The BAE Systems Scandal

[Big Les]

Hey, no problem, I just thought I was losing the plot for a minute there.

Bribes are especially a fact of life in Saudi. When in Rome...

 

[peteweaver]

Les, they may be a fact of life in saudi, but does the British taxpayer have to foot the bill ?

 

[Darat]

Its the scale of the bribes that is scandalous. £1billion pounds, worth of bribes over the years. And a £78 million pound jet, and all expenses paid for it. Unbelievable.

...snip...

But put that in context - wasn't the deal apparently worth something like 43 billion? I've paid agents and the like 10 to 20% of a contracts total worth in the past when they secured a deal so whilst the amount is incredible in terms of percentages it doesn't seem to me to be excessive.

The thing with Bae systems is that not only are they Britains largest arms dealer, they are also heavily tax subsidised.

We have a thing called the export credit guarantee department, which protects UK companies (including arms companies) should the foreign buyer default on payment.

The really interesting thing about this, is whether UK taxpayer's footed the bill for a bribe, which earned a company an arms deal.

As peteweaver alludes to, it is a problem when your gov't (or a company that receieves gov't funds) uses its money (your tax dollars) to pay bribes.

If it becomes OK to pay bribes to foreign officials in order to get contracts then it is not all that far removed from paying bribes to your own gov't's officials in order to get contracts. (actually in the later case at least the money remains within the country )

Les, they may be a fact of life in saudi, but does the British taxpayer have to foot the bill ?

If we want an arms industry, that can develop our own technology and weapons for our own armed forces, we apparently need to do this type of deal because our own armed forces requirements cannot support such research/development/production.

As far as I know BAE did nothing that was illegal (at the time) in the UK or was illegal in SA (and still isn't).

 

[8den]

But put that in context - wasn't the deal apparently worth something like 43 billion? I've paid agents and the like 10 to 20% of a contracts total worth in the past when they secured a deal so whilst the amount is incredible in terms of percentages it doesn't seem to me to be excessive.

Well theres the flip side, British Arms industry jobs are subsidies to an absurd degree, I think, (I'll need to check my Pilger) to the tune of £20,000 per person per year. And the deal is worth £20billion ish. The British Arms industry is one of the most heavily subsidies industries in the UK, protected by the export credit guarantee (basically if the evil dictator renages on the deal the British taxpayer will foot the bill for the poor unfortunate arms dealer)

If we want an arms industry, that can develop our own technology and weapons for our own armed forces, we apparently need to do this type of deal because our own armed forces requirements cannot support such research/development/production.

As far as I know BAE did nothing that was illegal (at the time) in the UK or was illegal in SA (and still isn't).

It may not be illegal but it is immoral. Robin Cook while in opposition said of the arms to Iraq program "this is not just a Government which does not know how to accept blame; it is a Government which knows no shame". His ethical foreign policy did not last long in New Labour government, selling hawks to Indonesia. Now we have Brown muttering about renewing trident, on the grounds we don't know what future decades will bring. It will bring decades more of corporation money flowing to coffers for politicians, while hospitals and schools go wanting, and new missiles gather dust in silos.

Could not the billions spent shoring up the arms industry be better spent in health or education? Could the billion thrown at a Saudi Prince, not be better spent. I'm Irish living in the UK, and frankly I resent the hell out of my taxes going to line the pockets of Saudi Prince, and it's another reason I want to move home and out of this stinking corrupt place.

 

[Darat]

Well theres the flip side, British Arms industry jobs are subsidies to an absurd degree, I think, (I'll need to check my Pilger) to the tune of £20,000 per person per year. And the deal is worth £20billion ish. The British Arms industry is one of the most heavily subsidies industries in the UK, protected by the export credit guarantee (basically if the evil dictator renages on the deal the British taxpayer will foot the bill for the poor unfortunate arms dealer)

I'm quite happy to believe you regarding the amount of subsidy they indirectly get. My posts aren't to defend the arms industry or any indirect subsidies to it but simply to try and put this into some form of context.

