Look Behind the Barbarity in northern Iraq

AS the US and British governments appear to dither about how to help the victims of ISIS barbarity in Iraq and Syria, and whether to step in to the conflict, many people are remarking on the bitter irony that this bloody mess is a result of the West's previous intervention, that is the invasion of Iraq.

They may be right, as far as this goes, but I would ask whether ISIS and the sectarian war it brings to a horrific head is the entirely unintended result of a war and occupation that went wrong, or part of an imperialist policy that succeeded all too well?

We know now that the Iraq war was not aimed at destroying Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction, about which Tony Blair went to such lying lengths. It was not aimed either at stopping a sectarian war in Iraq, which scarcely existed before the invasion and occupation. It was not about "War on Terror", for which Iraq was not the base (aside from the terrorist Mojahideen e Khalq operations against neighbouring Iran, which the US supported). That would seem to leave the popularly believed assumption that it was a war about oil, though not in the sense that the Iraqis were sitting on scarce oil and refusing to sell it (quite the contrary) or even big oil companies had their eye on Iraqi oilfields for profits (though of course they do).

It was the overall US strategy of maintaining its supremacy by controlling as much as possible of the world's energy supplies, and for this destroying any kind of independent development by countries like Iraq.

From the outset there were warnings that the occupiers would follow a divide-and-rule policy, carving up Iraq. To the physical destruction wrought by "Shock and awe" was added the destruction of Iraq as a modern state and the imposition of a confessional constitution modeled on that bequeathed to Lebanon by France, so that religious divisions are given permanence, and scramble for privilege and supremacy. Secular Iraqis, those for whom religious belief or not took second place to progress or patriotism, lost out, as did minorities. As for women, mothers who had been used to their mode of dress being a matter of choice learned from their daughters that going out unveiled could be a fatal risk.

Sectarian gangs could be a cover for death squads targeting not just political opponents but educated Iraqis, thousands of whom - including doctors, teachers, geologists and engineers - were killed or driven into exile, or 'disappeared'. Many Palestinian families in Iraq found themselves refugees for a second time (and since the Syrian war, a third). But would the invaders of Iraq deliberately foment, rather than attempt to contain, sectarian strife?

Watchers had noticed the move to Iraq of British officers with special experience in Northern Ireland. On September 19, 2005, two British Special Forces soldiers dressed in Arab clothes and driving an unmarked car, were captured in Basra. They were reportedly members of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR, and according to British accounts were on a surveillence mission. But the equipment they had with them suggested a more offensive role, and the suspicion raised by Iraqis, and nasty-minded people like me, was that they were posing as terrorists and acting as agent provocateurs, on a mission to plant bombs in a mainly Shi'ite area, a 'false-flag' terrorist attack.

Whatever the truth, the army and the SAS launched an operation to forcibly free its men from the Iraqi police hands, so that they would not give anything away under interrogation or before any court.

On April 1, 2005, the top of the Malwiya minaret in Samarra had been damaged by a bomb. Built in about 850 AD as part of the caliph Al-Mutawakkil's Great Mosque, this minaret is unique, its name 'malwiya' means "snail shell", because it is a hollow conical spiral, looking like some of the pictures one sees of the Biblical Tower of Babel.

Some reports said innsurgents had attacked the tower because U.S. troops had been using it as a lookout position. But Tony Blair in his January 21, 2011 Iraq Inquiry testimony said insurgents had attacked the mosque to incite Sunni-Shiite violence and further destabilize the country.

Another Samarra mosque, al-Askari, was severely damaged by explosives on February 22, 2006 at about 6:44 a.m. The mosque, and shrine of the two imams, Ali al-Hadi and Hassan al-Askari, was one of the holiest sites for Iraqi Shia, and blame focussed immediately on Sunni militants, although as one man from Samarra told me, the city's historic mosques and shrines had long been a source of pride to local people no matter what their religious affiliation or lack of it.

