| Almost as surprising, though, as the decision itself has been the muted reaction.
Business and trade unions have united in backing Lord Goldsmith's decision to drop the
Serious Fraud Office's two-year investigation into allegations against BAE Systems,
Britain's foremost defence company. The opposition Conservative party has been largely
silent. Only the Liberal Democrats have protested at the subordination of the rule of law
to Britain's relationship with the Saudi sheikhs. The establishment consensus has been
that the Saudi authorities would have scrapped a multi-billion pound contract to buy
Typhoon fighter planes from BAE. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of jobs would have
been been at risk.
In Whitehall's corridors of power and in company boardrooms alike, suggestions that
Lord Goldsmith should have let the law take its course are met with world-weary groans
that arms deals in that part of the world are always dodgy: "It's the way of the
world, old chap." If British companies had not paid "commissions" to Saudi
princes, the business would have gone to the Americans or, worse, the French.
It should be stressed that BAE Systems has denied the allegation that it operated a
Pounds 60m slush fund in association with the 20-year-old
Al Yamamah arms contract. Lord Goldsmith has voiced doubts as to whether the
investigations would have led to successful prosecutions. Yet surely it was more than a
coincidence that the attorney-general halted them soon after the SFO had gained access to
a number of Saudi bank accounts in Switzerland.
Lord Goldsmith said that commercial considerations had not played any part in his
decision. To have done otherwise would have been to admit a breach of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development's anti-corruption code. Instead, Lord Goldsmith
invoked the broader national interest. He had taken advice from the prime minister, the
foreign and defence secretaries and the intelligence services and concluded that the
investigation jeopardised Britain's national security.
Tony Blair, prime minister, offered elucidation. Britain's relationship with Saudi
Arabia was "vitally important for our country in terms of counter terrorism, in terms
of the broader Middle East, in terms of helping in respect of Israel/Palestine".
Whitehall officials translate this as follows: such was the fury of the Saudi princes at
the possibility of their bank accounts being investigated that their threats went well
beyond the commercial.
As the Financial Times has reported, the Riyadh government said it would withdraw all
co-operation on security, including intelligence-sharing on al-Qaeda, and would downgrade
its embassy in London unless Mr Blair scrapped the inquiry. Since Saudi Arabia was the
main source of finance and Islamist ideology for al-Qaeda, this was a threat taken
seriously.
Yet subverting the rule of law was not the answer. Though this government often seems
to think otherwise, the rule of law stands above any and all individual statutes as the
foundation for freedom and democracy. It gives citizens a vital guarantee of equality
before the law and serves as the bulwark against arbitrary power. It demands the rigorous
separation of executive and judicial decision-making.
All this should be familiar to
Mr Blair and Lord Goldsmith. Both, after all, are lawyers. A recent constitutional
reform act sets out explicitly the government's duty to uphold the rule of law. Yet all it
takes apparently is a threatening missive from Riyadh and such principles are cast aside.
Those impatient of principles should reflect on the supposed realpolitik of Lord
Goldsmith's decision. Britain, it says, is now content to be reliant on a regime so
determined to be spared any embarrassment that it would even withhold information on
al-Qaeda terrorists. How comfortable can any state or government feel in such a
relationship? Not at all.
Perhaps the Saudis were bluffing. Either way, this affair has opened eyes to the nature
of the Riyadh regime.
For Britain, it is a grave strategic error, as well as a shameful retreat from the rule
of law, to buckle before such threats. Mr Blair often says that principle and realism in
foreign policy are two sides of the same coin. He is right. A pity then that he decided
otherwise in this case. |