And what I see the context being is that for a nation as small as the UK if we want to be able to develop our own military technology (that is effective and competes against the latest from other countries) it has to be subsidised. Now this can be achieved in many ways, one of the ways we seem to have adopted in this country is to make arms deals with many rather unsavoury countries. Therefore we will have to engage in business as it is carried out in those countries - there is no other option if you want to make a deal.

It may not be illegal but it is immoral. Robin Cook while in opposition said of the arms to Iraq program "this is not just a Government which does not know how to accept blame; it is a Government which knows no shame". His ethical foreign policy did not last long in New Labour government, selling hawks to Indonesia. Now we have Brown muttering about renewing trident, on the grounds we don't know what future decades will bring. It will bring decades more of corporation money flowing to coffers for politicians, while hospitals and schools go wanting, and new missiles gather dust in silos.

Could not the billions spent shoring up the arms industry be better spent in health or education? Could the billion thrown at a Saudi Prince, not be better spent. I'm Irish living in the UK, and frankly I resent the hell out of my taxes going to line the pockets of Saudi Prince, and it's another reason I want to move home and out of this stinking corrupt place.

You seem to be against the idea of the UK having a modern and effective armed forces, so is it fair to say that you are against the deal with SA not based on the matter of an alleged "bribe" but from the principle we shouldn't have an arms industry?

 

[Brian Pears]

I'm Irish living in the UK, and frankly I resent the hell out of my taxes going to line the pockets of Saudi Prince, and it's another reason I want to move home and out of this stinking corrupt place.

So you think that Ireland is free of corruption?

http://www.irishcorruption.com/
http://www.transparency.ie/about_cor/default.htm

 

[peteweaver]

I'm quite happy to believe you regarding the amount of subsidy they indirectly get. My posts aren't to defend the arms industry or any indirect subsidies to it but simply to try and put this into some form of context.

And what I see the context being is that for a nation as small as the UK if we want to be able to develop our own military technology (that is effective and competes against the latest from other countries) it has to be subsidised. Now this can be achieved in many ways, one of the ways we seem to have adopted in this country is to make arms deals with many rather unsavoury countries. Therefore we will have to engage in business as it is carried out in those countries - there is no other option if you want to make a deal.





You seem to be against the idea of the UK having a modern and effective armed forces, so is it fair to say that you are against the deal with SA not based on the matter of an alleged "bribe" but from the principle we shouldn't have an arms industry?

8den brought up the issue of Hawks to indonesia, and thats a very important point. In 1997, the Labour Government promised an ethical dimension to its foreign policy. There was evidence even in 1994, that the Indonesian government had been using hawk jets in east timor, journalists had even filmed them flying over Dili. After serious questions about the arms deals to Indonesia, and a temporary suspension of trading weapons to Indonesia, the former foreign secretary Robin Cook made a decision to allow parts for Hawk Jets to be sent there.

In 1997 our government promised to be whiter than white.

Part of being whiter than white, is not selling weapons or parts for weapons to dodgy regimes which have appalling human rights records.

And, if the arms industry is so good for the economy, why does it require so many billions in subsidy ?

8den is right, we'd be far better pouring that money into the NHS.

 

[8den]

So you think that Ireland is free of corruption?

http://www.irishcorruption.com/
http://www.transparency.ie/about_cor/default.htm

Oh good god no! I'm still frankly astonished that the Irish public just elected a Man who claims he didn't have a bank account for two years while he was minister for sodding Finance. Hell the Irish political system is massively corrupt. But [doctor evil]ONE BILLION DOLLARS[/doctor evil] thats just taking the piss.

I'm quite happy to believe you regarding the amount of subsidy they indirectly get. My posts aren't to defend the arms industry or any indirect subsidies to it but simply to try and put this into some form of context.

