
Sir Richard Evans, BAE chairman, interviewed by SFO.

Oct 2006
Guardian publishes documents showing how price of Tornado warplanes was inflated by £600m.

Nov 2006
SFO pursues evidence that millions of pounds of BAE cash was found in Swiss accounts potentially linked to the Saudi royal family.

Britain caved in to Saudi Blackmail? Breaking an international convention against bribery & corruption

Related

'National interest' halts arms corruption inquiry
---
Saudi Arabia

From World Press Network

Major criminal investigation stopped

• A major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and its executives was stopped in its tracks yesterday when the prime minister claimed it would endanger Britain's security if the inquiry was allowed to continue.
• The destruction of its inquiry will be a severe blow to the SFO which has spent more than £2m on what was its most extensive current investigation, and taken hundreds of pages of statements from witnesses.

Blair defends Saudi probe ruling

• Critics argue the government had succumbed to Saudi threats to pull out of a deal to buy 72 Eurofighter jets from BAE, amid reports the Saudi royal family was prepared to ditch the contract and deal with France instead.
• The Lib Dems have called for an inquiry and accused the government of putting cash before principle and said it was a "sad day" for the rule of law in Britain.
• Lib Dem peer, Lord Goodhart, told the BBC's Today programme: "I think what has happened here is that we have been bounced into this decision by what is effectively blackmail by the Saudi Arabian government."
• He added: "It is clear it was not the SFO's own decision, and it was not something that was instigated by the SFO. This came from the top."
  • WPN Note : The above paragraph, which appeared in the initial BBC report, has been removed from the current BBC report [without any note or comment]. We wonder who "objected" to it ? Too close to the truth for comfort ?
• The government and the SFO have both said "no weight" was given to economic interests.

WPN Note : The government statement above, that "no weight was given to economic interests", is just not credible. When will the government realise that the public will not trust anything they say until the government and most politicians stop treating the public as "serfs" who shouldn't question what they are told, and who are to be kept too busy with day-to-day life (especially taxes and expenses) so that don't have the time, energy, or resources to hold the government or politicians to account.

"British lectures on the "rule of law" will lose some of their force."

• Foreign competitors will see another performance by 'perfidious Albion', as the British government holds its hand on its heart and promises that commercial interests have played no part.
• Other governments - and frankly, many of the British workers engaged on the project - will not believe that the size of the contract in question was not the determining factor. It is for 72 Typhoon Eurofighters from BAE.
• It is a classic of its kind in diplomatic and legal history.
• Yet, the attorney general affirmed, the decision had been for the Serious Fraud Office alone, who had not been "under pressure in any sense."
  • WPN Note : The above statement is just not credible.
• The Liberal Democrats called it "blackmail" by Saudi Arabia and a violation of an international convention, contradicted Article 5 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions which says that states should "not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest [or] the potential effect upon relations with another state".
  • WPN Note : What message does this send to foreign business men : i.e. do they now have to make even bigger bribes to stay in business ? Also, what about the implications for third-world debt ? Can't the debtor countries now say that bribery was a fundamental part of the loan system, and as thus the loans and dependent transactions were a fraud against the people of that third-world country, and thus not repayable ?
• Cue cynicism from around the world.
• And we have been here before. In 2001 the British parliament passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which banned the bribery of officials aboard. Payments made before that law was passed did not result in any prosecutions either.
• Nobody anywhere is therefore surprised at this new decision.
  • WPN Note : Is the above statement a BBC admission that Britain has no moral standing in the eyes of the world ? Has Britain's reputation fallen as far down as the US's reputation ? The old adage that "you can judge a person by the company he keeps" seems to apply to nations as well. 'Sleaze' taint may cling to Blair

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 decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.
• Lord Goldsmith said that both Mr Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that carrying on the investigation would harm intelligence and diplomatic co-operation with Saudi Arabia, in turn damaging the UK's national security.
• "No one is going to win any Saudi business until this SFO investigation ends " Senior defence executive
• The SFO said "No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest."

WPN Note : It seems clear that the prosecutors, the SFO, was leant on to drop this investigation. Indeed, when the Attorney general says you have to balance against the rule of law, it seems to be an admission that the law was broken, but due to the national interest (which seems to be defined as including national security), the investigation should be "discontinued". The SFO might "technically" not have lied if they thought that the issue was national security, but the main issue was bound to be commercial/economic (and national security as a by-product). i.e. The SFO statement is a way to gloss over a break in the law.

