Her Majesty's Realpolitik

Here is good news for all corrupt political and military leaders and governments. Now they can engage in financial irregularities and still walk off because it is �in the public interest� of some country to benefit from such behavior.

This is not news published in a newspaper, but a realistic assessment of the British government�s decision to quash the inquiry into a corruption scandal linked with arms sales to Saudi Arabia by the British defense industry.

On December 14, 2006, the British government decided to wrap up the investigation regarding a �20 million slush fund used to bribe the Saudis into buying the BAE systems during the 1990s. London had signed the deal with Riyadh when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was in office. There were also rumors of the involvement of Lady Thatcher�s son. The inquiry was conducted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) under the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act which outlaws such payments.

However, the inquiry was stopped when London was given an ultimatum by Riyadh to quash the investigation within 10 days or risk losing future business with the Kingdom. Since the British defense industry, especially the aerospace industry, would lose potential business from the sale of the Eurofighter, London decided to take the Saudi warning seriously. The Saudis had threatened to cancel all deals and give the Eurofighter business to France instead. Riyadh was unhappy about the British SFO investigating the matter in the Kingdom, which might have exposed the malfeasance of some members of the royal family.

According to British attorney general Lord Goldsmith, the decision to end the inquiry was made �in the wider public interest.� Losing the Eurofighter contract would have meant laying-off people in the arms industry, which would have cost the Labor government its support by the people.

The decision does not come as a surprise. It strengthens the known phenomenon that major weapons manufacturing companies and governments benefit from conflict and crisis. There is no moral justification of selling weapons other than the economic interests of the companies and the countries involved in the business.

Reportedly, there was much jubilation in the BAE and the British defense industry over the decision to abandon the investigation which might have cost billions of pounds and several hundred jobs. In any case, supporting the UK defense industry is part of the British government�s national security agenda as laid down in the documents of its Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). In the financial year 2004/05, London has sold weapons worth �7.14 billion to different countries including a number of African states that are otherwise suffering from poverty and underdevelopment.

Financial considerations have always pushed major weapons producers and suppliers to sell their armament wherever they can. For Britain, it is important to keep its defense industry running, particularly after the turndown in the overall industrialization in the country. The privatization of industry and the emphasis on cutting costs by the private entrepreneurs � which led them to taking most of their manufacturing operations offshore � has resulted in reduction of jobs. A further reduction of jobs, which might occur if London loses the Saudi contract, could be politically and economically costly. The pressure to sell weapons abroad is much greater in Europe than in the US. As compared to America where the defense forces are comparatively large and are the biggest consumers of weapons, European manufacturers have to sell outside to keep the production lines running.

The economic and political compulsion of arms sales is understandable. However, what is not comprehendible is the moral political stance of the British government or all others who then go around judging other countries or leaders on the basis of corruption, lack of democracy or other issues. Why should China, Pakistan, Sudan, Burma or other states punish their leaders or recalcitrant scientists for buying properties abroad or selling weapons or nuclear material to other countries? After all, personal economic compulsions are as important as the national imperative to make money. And even if there is national involvement, financially backward countries need money to buy weapons technology from producing states to keep the boys happy. The cycle of conflict and weapons sales and production goes on merrily to keep the pockets of a handful of people warm.

Skeptics might argue that financial mismanagement of corrupt leaders is harmful for the public because the money looted by these leaders is public money. Similarly, irresponsible scientists or military men harm the world by selling technology which is lethal for mankind. However, looking at the economic debate purely from an economic perspective, it could be argued that even corruption provides an impetus to the economy, especially those developed countries where the money is eventually taken. As for the sale of nuclear technology, what makes this different from the sale of small arms and light weapons or conventional weapons technology? Conventional weapons and small arms and light weapons (SALW) create as much mayhem in politically and economically underdeveloped states as nuclear weapons.

Using some basic arithmetic, it could easily be calculated that SALW have caused greater damage than nuclear technology since the first two atomic weapons were used against Japan in 1945. The use of SALW in poor and fragmented states and societies, especially in Africa, has caused greater number of deaths and destruction than an atom bomb, which, in any case, is employed to deter, not to be actually used.

Nonetheless, major weapons producers in the world, some of whom are also bearers of nuclear technology, have a serious moral issue with proliferation of nuclear technology not because it is harmful for life, but mainly due to the fact that it allows �lesser� powers to challenge the authority and power of bigger or geo-politically more influential countries.

The implications of the British government�s decision to drop the inquiry by its SFO are far-reaching. It basically means that there is no moral premise behind state policies and a recipient can have a lot of influence on the basis of money which can be made available for purchasing dangerous technologies. In any case, there was never any morality behind selling armament and fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The armed forces of the Kingdom, as is obvious from the past experience, do not even have the capacity to defend the country. The weapons acquired, thus, are mainly to bolster the power of the ruling family and to provide it confidence against its own people.

The treatment of Saudi Arabia with kids-gloves by the UK reminds one of similar treatment once given to the Shah�s regime in Iran by the US. Tehran during the 1960s was the recipient of cutting-edge US weapons technology despite the fact that the Shah�s regime could not boast of a good human rights record. All that mattered to Washington at the time was the Iranian king�s ability to pay US dollars for the F-14s he could buy, thus, keeping American aircraft manufacturers afloat.

It is also a fact that post-9/11 there is sufficient information available that has linked influential people in Saudi Arabia with a number of charities which have supported terrorism in the world, especially in the US and the UK. So, then why blame poor foot soldiers for terror, most of who are linked with Pakistan, for carrying out a policy eventually funded by major players? Perhaps, these foot soldiers driven by ideology, might not have volunteered to kill innocent people had it not been for availability of funds that go into financing terrorism and religious seminaries where these young people are inducted.

The British government�s decision to forego the investigation regarding the sale of BAE equipment is not only controversial but is also historic in terms of laying down standards of morality for the world. The crisp and clear message it has sent is that nothing matters as long as the major producers can earn from the deal.

The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not reflect those of DesPardes.com

Have Your Say >

E-mail it to:Articles@despardes.com

The author is an Islamabad-based independent defense analyst. She is also an author of a book on Pakistan�s arms procurement decision-making, and on the military�s economic interests

DesPardesPicks

@ desistore.com
--Quran Ki Azmat Aur Uss Ki Bunyadi Talimaat
--If I Am Assassinated by Z A Bhutto
--Heera Mandi Ki Dar Pardah Saqafat
--Muslim Showers
--Indus Journey by Imran Khan
--Gandhi's Passion -Stanley Wolpert
--More..

@ amazon.com
--Jesus, Last King of Kashmir