And what I see the context being is that for a nation as small as the UK if we want to be able to develop our own military technology (that is effective and competes against the latest from other countries) it has to be subsidised. Now this can be achieved in many ways, one of the ways we seem to have adopted in this country is to make arms deals with many rather unsavoury countries. Therefore we will have to engage in business as it is carried out in those countries - there is no other option if you want to make a deal.

Well no I don't believe that Britian needs an arms industry. And it's not independent, hell it's nuclear capacity is entirely dependent on the US. It's frankly the last rattle of jingoistic empire esque attitude. The UK arms industry is Britannia's mid life crisis porsche. It's evident that the UK is faded power with last weeks exposure, that Bush told Blair that he didn't need his help before invading Iraq. The US just admitted that they didn't need to coalition of the willing.

Again I go back to Cook's claim of an "ethical foreign policy", having a ethical foreign policy, and an arms export industry is a oxymoron. It's the hypocracy that sickens me.

You seem to be against the idea of the UK having a modern and effective armed forces, so is it fair to say that you are against the deal with SA not based on the matter of an alleged "bribe" but from the principle we shouldn't have an arms industry?

Does the UK have a modern and effective armed force? Recent reports likened the triage time for UK troops in Afghanistan to that of Vietnam era US troops, up to 7 hours before they got effective medical treatment. UK troops in both theaters have substandard transportation that is not effective protection and lags significantly behind the US. Body armour, is shoddy, and like the US, not readily available. Wounded soldiers fail to recieve effective care and attention when they come home. That last dedicated army hospital has just closed.

If this money was spent, on the promise that it would lead to a "modern and effective" armed force, fine. But it hasn't. It's been squandered providing baubles and trinkets for an already wealthy man.

 

[Big Les]

What Darat said. The BAe "scandal" is a non-issue in the context of the UK arms industry. If you want to argue that we shouldn't have one (because it's not economic, or because symptoms like this are morally disagreeable to you), that's fine, but it's a different issue, and a different argument.

If we want such an industry, we have to engage in deals like this. Simple as.

 

[peteweaver]

What Darat said. The BAe "scandal" is a non-issue in the context of the UK arms industry. If you want to argue that we shouldn't have one (because it's not economic, or because symptoms like this are morally disagreeable to you), that's fine, but it's a different issue, and a different argument.

If we want such an industry, we have to engage in deals like this. Simple as.

If the British taxpayer is to subsidise it, then, there needs to be some kind of scruitiny to make sure the money is not abused.

Why should Saudi Princes be given airbusses at the British taxpayer's expense ?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

8den is right, we'd be far better pouring that money into the NHS.

So would I be right in coming to the conclusion that it isn't the allegation of a bribe that concerns you but the fact we have an arms industry and/or the fact that our arms companies trade with, as I call them, unsavoury regimes?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

It's evident that the UK is faded power with last weeks exposure, that Bush told Blair that he didn't need his help before invading Iraq. The US just admitted that they didn't need to coalition of the willing.

...snip...

The USA has not needed military support from any country for literally decades. (Not that it hasn't sought it either for convenience, cost or political reasons.)

...snip...

...snip...

Does the UK have a modern and effective armed force?

...snip...

By all accounts yes.

 

[8den]

The USA has not needed military support from any country for literally decades. (Not that it hasn't sought it either for convenience, cost or political reasons.)

Precisely. The US did not need, and indeed offered Tony Blair a back door to escape the Iraq folly before it started. This government's hubris, and willingness to ignore mass public objection is why it is in Iraq.

By all accounts yes.

By all accounts, I take it by your snip, you mean "by all accounts, provided you ignore all evidence to the contray"

 

[Darat]

Precisely. The US did not need, and indeed offered Tony Blair a back door to escape the Iraq folly before it started. This government's hubris, and willingness to ignore mass public objection is why it is in Iraq.

Which has what to do with alleged bribes paid to a member of the SA government from the late 1980s onwards?

