{"id":68880,"date":"2007-06-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-07T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/06\/07\/cest-bien-le-yamamah-de-la-corruption\/"},"modified":"2007-06-07T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-06-07T00:00:00","slug":"cest-bien-le-yamamah-de-la-corruption","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/06\/07\/cest-bien-le-yamamah-de-la-corruption\/","title":{"rendered":"C’est bien le Yamamah<\/em> de la corruption"},"content":{"rendered":"

De nouvelles r\u00e9v\u00e9lations mettent dans l’embarras le gouvernement britannique et saluent dr\u00f4lement le d\u00e9part du Premier ministre britannique Tony Blair. Elles sont \u00e9videmment du Guardian<\/em> (d’aujourd’hui<\/a>) et portent sur l’in\u00e9puisable feuilleton BAE-Yamamah<\/em>. Le probl\u00e8me est que plus ces r\u00e9v\u00e9lations s’accumulent, plus elles sont graves, plus elles rendent le cas de BAE et de tout ce qui va avec extr\u00eamement d\u00e9licat pour le jour possible, probable ? o\u00f9 tout cela risque de d\u00e9boucher sur une proc\u00e9dure juridique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(L’information vient \u00e9galement de la BBC<\/a>. Elle est reprise par le Financial Times<\/a>, qui termine sobrement son commentaire par ceci : \u00abBAE shares fell 5\u00bep to 432\u00bep in a rising London market early on Thursday.<\/em>\u00bb.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette fois, il s’agit de la mise en cause directe, circonstanci\u00e9e, mesur\u00e9e en $millions (jusqu’\u00e0 $1 milliard !) du puissant prince saoudien Bandar, l’un des hommes-clefs du syst\u00e8me saoudien et l’interlocuteur strat\u00e9gique et affairiste privil\u00e9gi\u00e9 des Britanniques et des Am\u00e9ricains. La plus violente attaque apr\u00e8s ces r\u00e9v\u00e9lations est venue du vice-leader du parti lib\u00e9ral, Vince Cable, qui avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 mis Bandar en cause : \u00abThis is potentially more significant and damaging than anything previously revealed. It is unforgivable if the British government has been actively conniving in under-the-counter payments to a major figure in the Saudi government. There must be a full parliamentary inquiry into whether the government has deceived the public and undermined the anti-corruption legislation which it itself passed through parliament. <\/em>[] It increasingly looks as if the motives behind the decision to pull the SFO inquiry were less to do with UK national interests but more to do with the personal interests of one of two powerful Saudi ministers … Tony Blair’s claims that the government has been motivated by national security considerations look increasingly hollow.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe quotidien britannique donne notamment les pr\u00e9cisions suivantes, qui renforcent l’image d’une situation surr\u00e9aliste par le degr\u00e9 compl\u00e8tement in\u00e9dit de corruption affectant BAE, les contrats Yamamah<\/em> et le gouvernement britannique (et les Saoudiens).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe arms company BAE secretly paid Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia more than \u00a31bn in connection with Britain’s biggest ever weapons contract, it is alleged today.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbA series of payments from the British firm was allegedly channelled through a US bank in Washington to an account controlled by one of the most colourful members of the Saudi ruling clan, who spent 20 years as their ambassador in the US.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIt is claimed that payments of \u00a330m were paid to Prince Bandar every quarter for at least 10 years.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIt is alleged by insider legal sources that the money was paid to Prince Bandar with the knowledge and authorisation of Ministry of Defence officials under the Blair government and its predecessors. For more than 20 years, ministers have claimed they knew nothing of secret commissions, which were outlawed by Britain in 2002.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe fresh allegations may also cause BAE problems in America, where corrupt payments to foreign politicians have been outlawed since 1977.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe allegations of payments to Prince Bandar is bound to ignite fresh controversy over the original deal and the aborted SFO investigation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Saudi diplomat is known to have played a key role with Mrs Thatcher in setting up Britain’s biggest ever series of weapons deals.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 7 juin 2007 \u00e0 13H11<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

De nouvelles r\u00e9v\u00e9lations mettent dans l’embarras le gouvernement britannique et saluent dr\u00f4lement le d\u00e9part du Premier ministre britannique Tony Blair. Elles sont \u00e9videmment du Guardian (d’aujourd’hui) et portent sur l’in\u00e9puisable feuilleton BAE-Yamamah. Le probl\u00e8me est que plus ces r\u00e9v\u00e9lations s’accumulent, plus elles sont graves, plus elles rendent le cas de BAE et de tout ce… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3792,5667,3858,4364],"class_list":["post-68880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bae","tag-bandar","tag-corruption","tag-yamamah"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68880","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=68880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}