Sponsored by
Nick Clegg: Fight against corruption is crucial for international law
THERE should be no tolerance of corruption or bribery in Britain. Yet this week's House of Lords' judgment in the alleged corruption case against BAE, seems to license just that.
The highest court in the land has ruled that it was acceptable to call off an investigation into BAE's 1980s arms deal – known as Al Yamamah – in the face of apparent threats from the Saudi government to stop cooperating with us in combating terrorism.
This appears to grant carte blanche for international bribery. It suggests that, if a foreign government threatens us, it is acceptable to cave in to their demands.
The real villain of the piece is not, however, Robert Wardle, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who has been found to have acted legally in calling off this investigation. It is those who made the threats, and, crucially, our own Government in putting Mr Wardle in the impossible position of having to respond to them.
The rule of law in Britain cannot depend on the whim of foreign governments. And international cooperation on such vital issues as countering terrorism should not be contingent on anything but the common interest of all countries in defeating the terrorist threat.
So, if the Saudis did choose to make threats against Britain in relation to our national security because of the Al Yamamah investigation, the right thing to do would be to speak out, and expose such threats to international public scrutiny. None of the Saudi government's western allies would have supported them in making such a threat.
The Government chose not to. Instead, it put pressure on Mr Wardle, putting him in an extremely difficult position.
Mr Wardle was, effectively, told that continuing his investigation would put British lives at risk on British streets.
However, there is no evidence that the threats of which Mr Wardle was informed were authentic, or would be followed through.
The truth is that investigations have continued into the alleged BAE scandal in the United States and yet the Saudis are still cooperating with them on terrorism.
In fact, it seems bizarre that the Saudi government would have made the threats at all, given what we know of Saudi-British cooperation on terrorism.
In November 2006, national security adviser Sir Richard Mottram sent a memo, entitled "The Saudi contribution to our domestic and international efforts to combat terrorism", to the Attorney General. It focuses almost entirely on the threat of terrorism to the Saudi rgime itself and the British contribution to helping the Saudis to meet that threat, rather than on any threat of attack in Britain.
The argument of that paper seems to be – though it has been heavily "redacted" to protect secret information – that if co-operation with the Saudis were disrupted, the main risk would be that the Saudi rgime would be more vulnerable to al-Qaida attack, not that there would be immediate mayhem in British cities.
The document prompts the obvious question – why should the Saudis act in a way that threatened to undermine their own rgime? Could the Government have exaggerated the threat in order to put pressure on Mr Wardle?
There is much that remains unknown about the details of this case, shrouded as it is in secrecy. The whole story is still full of obscurities and unexplained events.
But what we do know is that the fight against corruption is crucial to establishing respect for the rule of international law around the globe, and crucial to pushing forward democracy and economic development. And we know that we cannot legitimately seek to eradicate corruption, or even criticise corrupt rgimes abroad unless we do our utmost to be spotless ourselves.
The Government has ruined Britain's reputation on these issues with this messy affair, encouraged corruption from other rgimes,
and undermined the basic principle that everyone – from the poorest
to the richest – is subject to the same laws.
Unless we start repairing the damage immediately, we could find that it is too late, and corruption and bribery have triumphed over progress.
If we are to prevent that from happening, there must be an independent inquiry into the ending of the SFO investigation, investigating not just Mr Wardle's decision but all the information he was presented with by government officials and where that information came from. The UK should cooperate with US investigations into BAE and the Serious Fraud Office should complete its investigation.
We must also make a real, concerted effort to investigate fully all other allegations of corruption. There are ongoing SFO investigations related to British companies' commercial activities in Tanzania, South Africa, Romania and more.
When the Al Yamamah investigation was dropped, we were assured that the other investigations would continue, but 15 months on, there has been no sign of progress, or whisper of a potential prosecution.
Our Government must do everything we can to restore Britain's tarnished global reputation, and make us a world leader in the fight against corruption.
Nick Clegg is leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Sheffield Hallam MP
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