There were also questions such as, how any mere amateurs with home made bombs could have caused such damage to the mosque's thick walls; and how they could have got their explosives into place for what seemed like a skilled demolition job, while evading the US occupiers curfew and patrols.

Nevertheless, the mosque's bombing sparked off violence against Sunnis , with 168 mosques attacked, ten imams killed, and well over 1,000 people killed all told. The normal daily patrols of US coalition forces and Iraqi security forces were temporarily suspended in Baghdad during the few days following the bombing.

Discussing whether outside forces could have been responsible for attacks like those on the Samarra mosques or the many car bombings that have taken civilian lives in Iraq, an Iraqi friend Munir shook his head. " The CIA does not have suicide bombers". I replied: "Maybe not. But the Saudis have". I was not referring to the Saudis' own personnel so much as to those recruited and trained by organisations set up with Saudi money, such as Taliban and al Qaeda.

Even while Tony Blair was warning the Iranian regime against interferance in Iraq (where its influence over the Shia-dominated Iraqi government was an unintended consequence of the US-led invasion), we were seeing reports that most of the armed infiltrators entering Iraq came over the Saudi border. The Saudi ruling family are the allies of our own and US imperialism, and certainly good customers for armaments, as well as generous with backhanders for politicians. But they are also waging their own war for hegemony in the Muslim world, mainly but not exclusively against Iran and Shi'ites. It was with this in mind that Saudi backing propelled the Taliban into power in Afghanistan, But we should not forget either that the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis, like Osama Bin Laden, and according to CIA reports received Saudi money from not just private but government sources.

If there was any doubt whether al Qaeda was involved in the attack on al Askhari mosque, as the Iraqi government alleged, there was no need to question their connection with the outrage on Sunday, October 31,2010, when more than 100 people were taken hostage in an attack on the Our Lady of Salvation Syriac Catholic cathedral in Baghdad,during Sunday evening Mass, and at least 58 people, including children, were killed. The attackers referred to their victims as "infidels", and shouted out allegations about supposed offences committed against Muslims by Christians in Egypt. Witnesses reported that though the gunmen spoke Arabic, they spoke with non-Iraqi accents, even foreign dialect.

The then al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq claimed responsibility.

It may be that the ISIS eruption has got out of hand and has gone further than any of its backers intended

But there are a few questions I would ask, for which I claim no originality or ingenuity:

One, how come that after seeing events like that attack on the Baghdad christian Mass four years ago, the CIA and MI6 and other agencies, with all their experts, and sources of intelligence - human and electronic - were so taken by surprise by what has happened in Mosul and northern Iraq - or at least, their governments were?

Two, remembering all we heard after 9/11 about tracking down sources of aid and weapons to al Qaida etc, how come these governments and agencies, with all their surveillance and hacking into communications and transactions by companies,trade unions, and ordinary individuals like you and me, have seemed unable - or unwilling - to touch the flow of money and resources to the real terrorist groups?

Three, how is it that volunteers from as far afield as Britain, the United States and as I heard the other day,Indonesia, have been able to reach ISIS in landlocked northern Iraq, without its own airport, and not traveling by magic carpet so far as I am aware.

Four - assuming that the ISIS forces' heavy modern military equipment, unusual for a supposed rebel guerrilla force, was all captured (what with, catapults?) who trained them to use it?

It is traditional for the youngest child of the family to ask four questions as part of the Passover ceremony, but if my four seem too simple and obvious to bother answering, I'll add a fifth. Why have they been passed over without being asked, let alone answered, by those clever people we see on TV?

 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/01/baghdad-church-siege-survivors-speak

  http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3286&context=honors_theses

Well fancy that....

BUSINESS AS USUAL for Cameron and friends. Well customers, anyway.


I'VE not commented on the current row over Julian Assange's "diplomatic asylum" or extradition, which has bitterly divided friends, and led cleverer men than me to make fools of themselves.

I don't intend to now.

But moving back from what used to be News of the World territory to world news, I see a friend has posted this item suggesting it is "Why the US intelligence community would like to get its hands on Julian Assange".

