US gov may forbid BAE Eurofighter sale to Saudis

[SUBMAN1]

Why are they selling these things to the Saudis anyway??? Crazy.

-S

Brit kit contains significant US tech. Whoops

By Lewis Page → More by this author
Published Friday 18th April 2008 12:20 GMT

A controversial British deal to supply Eurofighter jets to Saudi Arabia may have hit an obstacle. It appears that the Eurofighter - long touted as proof that the UK and its continental partners can make serious combat kit without American help - actually contains significant amounts of US technology, and that Washington may not permit the Saudi sale.


The revelations come in an article in today's Financial Times. It appears that the British government's application to export American tech on 72 Eurofighters to the desert princes is the subject of some debate both among Capitol Hill politicos and at the Departments of State and Justice.


The British part of Eurofighter is produced by global multinational BAE Systems, headquartered in the UK but nowadays with most of its operations overseas - especially in America. BAE is handling the UK-negotiated Saudi Eurofighter sale, and the company has been under investigation by Justice feds since last year following revelations that allegedly corrupt payments to the Saudi Prince Bandar had moved via US banks.


The Bandar payments, totalling more than $1bn - which the Prince insists were completely legitimate - are linked to a previous UK gov/BAE deal with the Saudis dating from the 1980s. This deal - known as al-Yamamah - was being investigated by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) until the end of 2006. At that point the SFO investigation was shut down, effectively on the orders of Tony Blair.


The SFO decision was recently excoriated in damning terms by British judges following a legal review, saying that Blair had "surrendered" in "abject" fashion to terrorism-related threats delivered in person at Downing Street by Prince Bandar - who was "allegedly complicit in the criminal conduct under investigation, and, accordingly, with interests of his own in seeing that the investigation ceased".
Following the Blair surrender, angry SFO investigators leaked the fact that some of Bandar's money had passed from British government accounts (controlled by the former armsbiz-run MoD sales office, DESO) to an American bank. This triggered the ongoing US Justice investigation, with which the British government has completely refused to cooperate.


Now the US State Department needs to decide whether to grant a tech-export licence allowing the British government to permit BAE's proposed sale of (as it turns out) partly-American Eurofighters to the Saudis. US export regs say such licences may be denied where there is "reasonable cause" to believe that the applicant has violated US law.

Clearly, the Justice department believes there is reasonable cause to think US law has been violated by the Bandar payments. Since the money actually came from a British government account, it could be argued that the UK state - rather than BAE as such - was the actor, and thus should be denied the export permit it is asking for.


According to the FT's informants, Justice officials in Washington certainly aren't happy to let State bureaucrats say they are "unaware" of BAE having broken any US laws. This follows requests for clarification by the US attorney-general from senators on the relevant oversight committees.


document.write('\x3Cscript src="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/adj/reg.public_sector.4159/government;cta='+cta+';ctb='+ctb+';ctc='+ctc+';sc= '+sc+';cid='+cid+';'+RegExCats+GetVCs()+'pid='+Reg Id+RegDT+';'+RegKW+'maid='+maid+';test='+test+';pf ='+RegPF+';dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=' + rand + '?" type="text/javascript">\x3C\/script>');
But the State people need to be unaware of American laws broken or they can't OK the sale.


A "senior administration official" hinted to the FT that the Feds' position might shift in the event of Blighty cooperating with them on the al-Yamamah probe. Repeated requests for the SFO's files have thus far been met with obstruction and delay in London.


Meanwhile, the British government faces trouble on the issue at home, as it appears all too likely that the courts will explicitly order the SFO probe re-opened. BAE has said all along that everything it did with relation to the Saudis was in concert with the UK government. Given the fact that BAE more or less controlled DESO until its closure last year, that's probably entirely true. If BAE's dirty-laundry hamper gets opened up, it seems fairly certain that every British administration back to 1985 will be implicated.


