Money Moral Dilemma

njf_3

This question goes way beyond bribery. What's at stake is whether self-interest should override moral principles. If [BIG IF] you think it should, a) it's justifiable to support dictators like Saddam and condone torture, atrocities and mass murder by those you support as long as you think it happens to be in your interest; b) you have no grounds for arguing against anyone pursuing THEIR self-interest - the world becomes a jungle (which in many respects it is).

Big_O

On the recent kerfuffle on 'Al Yamanah', any payments took place before bribery by British companies was made illegal (This applies to the recent Guardian reports over the 1980s contracts) and were thus perfectly legal if not made using taxpayer money, which is not being suggested.

On bribery for the Eurofighter contract... well, Gulliver/Blair certainly has the legal power to end the investigation under 'National Security' as the Saudis had threatened to stop supplying intelligence on Al-Qaeida. As to whether any bribes were made to win said contract is another matter. BAe claim there weren't any and the 'needless investigation' was threatening the contract, which it was.

As for moral, well... when in Rome...?! I dunno.

Incidentally, normally the unions would make a fuss about about this sort of thing, but I guess (as arms is one of the few thing sthe UK can still manufacture and lead the world on) that they realise too many members' jobs are on the line at BAe, Rolls-Royce, MBDA, Smith's Industries, GKN, Messier-Dowty, Ultra Electronics, Cobbett, Martin Baker, Qinetiq, Refueling Systems, Doncasters', AETC etc....

faverin

mmmm is it wrong to do everything the competition does to win? Ultimately no. We should walk away. Or at least be honest. If bribery is necessary why be embaressed - call it hospitality!

Some thoughts

No, I tell you. No, sir. Corruption charges! Corruption? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulations. That's Milton Friedman. He got a goddamn Nobel Prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the streets. Corruption is why we win. - Syriana

Good luck with the debate- i'm against it but not just now :-)

njf_3

At the risk of straying off-message, it's worth noting that

"Top literary agent Eddie Bell, who handled the Thatcher, Major and Gorbachev memoirs, thinks Mr Blair's advance for his autobiography could be "in the region of £8m"." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6641661.stm)

Which firm has made the advance? Why, it's Harper/Collins, who also handled Major's and Thatcher's memoirs. What a coincidence.

Who owns Harper/Collins? Why, it's Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Times, Sunday Times, Sun, News of the World, Sky etc etc. What a coincidence.

In 2006, the Independent (which has consistently criticised Blair on Iraq)reported that Murdoch was going to offer Blair a senior role in his global media company News Corp. when Blair stood down from office.

Which newspaper did Blair single out in his recent attack on the media, despite having a circulation of less than 200,000? Why, the Independent. What a coincidence.

Along with Iraq, the Saudi arms deal and donations for 'honours' and massive government contracts, it all stinks to high heaven (and it did from the start -remember Bernie Ecclestone?) Gordon Brown is in the same cesspool up to his neck (Private Finance Initiatives was his baby). The only realistic alternative is an ex-PR man (Cameron) who'll say anything to get elected.

If only Martin (Lewis) could / would use his huge popular reach to try and bring about radical political change in this country.

Errata

Imperialism cuts both ways.

Kio

If the Amblish didn't stop to worry at the time about their strong economy getting stronger off the backs of slavery what's going to make them start worrying now about a few greased palms now? The people who make the money will always be ruthless about the way they make it and anyway, the Amblish president is only pretending to care on the advice of his spin doctor. If he really did care, he wouldn't be president.

njf_3

In a previous post, I may have given the impression that it was just the Blair administration that was involved in the murky Saudi arms deal. This, of course, is not the case, as the deal was set up under Thatcher.

To quote the Wikipedia article on Mark Thatcher - remember him? - "Thatcher is alleged by a Saudi dissident, Mohammed al Khilewi, as well as by former Labour MP Tam Dalyell, and The Guardian newspaper, to have received a multimillion-pound commission on the £20,000,000,000 Al Yamamah arms contract with Saudi Arabia, which his mother signed in 1985 as Prime Minister. According to The Guardian, "Sir Mark has always denied receiving this payment or exploiting his mother's connections in business dealings."

Here is what John Simkin says about the background to the deal in a June 7 post at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6382&st=195

[START QUOTE] "The story begins in December 1984 when Margaret Thatcher approached Prince Bandar bin Sultan and asked him to help BAE get a new weapons contract with Saudi Arabia. At the time Bandar was Saudi ambassador to Washington. He was also a close friend of George Bush. [...]

The deal was arranged for the government by Charles Powell, Thatcher’s top political advisor [...]. Charles Powell is the brother of Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff who is currently being investigated for the cash for honours scandal. [...]

In 1985 the Al-Yamamah agreement was signed by Michael Heseltine and Prince Sultan. The deal is worth £45bn to BAE.

In 1989 the National Audit Office started an inquiry into allegations that huge bribes were paid to land Al-Yamamah contract. In 1992 the auditor-general Sir John Bourn agrees to suppress the report after Thatcher claims its publication would upset the Saudis.

In 2001 a whitleblower at the Ministry of Defence claims that a BAE “slush fund” exists. BAE with the help of the MoD manage to cover-up the story. A second whistleblower provides information on the story to the Serious Fraud Office in 2004. The SFO begins an investigation into corruption at BAE. This is significant as in 1999 Blair signed up to OECD anti-corruption agreement. In 2002 the British government followed the US example by making it illegal for corrupt payments to be made to foreign politicians.

Over the next two years the SFO discover a considerable amount of evidence that the BAE had been involved in corrupting politicians from several countries including Saudi Arabia, Chile and South Africa. In 2006 Tony Blair orders the SFO to stop its investigation into Saudi Arabia. The reason is that the SFO is just about to gain access to Swiss accounts thought to have been linked to the Saudi royal family.

However, David Leigh of the Guardian continues to carry out his own investigation. He passed his information to the BBC who will broadcast next Monday details of how since 1985 BAE have given Prince Bandar over £1bn. It is also [to] be made clear that the MoD and government ministers, both Tories and Labour, were aware of these payments." [END QUOTE]

graham06

Having worked in the Middle East for many years I know that the only way to do business is to pay a middle man/agent. That is a requirement for having a trading presence. However the smart companies pay this agent very well and do not ask any questions if he uses some of his fee to grease the wheels of negotiation. This has been the way of doing business in the area for many years and will not change any time soon. So stop the moralising and accept the reallity. All other major trading countries do and turn a perverbial blind eye.

scoder

Pension holidays taken by Anblish companies in the 90's that the Unions were conned into thinking that the money had gone towards financing plant and equipment improvements or perhaps head-hunting high calibre staff, had instead been used by some Lilliptian ponce to buy big boys toys.
:mad:

njf_3

graham06 wrote: »

Having worked in the Middle East for many years I know that the only way to do business is to pay a middle man/agent. That is a requirement for having a trading presence. However the smart companies pay this agent very well and do not ask any questions if he uses some of his fee to grease the wheels of negotiation. This has been the way of doing business in the area for many years and will not change any time soon. So stop the moralising and accept the reallity. All other major trading countries do and turn a perverbial blind eye.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. The results of Western countries propping up and doing arms deals with brutal and corrupt regimes (the Shah in Iran, Saddam in Iraq) that supposedly favour Western interests are plain to see. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers involved in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, as does Bin Laden.