I'm not sure if he's right, and anyway it is not news, being almost two years old. But it may remind us that while the US and its allies bombed and invaded two countries killing masses of innocent people in the name of "war on terror", before they ever got to Osama Bin Laden, we heard little about promises to cut off funds to Al Qaida, made after 9/11.

It also underlines the ridiculousness of a US court deciding to blame Iran, itself a target of Al Qaida and its backers, for the attack on the World Trade Centre.

But I am mainly putting it up because of the relevance to more recent attacks on which we have commented, from Mumbai to Mali, and to events in Libya and Syria.

Shocking cable: US says Saudi donors are chief financiers of al Qaeda (via Raw Story

A quick aside in a New York Times article about leaked diplomatic cables is sure to spark renewed interest about the role of the US’ biggest ally in the Gulf supporting terrorism.

In their wide-ranging précis of the leaked cables, Times reporters Scott Shane and Andrew Lehren mention in passing a key detail from one of the diplomatic dispatches: “Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.”

No other details about the cable are provided by the Times. The referenced cable is not linked, and Raw Story has been unable to locate the specific language among additional cables published by The Guardian. (If you find the cable, please email john@rawstory.com).

The admission is stunning, though it has been largely kept from public view, and hasn’t been admitted previously at such a high level. The “Blue Ribbon” Sept. 11, 2001 report noted that al Qaeda had raised money in Saudi Arabia but that no senior officials had provided material support.

Charges that Saudi donors have provided material support for terrorist groups — including Iraqi insurgents — are not new. A detailed Congressional Research Service report in 2007 highlighted repeated instances where Saudis were accused of supporting terrorist groups. The report was titled, “Saudi Arabia: Terrorist Financing Issues.”

“According to the U.S. State Department 2007 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, ‘Saudi donors and unregulated charities have been a major source of financing to extremist and terrorist groups over the past 25 years,’” the report’s authors wrote. “The September 11, 2001 attacks fueled criticisms within the United States of alleged Saudi involvement in terrorism or of Saudi laxity in acting against terrorist groups. The final report released by the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission) indicates that the Commission ‘found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded [Al Qaeda].’ The report also states, however, that Saudi Arabia ‘was a place where Al Qaeda raised money directly from individuals and through charities’ and indicates that ‘charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship’ may have diverted funding to Al Qaeda. U.S. officials remain concerned that Saudis continue to fund Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”

The Congressional Research Service report cautions against concluding that the Saudi monarchy had any direct role in al Qaeda’s financing. It notes that the Saudi government has made “numerous official statements” saying that they are “committed to cooperating with the United States in fighting terrorist financing, pointing out that Saudi Arabia itself is a victim of terrorism and shares the U.S. interest in combating it.”

But it also goes on to lay out claims that individuals in Saudi Arabia have underwritten Iraqi insurgents.

“In October 2004, an unidentified Defense Department official told the press that private Saudi individuals and charities were channeling funds to insurgent groups in Iraq,” the researchers wrote. “Saudi officials vigorously denied the claims and appealed for U.S. officials to provide concrete information in support of the charges so that Saudi authorities could investigate and prosecute any individuals or entities that may have been involved. In December 2004, press reports cited intelligence gathered following U.S. military operations, including the November 2004 assault on Fallujah, which indicated that ‘a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe’ and are channeling it to insurgent groups. In addition, news accounts have quoted insurgent facilitators stating that Saudi young men are particularly valuable to insurgent groups because Saudis provide for their own expenses and often personally finance insurgent operations.”

“A senior U.S. Treasury Department official testified in July 2005 that Saudi individuals may be ‘a significant source’ of financing for the Iraq insurgency,” they add. “The Iraq Study Group report stated that ‘funding for the Sunni insurgency [in Iraq] comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.’ Iraqi officials have called on Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries to do more to restrict financial networks operating in their countries from supporting insurgents in Iraq.”

Muqtedar Khan, Associate Professor of Islam and Global Affairs at the University of Delaware, criticized the Saudi government on the revelation at The Huffington Post, saying that the cables exposed Muslim governments’ hypocrisy.

