1
   

War, Corporate Profits, and Government as Middleman

 
 
blatham
 
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 05:35 am
Promoting peace is for wimps - real governments sell weapons

Labour seems to see the escalating dangers in the Middle East as little more than an opportunity for business

George Monbiot
Thursday August 24, 2006
The Guardian


It's described by a senior official at the Ministry of Defence as "a dead duck ... expensive and obsolete". The editor of World Defence Systems calls it "10 years out of date". A former defence minister remarked that it is "essentially flawed and out of date". So how on earth did BAE Systems manage to sell 72 Eurofighters to Saudi Arabia on Friday?

One answer is that it had some eminent salesmen. On July 2 2005, Tony Blair secretly landed in Riyadh to persuade the Saudi princes that this flying scrapheap was the must-have accessory for every fashionable young despot. Three weeks later the defence secretary John Reid turned up to deploy his subtle charms. Somehow the deal survived, and last week his successor, Des Browne, signed the agreement. All of which raises a second question. Why are government ministers, even Blair himself, prepared to reduce themselves to hawkers on behalf of arms merchants?

Readers of this column will know that British governments are not averse to helping big business, even when this conflicts with their stated policies. But the support they offer the defence industry goes far beyond the assistance they provide to anyone else.

Take the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), for example. This is a government agency founded 40 years ago to smooth out foreign deals for British arms companies. From its inception, this smoothing involved baksheesh. It was established as a channel for "financial aids and incentives" to corrupt officials in foreign governments.

In 2003, after bribery of this kind became illegal in the UK, the Guardian found an internal DESO document explaining its guidelines for arms sales. "In certain parts of the world," it said, "it has become commonplace for special commissions to be required. This is a matter for DESO, to whom all requests for special commission should be referred. If DESO confirm that such payments can be made, contracts staff may need to provide the means for payment." A "special commission" is civil service code for a bribe. The document suggests, in other words, that the British government is overseeing the payment of bribes to foreign officials.

BAE's previous deals with Saudi Arabia are surrounded by allegations of corruption. It is alleged to have run a £60m "slush fund" to oil the Al Yamamah contracts brokered by Margaret Thatcher. The fund is said to have been used to provide cash, cars, yachts, hotel rooms and prostitutes to Saudi officials. One of the alleged beneficiaries was Prince Turki bin Nasser, the Saudi minister for arms procurement. The Serious Fraud Office was bounced by the Guardian's revelations into opening an investigation. But among the conditions the Saudi government laid down for the new deal is that the investigation is dropped. Let's see what happens.

With this exception, the big arms companies appear to have been granted immunity from inquiry or prosecution. Letters from the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Sir Kevin Tebbit, show that he prevented the ministry's fraud squad from investigating the allegations against BAE; that he failed to tell his minister about the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office; and that he tipped off the chairman of BAE about the contents of a confidential letter the SFO had sent him. When the US government told him that BAE had allegedly engaged in corrupt practice in the Czech Republic, Sir Kevin failed to inform the police.

For 14 years, the government has suppressed a report by the National Audit Office into the Al Yamamah deals. Earlier this summer the auditor general refused even to hand it over to the SFO. A parliamentary committee on arms exports published a report this month that expresses its frustration over the government's reluctance to assist its inquiries. It also shows that Mark Thomas, the stand-up comedian, has done more to expose illegal arms deals than the Ministry of Defence, the Export Control Organisation and HM Revenue and Customs put together, simply by searching the internet and the trade press and attending the arms fairs the British government hosts.

In response, the government has investigated not the companies, but the comedian. A confidential email from a civil servant suggested that the trade minister, Richard Caborn, was seeking to gather "background/dirt on him in order to rubbish him". Caborn says that he was misrepresented.