By all accounts, I take it by your snip, you mean "by all accounts, provided you ignore all evidence to the contray"

No.

 

[peteweaver]

So would I be right in coming to the conclusion that it isn't the allegation of a bribe that concerns you but the fact we have an arms industry and/or the fact that our arms companies trade with, as I call them, unsavoury regimes?

Thats correct, Its not just bribery no, Its the way the UK arms industry operates and the way its subsidised via the taxpayer that concerns me. Its also the hypocrisy of the government which tries to make itself look better than the last lot, but has done exactly the same thing as those it was condemning just 11 years ago.

The UK government also allowed the British owners of Ashok Leyland to sell military trucks to Sudan, which ended up in the hands of the Janjaweed.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmquad/uc873-i/uc87302.htm

This matter was brought up in the minutes of that discussion by a journalist called Mark Thomas, a matter which is also brought up in his recent book "As used on the famous Nelson Mandela, adventures in the arms and torture trade".

 

[Darat]

Thats correct, Its not just bribery no, Its the way the UK arms industry operates and the way its subsidised via the taxpayer that concerns me. Its also the hypocrisy of the government which tries to make itself look better than the last lot, but has done exactly the same thing as those it was condemning just 11 years ago.

The UK government also allowed the British owners of Ashok Leyland to sell military trucks to Sudan, which ended up in the hands of the Janjaweed.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmquad/uc873-i/uc87302.htm

This matter was brought up in the minutes of that discussion by a journalist called Mark Thomas, a matter which is also brought up in his recent book "As used on the famous Nelson Mandela, adventures in the arms and torture trade".

Thanks for making that clear, I have a lot of reservations regarding the arms trade myself but not quite to the same extent as you seem to have.

 

[gumboot]

Does the UK have a modern and effective armed force? Recent reports likened the triage time for UK troops in Afghanistan to that of Vietnam era US troops, up to 7 hours before they got effective medical treatment. UK troops in both theaters have substandard transportation that is not effective protection and lags significantly behind the US. Body armour, is shoddy, and like the US, not readily available. Wounded soldiers fail to recieve effective care and attention when they come home. That last dedicated army hospital has just closed.

If this money was spent, on the promise that it would lead to a "modern and effective" armed force, fine. But it hasn't. It's been squandered providing baubles and trinkets for an already wealthy man.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these claims? I would rate the British Armed Forces, adjusted for scale, to be superior to the US Armed Forces.

By all considerations, the Challenger 2 is comparable with the Abrams, the Warrior is comparable with the Bradley, and the Saxon is superior to the Humvee in terms of protection. The British also have the FV430 series (armoured/tracked), the Pinzgauer (6 or 4 wheeled light skin), and Landrovers.

In terms of air transport, the RAF operates the C-130 which is also the USAF's primary tactical airlift platform, and the C-17 which is also used by the USAF for strategic airlift.

The dusty environment of Afghanistan and Iraq makes helicopters especially vulnerable to brown out - which is the primary cause of aircraft losses. All helicopters are vulnerable to this. You'd have to provide some evidence that the Puma and Merlin are more vulnerable to enemy fire than the Blackhawk, Sea King, and Sea Stallion. Both forces use the Chinook.

Most importantly of all, the British military are much more prepared for urban insurgency warfare, having the benefit of decades of conflict in Northern Ireland to draw on. There's a reason the occupation of Basra went so much more smoothly than the urban centers occupied by Americans.

-Gumboot

 

[8den]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these claims? I would rate the British Armed Forces, adjusted for scale, to be superior to the US Armed Forces.

By all considerations, the Challenger 2 is comparable with the Abrams, the Warrior is comparable with the Bradley, and the Saxon is superior to the Humvee in terms of protection. The British also have the FV430 series (armoured/tracked), the Pinzgauer (6 or 4 wheeled light skin), and Landrovers.