Probe 'threat' to British firms

• Top British defence and manufacturing firms have written to the government to warn that billions of pounds could be lost in contracts with Saudi Arabia.
• The DIC's letter is the latest twist in the row over an inquiry into bribes allegedly paid in the huge Al-Yamamah arms deal won by BAE Systems.
• It says the threat extends to the UK industrial base and to British security.

WPN Note : A transparent and representative government should have nothing to fear from a probe into bribery. Indeed, a bribe paid by a supplier is effectively an increase in the "official" price charged to that purchasing country, i.e. it is embezzlement of funds from the citizens of that purchasing country (as well as undermining the faith of shareholders in the company paying the bribe). Furthermore, bribery undermines the level competitive playing field between countries which, for legal (or moral) reasons, refuse to pay bribes. As such, it is in Saudi Arabia's interest for this matter to be properly investigated. The SFO should NOT be placed under political pressure to close the investigation

Saudi Arabia to pressure Iran "using money, weapons or its oil power" but not Israel ?

Saudi will intervene in Iraq if US withdraws-aide "using money, weapons or its oil power"

• If the Saudis are prepared to flood the oil market to hurt the Iranians, why can't they put pressure on the Israelis by restricting supply ? Why is it OK to use Oil markets to "pressure" the Iranians, but not the Israelis ?

Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunnis

• Maybe the public is being "prepared" for an invasion of "Saudi Arabia" (or "regime change"), ignoring the huge possibility that the US has already decided to switch support from the Iraq Shiites to the Iraqi Sunnis (i.e. the "insurgents" who now Saudi Arabia is being accused of funding -- the Saudis are probably following "orders" from the US anyway).

Shit Hits Fan! Saudis to Back Sunni Insurgency in Iraq

• When did they tell us this? Remember when Dick Chenney got summoned to Saudi Arabia? Yup, that's when. They called Dick and told him to go fuck himself (kind of poetic justice, don't you think?). They told him that regardless of what's good for America, America must do what's good for Saudi Arabia.
• As a result of our fucking up Iraq, now the entire middle east (majority Sunni Arabs, even though they are the minority in Iraq) is now ready for a bloody civil war. Iran is interested in supporting the Shiites and increasing its influence while Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others are interested in protecting their influence. Is this what George Bush meant when he talked about transforming the middle east? Transform it into total chaos?

Retrieved from "http://worldpressnetwork.net/index.php/Saudi_Arabia"

---

To view or add your feedback on any article on WPN, click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page. You can also create new topic pages.
WPN will be featuring the best pages, and issuing awards for the best journalistic contributions (in WPN's sole discretion).

Britain caved in to Saudi Blackmail? Breaking an international convention against bribery & corruption

Related

'National interest' halts arms corruption inquiry
---
Saudi Arabia

From World Press Network

Major criminal investigation stopped

• A major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and its executives was stopped in its tracks yesterday when the prime minister claimed it would endanger Britain's security if the inquiry was allowed to continue.
• The destruction of its inquiry will be a severe blow to the SFO which has spent more than £2m on what was its most extensive current investigation, and taken hundreds of pages of statements from witnesses.

Blair defends Saudi probe ruling

• Critics argue the government had succumbed to Saudi threats to pull out of a deal to buy 72 Eurofighter jets from BAE, amid reports the Saudi royal family was prepared to ditch the contract and deal with France instead.
• The Lib Dems have called for an inquiry and accused the government of putting cash before principle and said it was a "sad day" for the rule of law in Britain.
• Lib Dem peer, Lord Goodhart, told the BBC's Today programme: "I think what has happened here is that we have been bounced into this decision by what is effectively blackmail by the Saudi Arabian government."
• He added: "It is clear it was not the SFO's own decision, and it was not something that was instigated by the SFO. This came from the top."
  • WPN Note : The above paragraph, which appeared in the initial BBC report, has been removed from the current BBC report [without any note or comment]. We wonder who "objected" to it ? Too close to the truth for comfort ?
• The government and the SFO have both said "no weight" was given to economic interests.

WPN Note : The government statement above, that "no weight was given to economic interests", is just not credible. When will the government realise that the public will not trust anything they say until the government and most politicians stop treating the public as "serfs" who shouldn't question what they are told, and who are to be kept too busy with day-to-day life (especially taxes and expenses) so that don't have the time, energy, or resources to hold the government or politicians to account.

