Notable decliner

The Guardian reports the publication of Transparency International's corruption perceptions index in which the UK was a "notable European decliner", down to 16th place, largely because of the decision to stop the BAE/Saudi bribery investigation.

"The decision to stop the criminal investigation raised acute concerns over the UK's international obligation to combat corruption," Transparency International said.

Don't let it spoil your day or claims of fairness, playing by the rules etc, Gordon.

Less truth comes out

I've just come across a new (and I think unreported) "open" decision by the Information Tribunal, dismissing the Campaign Against Arms Trade's (CAAT) attempt to secure the release of two memorandums of understanding (MoU) relating to the Al Yamamah Saudi Arms deal.

I wrote about the hearing in March on Comment is Free. My main point then was that the government's attempts to save Saudi embarrassment were as counterproductive as the attempts to stop the SFO investigation into bribes paid to Prince Bandar.

The Ministry of Defence has won this case as well but received a kicking in the process. The Tribunal was very critical of the Treasury Solicitor's presentation of evidence, which threw a spanner in its schedule for the hearing:

we hope that in future no Tribunal will be faced with documentation that is not presented properly in a form that can assist its understanding by the Tribunal

The Tribunal was also critical of the government's alleged attempt to secure the permission of the Saudi government to release confidential documents. This appears to have resembled the description put forward by former diplomat Carne Ross, a witness for CAAT:

"In my experience what tends to happen is that the FCO will say
something like:

'There is this awful Tribunal in London that is threatening to release these documents, don't youthink this will be a very bad idea?'

to which the foreign interlocutor is likely to respond:

'Yes, that would be a bad idea, please report that to London.'

The Tribunal observed:

We have had the benefit of considering contemporary documentation in closed session and we are able to say in this open decision that in our view the approach adopted by MoD in consulting the KSA was unsatisfactory. We consider that at the very least it should have been put neutrally to the KSA and that only if KSA asked what was the attitude of MoD should that have been indicated.

The "open" decision is a version of the decision that can be published without giving away secret information, including the information that is in dispute. Surprisingly, the Tribunal made clear that there is no "smoking gun" showing corrupt conduct in the Al-Yamamah deal:

If either MoU revealed evidence of such conduct, we would expect to have attached significant additional weight to the public interest in disclosure, when balancing it against the public interest in maintaining the exemption. However, we have had the advantage of reading the MoU and we can say in this open decision that there is nothing in either of the documents that would support such a conclusion.

Compare that to the Information Commissioner's decision in my latest case on the dossier:

There is therefore a strong public interest in a degree of exposure of the circumstances of the dossier’s production, because that would facilitate public understanding of and participation in the debate about alleged Iraqi weapons capability and intentions, and promote accountability and transparency of the bodies responsible for producing the dossier and for taking decisions on the basis of its contents. The latter point would of course be of even greater significance if there was evidence that the dossier was deliberately manipulated in order to present an exaggerated case for military action, particularly as its intended audience included Parliament itself.

Like the Tribunal, the Commissioner could easily have stated that such evidence is not to be found in the papers, but chose to leave open a strong suggestion that it is.

An international scandal

It's still not clear who won the battle over BAE's payment of bribes to Saudi Prince Bandar. Although the high court has ruled that the director of the Serious Fraud Office had no choice but to drop its investigation in the face of a Saudi threat to withdraw intelligence co-operation, both the UK and Saudi governments must have been massively embarrassed.

On Comment is Free this morning, David Howarth asks whether the whole Saudi threat was cooked-up in the first place.

The Father Ted defence

The Independent reports forthcoming "humiliation" for Britain, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development about to reprimand Britain over the BAE/Saudi corruption case. Meanwhile former CIA officer Robert Baer writes in the Indy that the Saudi's have never given anyone any useful intelligence, in spite of Tony Blair's claim that this would be put at risk. It's worth remembering that MI6 chief John Scarlett refused to sign up to this at the time.

I hadn't realised before, but Saudi Prince Bandar has deployed the Father Ted defence, that the money was just resting in this account:

Bandar claims that the BAE payments weren't a bribe. The money only passed through his accounts and went to various government projects.

Sparing Saudi blushes

The Guardian has another good story today about the MoD, BAE and the Saudis.

I've also done a piece for Comment is Free about the current Information Tribunal case.

Another Blairite jumps

So "Lord" Goldsmith is the latest Blairite to state that he will leave the government with Blair, as if we didn't know that already. Goldsmith represents more than anyone the corruption of the Labour government. He could have stopped British involvement in Iraq by sticking to his guns and re-stating his view that its legality was questionable but he buckled under political pressure. As if that wasn't bad enough, he was at the heart of the decision to stop the BAE/Saudi corruption investigation.

Goldsmith is getting a pretty bad press, with the papers reminding everyone of his misdeeds. Some, including the Guardian and the Telegraph, carry Blair's response. Blair told Goldsmith that he had carried out his role

at all times with integrity and professionalism ... You have shown an unwavering commitment to the importance of the rule of law and human rights.

Of course, this means the opposite of what it says, as most of Blair's words do. What Blair means is, "when I asked you to compromise your integrity in the name of political expediency, war-mongering and corruption, you obliged and I couldn't have done it without you".