The problem is the standard patrol vechile is the landrover. While the US use the hummer, which is much better protected. The landrover is not armoured, and its not effective. The Challenger as I understand it, was recently exposed to being vunerable to IEDs possibily because insurgents planned to target Prince Harry was being sent to Iraq to operate from one.

In terms of air transport, the RAF operates the C-130 which is also the USAF's primary tactical airlift platform, and the C-17 which is also used by the USAF for strategic airlift.

The dusty environment of Afghanistan and Iraq makes helicopters especially vulnerable to brown out - which is the primary cause of aircraft losses. All helicopters are vulnerable to this. You'd have to provide some evidence that the Puma and Merlin are more vulnerable to enemy fire than the Blackhawk, Sea King, and Sea Stallion. Both forces use the Chinook.

Again not something I argued.

Most importantly of all, the British military are much more prepared for urban insurgency warfare, having the benefit of decades of conflict in Northern Ireland to draw on. There's a reason the occupation of Basra went so much more smoothly than the urban centers occupied by Americans.

-Gumboot

Went, past tense. Okay I'm not a military boffin, but I am Irish and spent a fairly substantial part of childhood in NI in the 80s. I'm no military expert but I do talk to journalists who have been in Iraq over the course of the conflict, and the situation in Iraq is infinitely worse.

As an Irishman, it's difficult to say this, but by the 80s the British army had done an effective job.

Take for example the modification to a range rover

Its RUC but I can remember watching as one drove down the street, back roof open and two soldiers covering either side of the street.

It's design (this is an old one) means its effective aganist rioting, and it's got a grid at the front, that can come down to protect aganist projectiles, gratting and leather mudflaps surrond the vechile, so debry cannot get at it)

The British army adopted it's NI tactics, (foot patrol, no helmets etc) and once things got bad, went back to business as usual. The total death toil from the "troubles" was 3,000. Thats a month in Iraq, the British army quickly dropped its "Its like Belfast but hotter" policy, when the conflict escalted. Speaking to colleague recently back from Basra the other day, was the report that British troops are confined to one base, and only patrol in heavily armed convoys, transportation in and out, is done by helicopter late at night.

I don't think I can match you on military know how, and I don't doubt the British army are an effective fighting force. But whether the are as good as the should be, or as well served by the powers that be. For example how can a billion pounds be found to line the pockets of a prince, but theres none to keep open the last military hospitial in the UK. I said this before, not to mention the appalling triage time for wounded troops. Both armies are struggling to provide body for their troops which is shocking considering the military budgets of the US and UK armies.


Darat I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, I suspect you're older and more cynical than me, hell, back in my twenties I'd have raged aganist this with firebrand fury, now it's just depressingly business as usual.

 

[peteweaver]

This story has just become more interesting. Last night the US Department of Justice Issued BaE systems with a Subpoena about their dealings.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKWLA064220070626

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6239918.stm

Bae systems would not be allowed to divulge any information without the consent of the MoD, and the British government, according to a news programme on BBC radio 2.

This could prove embarrassing for President Bush, as the saudi royal family will be putting pressure on him to get the DoJ to drop their investigation.

 

[Spins]

The Challenger as I understand it, was recently exposed to being vunerable to IEDs possibily because insurgents planned to target Prince Harry was being sent to Iraq to operate from one.

There isn't a main battle tank in the world that is totally invulnerable to IEDs, several M1s have been disabled by such devices in Iraq and crewmen have been lethally wounded in such attacks. A big enough bomb will defeat any armour and any vehicle unfortunately.

Having said that the survivability of both the M1 and Challenger 2 in standard enemy engagements is excellent, one Challenger 2 apparently survived being hit by 70 RPG's near Basra.

In my opinion, along with the Leopard 2, they are easily the best main battle tanks in the world.

Prince Harry was to have four FV107 Scimitar's, not Challenger 2's, under his command as cornet, I think you are making a connection there that doesn't exist.