"British lectures on the "rule of law" will lose some of their force."

• Foreign competitors will see another performance by 'perfidious Albion', as the British government holds its hand on its heart and promises that commercial interests have played no part.
• Other governments - and frankly, many of the British workers engaged on the project - will not believe that the size of the contract in question was not the determining factor. It is for 72 Typhoon Eurofighters from BAE.
• It is a classic of its kind in diplomatic and legal history.
• Yet, the attorney general affirmed, the decision had been for the Serious Fraud Office alone, who had not been "under pressure in any sense."
  • WPN Note : The above statement is just not credible.
• The Liberal Democrats called it "blackmail" by Saudi Arabia and a violation of an international convention, contradicted Article 5 of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions which says that states should "not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest [or] the potential effect upon relations with another state".
  • WPN Note : What message does this send to foreign business men : i.e. do they now have to make even bigger bribes to stay in business ? Also, what about the implications for third-world debt ? Can't the debtor countries now say that bribery was a fundamental part of the loan system, and as thus the loans and dependent transactions were a fraud against the people of that third-world country, and thus not repayable ?
• Cue cynicism from around the world.
• And we have been here before. In 2001 the British parliament passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which banned the bribery of officials aboard. Payments made before that law was passed did not result in any prosecutions either.
• Nobody anywhere is therefore surprised at this new decision.
  • WPN Note : Is the above statement a BBC admission that Britain has no moral standing in the eyes of the world ? Has Britain's reputation fallen as far down as the US's reputation ? The old adage that "you can judge a person by the company he keeps" seems to apply to nations as well. 'Sleaze' taint may cling to Blair

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 decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.
• Lord Goldsmith said that both Mr Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne had argued that carrying on the investigation would harm intelligence and diplomatic co-operation with Saudi Arabia, in turn damaging the UK's national security.
• "No one is going to win any Saudi business until this SFO investigation ends " Senior defence executive
• The SFO said "No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest."

WPN Note : It seems clear that the prosecutors, the SFO, was leant on to drop this investigation. Indeed, when the Attorney general says you have to balance against the rule of law, it seems to be an admission that the law was broken, but due to the national interest (which seems to be defined as including national security), the investigation should be "discontinued". The SFO might "technically" not have lied if they thought that the issue was national security, but the main issue was bound to be commercial/economic (and national security as a by-product). i.e. The SFO statement is a way to gloss over a break in the law.

Probe 'threat' to British firms

• Top British defence and manufacturing firms have written to the government to warn that billions of pounds could be lost in contracts with Saudi Arabia.
• The DIC's letter is the latest twist in the row over an inquiry into bribes allegedly paid in the huge Al-Yamamah arms deal won by BAE Systems.
• It says the threat extends to the UK industrial base and to British security.

WPN Note : A transparent and representative government should have nothing to fear from a probe into bribery. Indeed, a bribe paid by a supplier is effectively an increase in the "official" price charged to that purchasing country, i.e. it is embezzlement of funds from the citizens of that purchasing country (as well as undermining the faith of shareholders in the company paying the bribe). Furthermore, bribery undermines the level competitive playing field between countries which, for legal (or moral) reasons, refuse to pay bribes. As such, it is in Saudi Arabia's interest for this matter to be properly investigated. The SFO should NOT be placed under political pressure to close the investigation

Saudi Arabia to pressure Iran "using money, weapons or its oil power" but not Israel ?

Saudi will intervene in Iraq if US withdraws-aide "using money, weapons or its oil power"

• If the Saudis are prepared to flood the oil market to hurt the Iranians, why can't they put pressure on the Israelis by restricting supply ? Why is it OK to use Oil markets to "pressure" the Iranians, but not the Israelis ?

Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunnis

• Maybe the public is being "prepared" for an invasion of "Saudi Arabia" (or "regime change"), ignoring the huge possibility that the US has already decided to switch support from the Iraq Shiites to the Iraqi Sunnis (i.e. the "insurgents" who now Saudi Arabia is being accused of funding -- the Saudis are probably following "orders" from the US anyway).