All that to one side, today's news at the very least appears to have finally destroyed the concept of "appropriate sovereignty" which underpins the current British Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS). The thinking here is that Blighty will pay increased prices for less-capable military kit made partly in the UK, rather than buying cheaper and better gear from abroad. Equipment such as Eurofighter may cost more and do less, but - so goes the reasoning - at least we won't have to ask the Yanks for tech support all the time.


Except that it turns out we will. So the horrendous extra cost of Eurofighter (and Future Lynx, Type 45, A400M etc etc) looks less and less worthwhile.


Read the FT article here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04...ale_to_saudis/

[Cohaagen]

Lewis Page is a moron, good at very little except reveling in his status as defence industry king-fool No1 having been elevated there by a popular press ever more ignorant of military affairs. He belongs to a certain type of British person who fawns over everything American, and thinks progress can be found in shamelessly aping US practise. Nothing good ever comes from these Yank-lovers. Every article bangs away at the same tedious misguided message - everything produced by the US is fantastic, there's no point in having an indigenous defence industry. BAE (Big And Expensive) might be a bunch of pirates who produce dodgy equipment - though just as much, if not more, blame lies in the lap of Whitehall for their shameful policy of "for but not with" fitting and UOR scrambles - but further entrenching our status as a US supplicant isn't the answer.

For what it's worth, most UK services folk think he's an idiot too, judging by the posts on ARRSE.

We'd be in a much better position if good outfits like Vickers, RO, English Electric, Hawker-Siddley, Cammell Laird, Ferranti, etc. hadn't been melted down like church-roof lead along with their highly-skilled, highly-professional workforces in the 80s and 90s. Thank god Vosper Thornycroft is still on the go.

[Tchocky]

Hmm, Saudi Arabia spends almost 10% of it's GDP on weapons, and they're the biggest purchaser of US arms in the world.
But they're moving away from US weapons, last year they signed a deal to buy Russian helicopters.

Gee, I wonder what's happening here.

EDIT - Perhaps I am too conspiratorial, but the previous investigations and illegal blocking of such investigations don't bolster much confidence in the truth of any part of this deal.

[XabbaRus]

Bascially the US is pissed the UK got the drop and sold 72 Typhoons to the Saudies. The Al Yammah thing was years ago. Should be dropped as a waste of money.

All companies and govt's have slush funds. Just in the UK we are A)Stupid enough to get caught, B) In the name of openess and freedom your dirty laundry can get dug up and aired for all to see and bugger the consequences.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Yeah, those dirty Euros!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Yeah, those dirty Euros!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

I don't support that sale, and I doubt our Congress would support that sale. THe Saudis are not to be trusted. THe Majority of their country hates the US, and they even refuse to buy US products at all, except weapons. One day, you will be fighting the weapons you sold the Saudis if you give it to them now. You can bet on that.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

THe Saudis are not to be trusted. THe Majority of their country hates the US, and they even refuse to buy US products at all, except weapons. One day, you will be fighting the weapons you sold the Saudis if you give it to them now. You can bet on that.

-S

I agree. But we've already sold them AWACs, F-15s, late model AMRAAMs, JDAMs, and M1A2s. We will sell F-35s to the Israelis, perhaps even F-22s. Saudi Arabia will demand the F-35, and there is a decent chance they will get it. I hope our legislators would be smarter than that, but we shall see.

PD

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I agree. But we've already sold them AWACs, F-15s, late model AMRAAMs, JDAMs, and M1A2s. We will sell F-35s to the Israelis, perhaps even F-22s. Saudi Arabia will demand the F-35, and there is a decent chance they will get it. I hope our legislators would be smarter than that, but we shall see.

PD

Yes, all true. Much of the deals was done in response to the Kuwait war '91, and to counter the "Iraqi threat." Now there is Iran being raised as the threat by which one will excuse to sell the Saudis what they want (it already goes like this). Moral of the story: defense policies serve to sell defense goods, and selling defense goods knows neither loyalty nor patriotism. Ergo modern defense policies knows neither loyalty nor patriotism, neither reason nor shame.

