Il semblait que la puissance m\u00eame du groupe britannique BAE le mettrait \u00e0 l’abri de querelles trop vives de la part de l’\u00e9difice juridique du syst\u00e8me. Au contraire, le plus remarquable dans les suites du scandale Yamamah<\/a> dont BAE est le principal accus\u00e9 et la d\u00e9cision d’abandon de l’enqu\u00eate du Serious Fraud Office (SFO) contre BAE, le 15 d\u00e9cembre 2006<\/a>, c’est la constance et la pugnacit\u00e9 de l’attaque contre BAE. On croyait que cette affaire serait enterr\u00e9e par cette d\u00e9cision de d\u00e9cembre 2006 dont l’iniquit\u00e9 semblait garantir l’efficacit\u00e9. Il n’en est rien.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tA c\u00f4t\u00e9 de l’attaque de l’OCDE<\/a>, il y a d\u00e9sormais un front am\u00e9ricain contre BAE. Apr\u00e8s le d\u00e9partement de la justice<\/a>, c’est le Congr\u00e8s qui attaque BAE. L’Observer<\/em> annonce aujourd’hui<\/a> que le Congr\u00e8s US veut auditionner les dirigeants de BAE. L’argument est l’annonce par BAE de son intention de racheter la firme US Armor Holdings. Le Congr\u00e8s, qui supervise les transactions de l’industrie d’armement, a \u00e9t\u00e9 pris dans cette affaire d’une pouss\u00e9e de vertu de scrutation qui fait par ailleurs bien l’affaire de ses pr\u00e9occupations politiciennes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abStaff from the foreign affairs committees of the US Senate and House of Representatives are expected to write to<\/em> [BAE Systems], led by chief executive Mike Turner, before the end of the current Congressional session in two weeks to request meetings with executives.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBAE, the sixth-largest contractor to the Pentagon, can expect a rough ride in Congress as it seeks to clear the \u00a32bn purchase of Armor Holdings, the company that makes armour for the Humvee military vehicle, announced last week.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbCongressional aides told The Observer they were briefed on Tuesday by officials from the US State Department on investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into allegations of bribery relating to the \u00a340bn al-Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia, controversially halted in December, and continuing probes into deals with Tanzania, the Czech Republic, South Africa, Chile, Qatar and Romania.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAides were also told that BAE had previously failed to request prior authorisation from the Department of State for the sale of its subsidiary BAE Systems Avionics to Finmeccanica of Italy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbStaff are now considering whether, if allegations of bribery were proved, they could be taken into account by officials examining the Armor Holdings deal. The key body is the committee on foreign investment in the United States (CFIUS).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t() <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbHowever, one aide told The Observer: These ongoing investigations raise the obvious question of whether the Saudi case is an aberration. Is this an aberration or does it speak to a pattern of conduct which would be in fairly flagrant contravention with regard to obligations under the OECD’s charter and British law?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIt raises a further issue of the Armor transaction in the light of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and whether CFIUS would take into account whether there may have been a breach under US law.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBAE est d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment dans une mauvaise passe. Il tombe l\u00e0 dans le redoutable circuit maccarthyste du Congr\u00e8s (les auditions accusatrices), \u00e0 la fois pour son pass\u00e9 anglo-saoudien (Yamamah<\/em>) et pour son pr\u00e9sent am\u00e9ricaniste (acquisition de Armor Holdings), dans un contexte o\u00f9 les exigences de vertu sont consid\u00e9rables. En g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, tous les arrangements sont possibles avec le syst\u00e8me, mais celui-ci a besoin r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement d’une victime sanctificatrice \u00e0 se mettre sous la dent, d’un bouc-\u00e9missaire sur lequel faire peser son besoin d’apparence vertueuse. Celui-l\u00e0, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, d\u00e9guste. BAE pourrait bien en \u00eatre, qui a eu le tort de se faire prendre la main dans le sac puis d’afficher un peu trop d\u00e9daigneusement sa certitude de s’en sortir. En plus, BAE est britannique, ce qui fait bien l’affaire des parlementaires US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’important \u00e0 observer ici est que, subrepticement, sont mises en parall\u00e8le jusqu’\u00e0 une confusion possible l’attaque contre les pratiques jug\u00e9es\/soup\u00e7onn\u00e9es d’\u00eatre frauduleuses de BAE et sa situation aux USA. Le Congr\u00e8s, \u00e0 majorit\u00e9 d\u00e9mocrate, donc empress\u00e9 \u00e0 faire valoir certaines attitudes vertueuses contre les pratiques du pouvoir r\u00e9publicain et de l’establishment<\/em> militaro-industriel, \u00e9tablit un lien pr\u00e9cis entre la r\u00e9putation de BAE et sa politique d’acquisition, son am\u00e9ricanisation. BAE a bien compris cela puisque son porte-parole a soulign\u00e9 que la compagnie avait proc\u00e9d\u00e9 \u00e0 l’acquisition de 15 soci\u00e9t\u00e9s US depuis 2000 sans rencontrer le moindre probl\u00e8me. Il faut un d\u00e9but \u00e0 tout.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 13 mai 2007 \u00e0 08H26<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Il semblait que la puissance m\u00eame du groupe britannique BAE le mettrait \u00e0 l’abri de querelles trop vives de la part de l’\u00e9difice juridique du syst\u00e8me. Au contraire, le plus remarquable dans les suites du scandale Yamamah dont BAE est le principal accus\u00e9 et la d\u00e9cision d’abandon de l’enqu\u00eate du Serious Fraud Office (SFO) contre… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3376,6674,6391,3792,3285,6675,6219,4364],"class_list":["post-68792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-americanisation","tag-armor","tag-audition","tag-bae","tag-congres","tag-holdings","tag-sfo","tag-yamamah"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}