{"id":68900,"date":"2007-06-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-13T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/06\/13\/ce-que-bae-yamamah-mod-nous-revele\/"},"modified":"2007-06-13T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-06-13T00:00:00","slug":"ce-que-bae-yamamah-mod-nous-revele","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/06\/13\/ce-que-bae-yamamah-mod-nous-revele\/","title":{"rendered":"Ce que BAE-Yamamah<\/em> (-MoD) nous r\u00e9v\u00e8le"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le dernier \u00e9pisode ou dernier rebondissement du scandale BAE-Yamamah<\/em> \u00e9claire peu \u00e0 peu les d\u00e9g\u00e2ts caus\u00e9s par cette affaire, et cela dans un processus qui remonte \u00e0 son origine (1985) et donne toute son ampleur historique \u00e0 la chose. Deux articles, aujourd’hui dans le Guardian<\/em> nous donnent la clef de ce nouveau constat.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe premier<\/a> d\u00e9crit la bataille du minist\u00e8re de la d\u00e9fense (MoD) pour emp\u00eacher une quelconque r\u00e9ouverture de l’enqu\u00eate ou une enqu\u00eate nouvelle sur la question. Le MoD \u00e9carte absolument toute indication sur la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 et l’actualit\u00e9 des paiements faits \u00e0 Prince Bandar, par lui-m\u00eame, avec cette explication \u00e9trange, ou lumineuse, et en forme de lapalissade r\u00e9v\u00e9latrice, du ministre lui-m\u00eame : \u00abJe ne vais pas discuter de ces contrats confidentiels pour la raison pr\u00e9cise que cela produirait des cons\u00e9quences que nous ne voulons pas voir se produire.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abDes Browne, the defence secretary, yesterday refused point-blank to say whether his department’s \u00a31bn backdoor payments to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia for arms deals were still continuing. Visibly uneasy and irritated at a lunch with defence journalists, he claimed national security was the reason for his silence.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbHe also refused to say whether he or his predecessors were aware of the payments allegedly processed by MoD officials and wired to an American bank via the arms firm BAE as an integral part of Britain’s biggest arms deal. I am not going to discuss the detail of these confidential contracts for the very reason it would generate the consequences we do not want to generate, he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Liberal Democrats’ leader, Menzies Campbell, last night criticised Mr Browne’s silence. We need a full investigation to determine whether the Ministry of Defence has been directly involved in processing payments to Prince Bandar. The department’s failure to clarify this issue is unacceptable. We need to know whether any payments took place after 2002 and whether they breached anti-corruption legislation. If it appears the law has been broken then it would be a matter for the police.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIf the funds continued past 2002, when Britain outlawed payments by firms to overseas public officials to gain contracts, they might have been contrary to the Blair government’s own much-trumpeted legislation. Jeremy Carver, a lawyer and board member of Transparency International, told BBC Panorama this week: Those payments, on the face of it, are straightforward bribes as defined by the OECD anti-bribery convention … it’s quite plain that he meets the test of who is a foreign official for the purpose of the OECD convention.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe second<\/a> article est un commentaire de Simon Jenkins sur l’affaire. Dans ce cas \u00e9galement, Jenkins se concentre sur le r\u00f4le du MoD comme pourvoyeur et ex\u00e9cutant de la corruption.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abRemember, any government scandal always turns out worse than first it seems. Remember too that if it involves an assertion by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, race to the kitchen and count your spoons.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI thought that little more could be squeezed from the Guardian’s BAE\/Saudi corruption story until the BBC’s revelation on Monday <\/em>[Panorama] that long-denied bribes had actually been countersigned by the Ministry of Defence. Those who jeer at the ethical standards of foreign governments should understand that these officials, were they in Washington, would now be in handcuffs.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