Shit Hits Fan! Saudis to Back Sunni Insurgency in Iraq

• When did they tell us this? Remember when Dick Chenney got summoned to Saudi Arabia? Yup, that's when. They called Dick and told him to go fuck himself (kind of poetic justice, don't you think?). They told him that regardless of what's good for America, America must do what's good for Saudi Arabia.
• As a result of our fucking up Iraq, now the entire middle east (majority Sunni Arabs, even though they are the minority in Iraq) is now ready for a bloody civil war. Iran is interested in supporting the Shiites and increasing its influence while Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others are interested in protecting their influence. Is this what George Bush meant when he talked about transforming the middle east? Transform it into total chaos?

Retrieved from "http://worldpressnetwork.net/index.php/Saudi_Arabia"

---

To view or add your feedback on any article on WPN, click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page. You can also create new topic pages.
WPN will be featuring the best pages, and issuing awards for the best journalistic contributions (in WPN's sole discretion).

US pressured Blair into arms bribery inquiry

By Francis Elliott

Published: 03 December 2006

A bribery investigation threatening the future of 50,000 British jobs followed heavy pressure on Tony Blair from George Bush's administration, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Saudi Arabia says it will scrap an order with BAE Systems for 72 Eurofighter Typhoons worth around £40bn unless the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) stops probing previous arms deals with the company.

The Arab nation has reportedly set a deadline that expires this week for the investigation to be called off.

Now documents released under US freedom of information laws reveal how the probe followed arm-twisting by the Bush administration.

They show how Britain's most senior defence civil servant was taken to task by the Pentagon over "a longstanding, widespread pattern of bribery allegations involving BAE systems" in July 2002.

Sir Kevin Tebbit, then the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, had an uncomfortable meeting with the US Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, E Anthony Wayne.

Mr Wayne said that, though it had signed up to international anti-bribery agreements, "the UK was slow to take action to correct perceived deficiencies".

He also complained of the "consistent pattern of alleged behaviour, over time" and, in a clear accusation that the British government was aware of the problem, added that: "Press accounts reinforce material from more sensitive sources."

A memo, setting out his "MUST DO" items, declared: "Ask what the British government has done to investigate allegations of bribery by BAE, not only in connection with recent projects, but in connection with older contracts for which bribe payments may still be ongoing ... In the US, this volume of allegations would have triggered a Department of Justice Criminal Division investigation long ago".

The SFO bribery investigation into the giant Al Yamamah arms deal, struck in 1985, started in July 2004 after detectives were shown evidence suggesting kickbacks had been paid. Detectives are reported to be investigating allegations of a £60m "slush fund".

BAE Systems denies any wrongdoing and insists that it does not tolerate "unlawful, dishonest or harmful" behaviour, while the British government maintained that it had tightened up anti-bribery legislation.

A bribery investigation threatening the future of 50,000 British jobs followed heavy pressure on Tony Blair from George Bush's administration, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Saudi Arabia says it will scrap an order with BAE Systems for 72 Eurofighter Typhoons worth around £40bn unless the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) stops probing previous arms deals with the company.

The Arab nation has reportedly set a deadline that expires this week for the investigation to be called off.

Now documents released under US freedom of information laws reveal how the probe followed arm-twisting by the Bush administration.

They show how Britain's most senior defence civil servant was taken to task by the Pentagon over "a longstanding, widespread pattern of bribery allegations involving BAE systems" in July 2002.

Sir Kevin Tebbit, then the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, had an uncomfortable meeting with the US Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, E Anthony Wayne.

Mr Wayne said that, though it had signed up to international anti-bribery agreements, "the UK was slow to take action to correct perceived deficiencies".

He also complained of the "consistent pattern of alleged behaviour, over time" and, in a clear accusation that the British government was aware of the problem, added that: "Press accounts reinforce material from more sensitive sources."

A memo, setting out his "MUST DO" items, declared: "Ask what the British government has done to investigate allegations of bribery by BAE, not only in connection with recent projects, but in connection with older contracts for which bribe payments may still be ongoing ... In the US, this volume of allegations would have triggered a Department of Justice Criminal Division investigation long ago".

The SFO bribery investigation into the giant Al Yamamah arms deal, struck in 1985, started in July 2004 after detectives were shown evidence suggesting kickbacks had been paid. Detectives are reported to be investigating allegations of a £60m "slush fund".

BAE Systems denies any wrongdoing and insists that it does not tolerate "unlawful, dishonest or harmful" behaviour, while the British government maintained that it had tightened up anti-bribery legislation