Hold on. I see that Michael White is being accused of "trying to defend the indefensible". Stay out of it, Mike. That's my job. The High Court ruling that the Serious Fraud Office acted unlawfully in dropping its inquiry into alleged corruption in the Saudi arms deal has been greeted with the equivalent of universal rejoicing. The counter case is hard to make, but that is why it all the more worth while to try. I'm not a great fan of the Saudi Arabian government, but I don't think the case is as open and shut as the conventional wisdom has it.
Two and a half weeks before Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, I wrote this, under the headline above that seems just as apt today:
When Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, complained about "the Government's handling of this squalid affair", he did not acknowledge that there are thousands of British jobs dependent on Saudi government contracts. Maybe there shouldn't be. But anyone proposing that these workers should be laid off is under an obligation, not least to them, to show that they have taken their interests into account. Sir Menzies says he is simply arguing that Britain should adhere to the highest anti-corruption standards in its foreign trade. No, he is not: he is arguing for a standard so high that it would put British jobs at risk. Maybe, again, that is a price worth paying, but it is not a price that can just be ignored ...
Blair's position now - which will be Brown's position in 17 days - is that Britain tries to avoid the worst excesses of corruption in a global industry in which corruption is endemic, partly because so much of it is government-controlled. Even Sir Menzies accepts that anti-corruption law in Britain was made more stringent in 2002, but give Blair credit for it? No chance: it is just another stick with which to beat him for being a hypocrite ...
The other reason that Blair has given for calling off the SFO, and which Brown will have to defend, is almost as ruthlessly pragmatic. It is that we do not want to offend the Saudis. On this, I'm with the critics. I do want to offend the Saudi royal family. I'm with Cherie, who congratulated Kuwait two years ago on granting women the vote, saying: "God knows about Saudi Arabia."
However, I do not go so far as Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, who said: "I just long for the day I wake up and find that the Saudi royal family are swinging from lamp-posts." And I suspect that the position is different for journalists, mayors and the wives of prime ministers on the one hand, and for prime ministers on the other.
Maybe it would be fine for Tony Blair or, soon, Gordon Brown, to say: "Expose Saudi corruption and British complicity in it and hang the consequences." It sounds like a noble pose to strike. But Sir Menzies and the cohorts of critics on their high horses do not even accept that there would be consequences. Perhaps it does not matter much to this country whether or not we annoy the Saudi regime. But that seems unlikely.
Blair may have made the wrong judgement in balancing the economic and security benefits of Saudi goodwill against Britain's reputation for propriety. But Brown will make the same judgement; and the fact that there would be costs in offending the Saudis is not a weightless consideration to be waved away from high up on a moral horse.
So what has Brown actually said?
Downing Street refused to comment.
Makes Alfred Rosenburg look principled.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Friday, 11 April 2008 at 11:34 AM
How very convenient, that Blair's problems, are now becoming problems for Gordon Brown. We have had the Northern Rock crisis, which was known about over a year ago, and now the BAE affair, which was swatted aside during Blair's leadership. How many other problems created by Blair and New Labour will come out of the woodwork - immigration, NHS, Iraq, economy - just take your pick.
Blair of course is OK, because he is raking in millions, in his "celebrity" style retirement.
Posted by: AndyUK | Friday, 11 April 2008 at 11:43 AM
Mind you, I've now read the judgment in full, at
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/714.html
There is not much room for argument, let alone appeal, in that. Not unless the Government reverses its instruction to the judges that they "should base our judgment on the facts alleged by the claimants". The Government therefore implicitly accepts the central allegation, made by The Sunday Times on 10 June 2007: "Bandar (Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz of al-Saud) went into Number 10 and said 'get it stopped' ... Bandar suggested to [Jonathan] Powell [Tony Blair's chief of staff] he knew the SFO were looking at the Swiss accounts - if they didn't stop it, the Typhoon contract was going to be stopped and intelligence and diplomatic relations would be pulled."
