{"id":69837,"date":"2008-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/04\/18\/bae-divise-ladministration-bush-state-versus-justice\/"},"modified":"2008-04-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-04-18T00:00:00","slug":"bae-divise-ladministration-bush-state-versus-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2008\/04\/18\/bae-divise-ladministration-bush-state-versus-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"BAE divise l’administration Bush : State versus<\/em> Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le scandale BAE\/Yamamah<\/em> continue son aventure, de rebondissements en rebondissements. Cette fois, apr\u00e8s l’\u00e9pisode juridique<\/a> londonien, on revient \u00e0 Washington avec le Financial Times<\/em> de ce jour<\/a>. Le quotidien londonien nous apprend que le d\u00e9partement de la Justice (DoJ) s’oppose \u00e0 la position du d\u00e9partement d’Etat qui veut autoriser BAE et le gouvernement britannique \u00e0 exporter les technologies US qui se trouvent dans le chasseur Typhoon<\/em>. Il s’agit de l’\u00e9norme march\u00e9 entre BAE et l’Arabie Saoudite portant sur 72 Typhoon<\/em> et un volume de \u00a320 milliards.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abBAE, the British defence company, is the prime contractor to the UK government on the deal. The state department wants to approve it but has encountered resistance from the justice department, according to a senior administration official.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnother US official said the justice department had concerns that approval could hamper an investigation into whether BAE violated US laws by allegedly bribing Saudi officials over a previous arms deal known as Al-Yamamah. BAE has denied any wrongdoing.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tComme l’on voit, le cas est complexe. Le DoJ n’a rien en particulier contre le transfert des technologies US contenues dans le Typhoon<\/em>, dont l’autorisation devrait \u00eatre une formalit\u00e9 pour le Typhoon<\/em> et les Britanniques. Mais il veut disposer d’un levier de pression sur BAE, dans le cadre de l’enqu\u00eate qu’il m\u00e8ne surcette soci\u00e9t\u00e9 depuis juin 2007<\/a>, et sur le gouvernement britannique. Jusqu’ici le DoJ a rencontr\u00e9 beaucoup de r\u00e9ticences britanniques dans son enqu\u00eate.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe senior administration official said that because the US justice department’s investigation was continuing, the justice department did not want the state department to say it was unaware that BAE had broken any laws. Another official said the case was also complicated because the British government, not BAE, was the applicant. The US administration official and a third official said the justice department was annoyed at the lack of co-operation from Britain.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbDavid Manning, former British ambassador to Washington, told the Financial Times in a September interview that Britain would fulfil our obligations to co-operate over the probe. The senior administration official said Washington was hoping Britain would step up its co-operation following the High Court decision.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe Financial Times signale que le Congr\u00e8s suit \u00e9galement l’affaire, avec une lettre envoy\u00e9e en f\u00e9vrier au DoJ par pr\u00e9sident et le chef de l’opposition de la commission des relations ext\u00e9rieures du S\u00e9nat, le d\u00e9mocrate Biden et le r\u00e9publicain Lugar. La lettre insiste pour qu’il n’y ait aucune interf\u00e9rence de l’approbation du transfert de technologies sur l’enqu\u00eate en cours.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDu c\u00f4t\u00e9 officiel US, on reste muet. Du c\u00f4t\u00e9 officiel britannique, on dit que tout se passe bien. Du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de BAE, on n’a rien \u00e0 dire. Le seul constat qu’on peut faire concerne la complexit\u00e9 toujours grandissante du cas BAE, avec toutes les connexions et \u00e9ventuels int\u00e9r\u00eats contraires entre USA et UK, et l’Arabie Saoudite en arri\u00e8re-plan. L’extr\u00eame difficult\u00e9 pour le gouvernement britannique de stopper d\u00e9finitivement cette affaire constitue sans aucun doute un cas tr\u00e8s nouveau dans le monde anglo-saxon des armements. D’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0, les d\u00e9g\u00e2ts sont palpables, notamment en termes d’influence et de r\u00e9putation, comme on peut le voir dans le cas norv\u00e9gien<\/a> vis-\u00e0-vis du JSF.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 18 avril 2008 \u00e0 16H51<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Le scandale BAE\/Yamamah continue son aventure, de rebondissements en rebondissements. Cette fois, apr\u00e8s l’\u00e9pisode juridique londonien, on revient \u00e0 Washington avec le Financial Times de ce jour. Le quotidien londonien nous apprend que le d\u00e9partement de la Justice (DoJ) s’oppose \u00e0 la position du d\u00e9partement d’Etat qui veut autoriser BAE et le gouvernement britannique \u00e0… <\/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":[3259,3792,1235,6640,250,3558,3973,3129,4364],"class_list":["post-69837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-arabie","tag-bae","tag-biden","tag-doj","tag-jsf","tag-saoudite","tag-state","tag-typhoon","tag-yamamah"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69837","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=69837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}