\t\u00bbPanorama revealed that the Ministry of Defence specifically processed, and may still be processing, quarterly invoices for \u00a330m to Bandar. It so happens that the head of the relevant MoD sales unit, Alan Garwood, is a former BAE executive. He reports to Lord Drayson, the arms sales minister, who gave Labour \u00a3500,000 within weeks of being made a life peer in 2004 and described himself as entrepreneur-in-residence at the Said Business School in Oxford. Wafic Said was Bandar’s aide in negotiating al-Yamamah and is assumed to figure among its many beneficiaries. That Blair should have made Drayson political overseer of the Bandar payments cannot be a coincidence.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAs the onion skins peel back, al-Yamamah emerges as not a defence contract at all but a vehicle for financial skimming by rich Saudis (and Britons such as Mark Thatcher). While British governments could argue that before the 1998 convention such payments were legal, that has not been so since and they were specifically outlawed in 2001. Whitehall has been complicit in a colossal, secret and illegal act of bribery to win a grossly inflated contract. That is why Goldsmith had to suppress the SFO inquiry and why BAE dare not let Lord Woolf near the stinking trough. And Blair has the gall to call the press cynical.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe qui est ainsi mis en lumi\u00e8re est le r\u00f4le du MoD dans cette affaire. Le minist\u00e8re joue, depuis 1985, le r\u00f4le de bras arm\u00e9 de BAE, agissant comme une sorte d’interm\u00e9diaire garantissant le flux d’argent vers tous ceux qui sont impliqu\u00e9s, une sorte de factoring<\/em> charg\u00e9 de la bonne ex\u00e9cution des factures. Pour cela, comme le rappelle Jenkins, des hommes directement ou indirectement connect\u00e9s \u00e0 BAE sont install\u00e9s dans la place, au MoD m\u00eame.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPour nous, cela enrichit le tableau de l’affaire qui fait de ce consortium BAE quelque chose d’arch\u00e9typique<\/a> de la globalisation. On comprend que l’activit\u00e9 financi\u00e8re essentielle de la globalisation est la corruption des espaces nationaux qui permet de verrouiller les monopoles hors de toute consid\u00e9ration nationale (c’est-\u00e0-dire les int\u00e9r\u00eats nationaux). Yamamah<\/em> ne profite ni au Royaume-Uni ni \u00e0 la puissance publique (MoD) ; Yamamah<\/em> utilise le Royaume-Uni et la puissance publique au profit d’un establishment<\/em> transnational qui va des Thatcher (Margaret et son fils Mark) \u00e0 Prince Bandar, en passant par diverses c\u00e9l\u00e9brit\u00e9s r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement c\u00e9l\u00e9br\u00e9es pour leurs vertus modernistes et lib\u00e9rales. L’\u00e9difice a \u00e9t\u00e9 parfaitement achev\u00e9 par l’\u00e8re Blair, totalement connect\u00e9e \u00e0 cette structure de corruption, achevant le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne par l’infection du comportement, de la corruption v\u00e9nale \u00e0 la corruption psychologique. Le scandale BAE-Yamamah<\/em>, qu’il faudra d\u00e9sormais d\u00e9signer comme le scandale BAE-Yamamah<\/em>-MoD, est un mod\u00e8le du genre, l’arch\u00e9type de tous les arch\u00e9types, ou, disons, le p\u00e8re de tous les arch\u00e9types.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 13 juin 2007 \u00e0 05H54<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Le dernier \u00e9pisode ou dernier rebondissement du scandale BAE-Yamamah \u00e9claire peu \u00e0 peu les d\u00e9g\u00e2ts caus\u00e9s par cette affaire, et cela dans un processus qui remonte \u00e0 son origine (1985) et donne toute son ampleur historique \u00e0 la chose. Deux articles, aujourd’hui dans le Guardian nous donnent la clef de ce nouveau constat. Le premier… <\/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":[3792,3858,2632,6766,4364],"class_list":["post-68900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bae","tag-corruption","tag-globalisation","tag-mod","tag-yamamah"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68900","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=68900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68900\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}