“The… cables also reveal that even now the main financiers of al Qaeda are Saudi donors,” Khan writes. “American presidents George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama have identified al Qaeda as the biggest threat to the U.S., and yet they collude with the nation whose citizens are its biggest financiers. Why don’t the Saudis cut off the head of the real snake by arresting and imprisoning al Qaeda’s financiers? Most Americans know that fifteen of the nineteen terrorists that attacked the US on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. None were Iranians. A significant number of foreign fighters who joined al Qaeda in Iraq were Saudis. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.”

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1deI9)

Here is how the Guardian reported it:

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton.

"More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said.

Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.

The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

One cable details how the Pakistani militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the 2008 Mumbai attacks, used a Saudi-based front company to fund its activities in 2005.

Meanwhile officials with the LeT's charity wing, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, travelled to Saudi Arabia seeking donations for new schools at vastly inflated costs – then siphoned off the excess money to fund militant operations.

Militants seeking donations often come during the hajj pilgrimage – "a major security loophole since pilgrims often travel with large amounts of cash and the Saudis cannot refuse them entry into Saudi Arabia". Even a small donation can go far: LeT operates on a budget of just $5.25m (£3.25m) a year, according to American estimates.

Saudi officials are often painted as reluctant partners. Clinton complained of the "ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funds emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding


A couple of footnotes on the Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs

MoD drawn into Saudi deal inquiry

TELEGRAPH, August 14

The Ministry of Defence will face questions from the Serious Fraud Office about what it knew of alleged illegal payments made by defence group EADS to smooth the passage of a £2bn contract in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9476251/MoD-drawn-into-Saudi-deal-inquiry.html

U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market

August 27, 2012 1:03 pm

By THOM SHANKER / The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran's regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.

Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals.

The American weapons sales total was an "extraordinary increase" over the $21.4 billion in deals for 2010, the study found, and was the largest single-year sales total in the history of United States arms exports. The previous high was in fiscal year 2009, when American weapons sales overseas totaled nearly $31 billion.

A worldwide economic decline had suppressed arms sales over recent years. But increasing tensions with Iran drove a set of Persian Gulf nations -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman -- to purchase American weapons at record levels.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/us-arms-sales-make-up-most-of-global-market-650724/?print=1

And another angle,

http://palestinianpundit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/david-camerons-saudi-arabia-visit-sits.html

For those we don't hear about

WITH British TV news leading on whether some Muslim cleric should be deported to Jordan, and some people much concerned for the freedom of the Iranian government-sponsored Press TV, I thought we should devote a bit of space to some more deserving cases that have not had so much attention.

First, as reported by JNews among other campaigners or alternative media, tomorrow is day 60 of Khader Adnan's hunger-strike, which he started on 18 December 2011 in protest against his administrative detention (internment without trial) and the humiliating conditions of his interrogation by Israeli forces.

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) is among those worried.

"Khader's condition is deteriorating. PHR-I's doctor, who visited him in hospital yesterday, said 'the clock is ticking'. At this stage, even if he stops his fast, re-feeding will be a highly complex medical procedure.

"Yesterday, 13 February, the Israeli military court of appeals rejected an appeal against Khader's detention and ordered him to complete the full four months imposed on him, until 8 May 2012".

That is four months without trial, so far.

"This is the longest hunger strike by a Palestinian detainee. For comparison, IRA Long Kesh prisoner Bobby Sands died after 66 days on hunger strike in 1981.

"In solidarity with Khader's act, dozens of other Palestinians - detainees, prisoners and others - have embarked on parallel hunger strikes. One hunger-striker who is refusing both food and fluids is known to be hospitalised in Soroka hospital in the south of Israel".