Case closed.
Posted by: John Rentoul | Friday, 11 April 2008 at 12:07 PM
"Case closed"? Does that mean you've given up, Mr Rentoul?
If so, why? The SFO/government MUST appeal on this case on any grounds they can find. Terrorists appeal all the time, and often the Human Rights Act sets them free with impunity to continue their murderous ways in our streets.
The SFO (or/and the government) have Human Rights too, surely? And the government has responsibility for the Human Rights of British citizens. Under our democratically elected government we have the right to expect the GOVERNMENT to decide when important international decisions on security - or for that matter - anything, are needed. The government's hands must not be tied by the judiciary.
I'm not going for the jugular on the Human Rights Laws issue - where there seems to be more occasions where it helps out terrorists than everyday Brits as in the two cases the day prior to the SFO case.
Probably just as well. Because today, using the defence of Human Rights, the courts are at it again. This time it IS on behalf of a soldier who died of sunstroke.
Now, before I go on, I am a pro-European. Our incorporation of the Human Rights Act into our law is part of being a good European. In principle, it sounds like a good idea.
But, and here comes the but - only if we are comfortable with ALL of its consequences and only if we understand that in much of the world there are few, if any, human rights. And we are dealing with the rest of the world as regards terrorism and war.
It is quite crazy to sit astride our high horse and turn the other cheek when we are under attack by those with no qualms regarding mass murder. And to use the law to wrap in cotton wool our troops - whose task in this coming decade may well be to save the world from fundamentalist terrorism, is frankly, an insult to our troops.
So for me - it's British law and the judicial system which needs to be sorted; and sorted fast. The law should be on OUR side. If judges cannot see that there ARE times when politicians need to make decisions and allow for it, the law is not sufficiently flexible. It is not for pompous judges to read the law to those who enacted those laws in the first place.
Yes, we are ALL subject to the law. But it is an ass at times. And this SFO judgement, imho, is one of those times.
Complex, politics, isn't it?
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/baesfodeporting-terroristsdemocratic-decay/
Posted by: Blair Supporter | Friday, 11 April 2008 at 12:52 PM
Such safety in the long passage of time. Lessons to be learned again. Lets not get on our moral high horses and condemn our leaders for working in our best interests . . . etc.
Yet another example of political chicanery between the world's political elite, whilst balancing the tightrope of Myth-ethical British trade exports. Who is involved again? Blair (Bliar)--the present Middle East Envoy and ex-attorney general (Lord) Goldsmith! Never mind--the Augean stables may be cleaned out after the horses have long bolted, with a belated and impotent inquiry. Maybe we should have a joint inquiry over these two figures: The Iraq War(and the lost second Resolution option) and corrupt BAE Arms Sales--this would increase the impotency? Never mind again, we're only dealing in degrees of mass destruction (and if we didn't do it, the perfidious French would)--besides, it's making some people very rich.
Posted by: Diogenes | Friday, 11 April 2008 at 01:40 PM
Tony Blair pressurised Lord Goldsmith to stop the SFO continuing with the BAE corruption investigation, just as the Swiss were about to reveal the sixty names involved. It is now widely accepted that Blair and Bush engineered an illegal invasion of Iraq, with appalling consequences.
Tony blair should be held on both accounts, and questioned.
Ivan Rudrum
Posted by: Ivan Rudrum | Friday, 11 April 2008 at 06:33 PM
The question was: how will Brown handle the BAE affair? One expects the answer will be silence, biting of the finger-nails,a wistful look at perhaps attending the Olympics ceremony, but no handling. And definitely no contribution to Blair's Faith Foundation.
Posted by: john problem | Saturday, 12 April 2008 at 08:20 AM
The spineless Rentoul scurries to the defence of his master yet again. Why is Rentoul maintained by the Independent? This isn't journalism - it's just a pack of gutless lies.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Saturday, 12 April 2008 at 10:14 AM