So, today's practices are just the logical outcome of defense policies lacking any logic.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes, all true. Much of the deals was done in response to the Kuwait war '91, and to counter the "Iraqi threat." Now there is Iran being raised as the threat by which one will excuse to sell the Saudis what they want (it already goes like this). Moral of the story: defense policies serve to sell defense goods, and selling defense goods knows neither loyalty nor patriotism. Ergo modern defense policies knows neither loyalty nor patriotism, neither reason nor shame.

So, today's practices are just the logical outcome of defense policies lacking any logic.

What! An Islamic country would never attack another Islamic country! They are just all warm fuzzies .

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yes, all true. Much of the deals was done in response to the Kuwait war '91, and to counter the "Iraqi threat." Now there is Iran being raised as the threat by which one will excuse to sell the Saudis what they want (it already goes like this). Moral of the story: defense policies serve to sell defense goods, and selling defense goods knows neither loyalty nor patriotism. Ergo modern defense policies knows neither loyalty nor patriotism, neither reason nor shame.

So, today's practices are just the logical outcome of defense policies lacking any logic.

Well said Skybird. Particularly like the last line.

[Trex]

If this gets blocked, it won't be because the US doesn't trust the Saudi's. As noted, the USA has sold them everything but Hillary's phone number. If it gets blocked, it will be because it's not US-made equipment being sold, but rather that of a competitor; this would give US manufacturers a better chance. The irony of it is that such a move would likely push the Saudi's towards a third source; France and Russia come to mind, just for starters.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

What! An Islamic country would never attack another Islamic country! They are just all warm fuzzies .

Nobody thinks that. The point is we are using it as an excuse to sell our latest and greatest to a regime which everybody knows:

- its populace is very Anti-American
- House of Saud is a deck of cards that WILL fall eventually (very much the same way the Shah did)
- the Saudis have an atrocious human rights record
- a significant anti-government faction is already present in Saudi Arabia

There IS a significant chance that those fancy toys we sell them will be used to kill Americans one day. Yet we continue to build a large chunk of that regime's military for them, in the hope that they will help us out with the Iranians and be very, very nice to us regarding their only resource. Neither of which I see happening presently or in the future. Playing Middle East arms pimp is going to bite us again, just like it did almost thirty years ago.

PD

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

What! An Islamic country would never attack another Islamic country! They are just all warm fuzzies .

You are wrong. Ever heared of the Islamic civil war? The confrontation between Shias and Sunnis, lasting since centuries, is the one thing that totally dominates things in the Middle East, compared to it the Palestinian issue, often in the West focussed on as being the primary issue, is meaningless. And the major powers representing Shias and Sunnis are - the Sunni Arabs of Saudi Arabia, and the Shia Persians of Iran. This old conflict lies behind all of the tension there is. A symptom for it is the Sunni Arab resistence to the Iran-supported Shia Hezbollah in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is NOT a friend of the Hezbollah - they tryx to get rid of it by financing their own Sunni factions and parties and getting Washington to do something about them short of war. You may have noted that the Arabs are remarkaby silent whenever Israel reaches out for the Hezbollah. Israels serves their interests when doing so.

As long as you have this century-old conflict not being settled, you will have neither peace nor order in the region - no matter wjhat becomes of the Palestinians. Almost all Arab nations have made their peace with Israel for the time being, realising that the existence of Israel does not mean a threat to their nations' existence and ruling factions'/leaders' claim for power within their countries.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

Nothing good ever comes from these Yank-lovers. Every article bangs away at the same tedious misguided message - everything produced by the US is fantastic, there's no point in having an indigenous defence industry.

You aren't exactly doing a very good job of rebutting his thesis. An independent defence industry is good, even if it is only independent in a particular sector (say you can build a whole tank or plane by yourself). But when one is not independent even within a particular weapons system, it starts to become a worst of both worlds situation. And if it isn't either cheaper or better (the two together tends to be nearly impossible), than it becomes a jobs program.