JNews says there have been several demos for Khader outside Ofer prison in the Occupied Palestinian territories and in Ramallah. Yesterday there were demos in Haifa, Tel Aviv and London, There is also a demo tomorrow in Glasgow, http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhttps://www.facebook.com/events/271653449570614/ .

it also notes: "Questions have been raised in several EU MS parliaments, and some Member States have raised the issue with the Israeli government, so far with no results. There has been little mainstream media coverage of this story".
http://www.jnews.org.uk/news


Perhaps someone has told the BBC that the Israelis are using "Emergency" Laws inherited from the British mandate to permit administrative detention. All the same that is no excuse, either for the Israelis doing it, or the British media failing to cover it.

Now to how freedom is faring in a British Commonwealth country and in Britain's best Middle East arms customer and ally. This comes from some Middle East human rights campaigners:

On 12 February, Malaysian police deported 23 year old Saudi columnist Hamza Kashgari, who fled Saudi Arabia after making comments on Twitter claimed by some to be "insulting" to the prophet Muhammad. There have been widespread calls from Islamists for his execution; in Saudi Arabia, blasphemy is punishable by death.

Theocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia will not tolerate the most basic freedom of thought and expression. We defend the right of everyone in the world to freely express their views, including to criticise religion. We condemn the Malaysian government for detaining Kashgari who had fled the country and handing him over to the Saudi authorities. We are also concerned to learn of reports that INTERPOL may have promulgated a Saudi government warrant for his arrest. The implications of this mean that no asylum seeker or refugee is free from persecution even after having fled.

We demand that the Saudi authorities immediately and unconditionally release Kashgari. He has not committed any crime.

To support the campaign, please sign the petition:
http://www.change.org/petitions/saudi-government-interpol-and-malaysian-government-freedom-for-hamza-kashgari

Perhaps Baroness Varsi and David Cameron will find time from defending our freedom against "militant secularists" to uphold it against religious fanatics with whose regimes they might have some influence? Not that I'm holding my breath.

Lastly, while rights campaigners and trade unionists in Bahrain were battling riot police and tear gas today, under a regime armed by Britain and backed by the Saudis, a reminder that they are caught between two reactionary states either side of the Gulf, neither of which represents freedom. This comes from Hands Off the People of Iran (HOPI), which campaigns both against the Islamicist regime and the threat of imperialist intervention.

Bina Darabzand, a leading member of the Consistency Committee to Establish Workers’ Organizations in Iran, and his son Oktai, a journalist and blogger, have recently fled Iran due to threats by the Islamic Republic regime against their lives and security. They have sought refugee status in Turkey; however, they remain under pressure from the Turkish authorities to return to Iran. Given the serious and continuing risk to their lives, we urge UNHCR to expedite the processing of their cases, grant them refugee status as a matter of urgency, and quickly facilitate their resettlement to a safe third country.

Bina Darabzand
Bina Darabzand is a prominent activist who has been politically active from the age of 15, first against the Shah’s dictatorship, and then against the Islamic Republic regime. In addition to being a leading member of the Consistency Committee to Establish Workers’ Organizations in Iran, he has also re-started his political blog, http://salam-democrat.com.

Numerous labor activists with the Consistency Committee to Establish Workers’ Organizations in Iran have faced persecution and imprisonment for exercising their fundamental rights to organize, and for demanding workers’ rights, including unpaid back wages, fair pay, and benefits. Behnam Ebrahimzadeh, a member of the same Committee, is a political prisoner serving a 20-year sentence for his membership in this organization. Nearly all members of the Committee to Establish Workers’ Organizations have been arrested, beaten, or persecuted by regime authorities in Iran including Shahrokh Zamani and Muhammad Jarahi, who are now serving 11- and 10-year prison sentences, respectively, in Tabriz Prison. Others have been released temporarily and only on the basis of having paid multiple hundreds of millions Tomans in bail.

Oktai Darabzand
Bina’s son, Oktai Darabzand, is a journalist with a focus on political and human rights issues. Six years ago, Oktai established a weblog called “Aseman Daily News,” which published the news of political prisoners from jail as well as other human rights violations by the Islamic Republic regime. The blog also included social, economic, and foreign news sections. Journalists and bloggers covering human rights news in Iran are routinely persecuted, tortured, sentenced to lengthy prison terms, and even sentenced to execution in Iran; Reporters Without Borders provides an overview of the risk faced by such journalists and bloggers in Iran (link).