The only arms dealers to have been prosecuted since 2000 are five very small fish. All of them escaped with a small fine or a suspended sentence, including a man who made repeated attempts to export military parts to Iran. Compare this to the treatment of those who upset the arms industry. Nine anti-war campaigners in Derry who occupied the offices of the arms company Raytheon have just been charged with aggravated burglary and unlawful assembly. If convicted, they could be imprisoned for years.
(more)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1856915,00.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 512 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Aug, 2006 01:27 pm
from Bernard Shaw's Major Barbara (available free online)

Quote:
LADY BRITOMART. My dear Stephen: where is the money to come from? It is easy enough for you and the other children to live on my income as long as we are in the same house; but I cant keep four families in four separate houses. You know how poor my father is: he has barely seven thousand a year now; and really, if he were not the Earl of Stevenage, he would have to give up society. He can do nothing for us. He says, naturally enough, that it is absurd that he should be asked to provide for the children of a man who is rolling in money. You see, Stephen, your father must be fabulously wealthy, because there is always a war going on somewhere.
STEPHEN. You need not remind me of that, mother. I have hardly ever opened a newspaper in my life without seeing our name in it. The Undershaft torpedo! The Undershaft quick firers! The Undershaft ten inch! the Undershaft disappearing rampart gun! the Undershaft submarine! and now the Undershaft aerial battleship! At Harrow they called me the Woolwich Infant. At Cambridge it was the same. A little brute at King's who was always trying to get up revivals, spoilt my Bible -- your first birthday present to me -- by writing under my name, "Son and heir to Undershaft and Lazarus, Death and Destruction Dealers: address, Christendom and Judea." But that was not so bad as the way I was kowtowed to everywhere because my father was making millions by selling cannons.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 09:31 pm
Have you seen "Why We Fight" yet?
Haven't seen it yet, nor do I know if it is properly aligned with the topic.

Quote:
Why We Fight

I read about a documentary called Why We Fight which was done by Eugene Jarecki, and won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival last year. After reading about it, seeing the trailer on the website, looking at the film's sources, etc… I got kind of excited about it. So, I found it and watched it last night.

Let me say that everyone needs to see this film. It isn't petty, it doesn't Bush bash, it's not even about Bush specifically… it's about America's "military industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us against in his farewell address. He saw that we were spending increasing amounts on DoD contracts, and that the only way to justify that spending was to use the products we had bought. In other words, he foresaw us going in a direction of world-wide military activism which wasn't going to be due to foreign policy or real threats, but by monetary pressure domestically from the industries being awarded the contracts. And the film brings forth major evidence to support the idea that it's exactly what has happened.

The film interviews a former director a the CIA; a lady who was in the military for 15 years, the last 5 of which were spent in the pentagon putting together information passed to her that was misleading (for instance, Saddam was looking to buy Uranium from Africa, which further justified our entry into Iraq, however the last time he did that was more than 15 years ago); John McCain; a member of a think tank where the "Bush doctrine" came from long before Bush was president; a New York ex-cop who lost his son in the 9/11 attack; and lots more. The film does a great job of staying non-partisan, which is a nice change from that retard Michael Moore's "fake-umentaries" (I have still not been able to sit through all of Bowling for Columbine because he is just SO awful in his approach to people and baiting them into proving his personal beliefs).

There was only one part of the film that I didn't like. Toward the end, one of the interviewees said "this is simply a product of capitalism." I think that is just bogus. America existed for 180 years before this machine even started. The breakdown was the allowance for corruption when America felt there were real threats post-WWII. Had we elected a president or a congres that was against the propagation of our military throughout the world, those industries wouldn't have flourished on our tax money as much as they have.

But the film brings up frightening facts and figures. Every year we spend more on defense projects and contracts than any other expidenture. This funnels money into these industries, who turn around and spend a lot on lobbies and corruption to make sure that our government WANTS to keep awarding them money (in the form of going to war). And the industries are smart. It mentioned how Boeing's B-1 Bomber has parts for it made in every state… so if they ever decided to cut back the program, there would be job loss and outcry nationwide.


Source
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 09:38 pm
Eisenhower's speech.
Has much changed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340349985118918525

Let me know if I'm off topic blatham.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 06:08 am
Absolutely spot on the target. I haven't seen that documentary, but I'll look for it now. thanks.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 08:33 am
It was relased on DVD a few months ago. It's not available online.

I'm still trying to get my mitts on it.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 05:12 pm
Forgot to add the trailer to Why We Fight.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 06:43 pm
Thanks. For some reason, I can't get it to play. Debugging in progress.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 10:32 pm
Here are a couple other links Bernie.
http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=7672
Follow the trailer link at the top right.

Here's another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf1CDmn8q0M
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » War, Corporate Profits, and Government as Middleman
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 07:17:36