During the 2009 uprising, Oktai’s weblog was blocked on the orders of the Judicial Power. Immediately, with funding from his father, Oktai opened a website with the same name (http://asemandailynews.com), continuing with his activities.

However, in April of 2011, Oktai’s website was designated by the regime as “a PMOI site.” Many members of PMOI (Peoples’ Mojahedin of Irani, or Mojahedin-e Khalgh) – and those accused of affiliation – are condemned to brutally harsh prison sentences and execution. Jafar Kazemi, Ali Saremi, and Mohammad Ali Haj Aghaei are only 3 recent and well-known examples of those accused of PMOI membership who have been executed on that basis.

Although Oktai has no political affiliation or contact with any organized group; however, because of his journalistic activities, and because the Islamic Republic has designated his site as being affiliated with PMOI, his life is at clear and unquestionable risk in Iran.

Situation in Turkey
Bina and Oktai entered Turkey and registered with the UNHCR. However, they were soon informed by the Ankara Police (Foreign Citizens Bureau) that the Turkish Ministry refused to recognize their status as asylum-seekers; they were given until 8 February 2012 to leave Turkey and return to Iran. Thanks to pressure from Iranian and European supporters, UNHCR accelerated the interview process and contactedhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif the Turkish Interior Ministry and Police, requesting that they respect Bina and Oktai’s status as asylum-seekers whose case is pending review.

The Turkish police demonstrated their anger at the pressure that had been exerted on them to accept the Darabzand’s appeal. Ultimately, Bina and Oktai were required to leave Ankara and go to a small town that has no facilities, not even a bus terminal, 3 hours from any city. They are to wait for a response from UNHCR there, but they remain at elevated risk of deportation at any moment. Should they be illegally deported to Iran by the Turkish authorities, not only would they face certain imprisonment and torture, but both of their lives would be at risk.

For more information and how to protest:
http://hopoi.org/?p=1960

Keep an eye on Saudi hand

NOT having been invited to next Friday's Royal nuptials, and spared the worry of purchasing a present (though I've had a tax increase to help cover the drinks bill), I had not been paying due attention to the guest list. So I'm grateful to a friend who notes that among those personally invited by HM the Queen are:

"The Crown Prince of Bahrain, The Sultan of Brunei and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Hajah Saleha, Sheikh Ahmad Hmoud Al-Sabah of Kuwait, Sayyid Haitham bin Tariq Al Said of Oman, The Emir of The State of Qatar and Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned, Prince Mohamed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia and Princess Fadwa bint Khalid bin Abdullah bin Abdulrahman, The Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi."

Good to see that our rulers are looking after Britain's arms customers, besides which the wedding will serve as a reunion for the Sandhurst old boys.

I was wondering back in March whether the Windsors would feel they had to invite Saif al Islam Gaddafi, who is said to have got along fine with Prince Andrew when they met a couple of years ago, http://randompottins.blogspot.com/2011/03/who-courted-colonel-and-colonels-son.html
Saif and Andrew are, you might say, both interns, in the prince's case gaining work experience with the Department of Trade, so perhaps unfairly criticised for making friendship serve sales.

But the Gaddafi regime is a brutal dictatorship suppressing its own people, whereas the Crown Prince of Bahrain ...has let the Saudis in to help do that job. The use of helicopter gunships to shoot down unarmed demonstrators in Bahrain has not brought any 'no fly zone' to protect its people, nor resulted in the coverage given Libya, but it has been reported that the Crown Prince diplomatically declined his invitation to the wedding, to spare Prince William the embarrassment of demonstrations outside Buck House. Or worse ...? Still, the Saudis are coming.

By sending its tanks over the causeway into Bahrain, the Saudi regime has shown its hand, dispelling any notion its rulers are only interested in enjoying their oil wealth, or their armed forces merely a source of bribery-acquired contracts and backhanders for British Aerospace etc. The Bahraini monarch Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa was reported to have declined the offer of Saudi tanks at first, but now he has reportedly allowed the Saudis to virtually take over Bahrain's defence.The Saudi king's Sandhurst-trained son Prince Mutaib has been confirmed as commander of Saudi and Gulf Co-ordination Council forces sent into Bahrain.

The Israeli DEBKA-net website, a well-informed, presumably Mossad-run, source of disinformation claims the secret pact between Riyadh and Manama makes Bahrain the fourteenth province of Saudi Arabia, though its al-Khalifa family will remain nominally in charge, with the same privileges as a Saudi royal. It says the Saudis would acquire a naval base on the Bahraini coast, confronting Iran, though this would be duplicating the existing American base. We can guess that the Israelis want to stir up trouble between Saudi Arabia and Iran, but this antagonism is already there and needs little encouragement.

Iranian leaders have spoken out for the people being suppressed in Bahrain, where a Sh'ite majority has long been discriminated against by the Sunni rulers, though the recent demonstrations were not exclusively Sh'ite. The Saudi rulers are worried that the movement in Bahrain will encourage Saudi Arabia's two million strong Shi'ite minority to fight for their rights, undermining the Saudi throne.

The Saudi regime is not only Sunni, but Wahabbi, resting its authority on a form of Islam which is strictly conservative and militantly sectarian, treating other Muslims, let alone other faiths, as heretics and infidels. This has not prevented it providing bases and being an ally, if sometimes an awkward one, for the United States. When US forces were sent in during the first war with Iraq, the service personnel were advised to hide any crucifixes, stars of David or prayer books so as not to offend the guardians of the Holy Places. Western businessmen have managed alright with this strict regime, but Filipino migrant workers have been punished when caught celebrating Christmas.

So long as there is good money to be made from Saudi oil, and from supplying the Saudis with weapons, it is a fair guess the US and Britain will not have any plans yet for regime change in Saudi Arabia.

Whatever we may suspect about the piety or private lives of the Saudi rulers, they have large amounts of money for exporting the faith, patronising mosques and schools in other countries, and they don't stick to prayer and persuasion. That is a sword beneath the shahada, or declaration of faith, on the Saudi flag, even if it is meant to be the sword of "justice". It was Saudi money that backed the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, and while imperialist mouthpieces like Tony Blair were sternly accusing the Iranians of causing trouble in Iraq it was reported that most armed infiltrators were coming over the Saudi border. There followed a sectarian war the like of which Iraqis had not experienced, and there has been continued harassment and terror against Iraqi Christians.

The elusive Osama Bin Laden and al Qaida, with which so many terror attacks are linked by governments and media, started off from Saudi Arabia. Saudi money and backing, official or not (and it is hard to imagine the Saudi government liberally allowing independent political or religious groups to operate freely) has been behind jihadi groups making a nuisance of themselves in Bosnia, and indirectly (through Pakistani intelligence) in turning the Kashmiri freedom struggle into a murderous religious war. There has also been Saudi interference destabilising the country and stirring conflict in Yemen.

Against such background it does not take too much of an intuitive leap to wonder about a possible link between Saudi Wahhabis and the ideologically-linked Salafis who have turned up in Gaza, where they accuse Hamas of being too lax in imposing Islamic law, and have been held responsible for the murder of internationalist volunteer Vittorio Arrigoni.

Real though the mass insurgencies taking place through the Arab world are, there is also a scarcely hidden war going on beneath the surface between Saudi and Iranian influence. There is also a pact of sorts, however much they may hate and despise each other, between the Saudis and Israeli Zionists. Talking with an Iraqi friend some while back about who was to blame for some terror bombings in his country, he differed with some of his fellow-country people who blamed the occupiers. As he said, "the Americans don't have suicide bombers". He was probably right. "But the Saudis might do." I said. Similarly we can suspect that if Mossad, however devious, finds it hard to recruit deluded Muslim fanatics to fulfil its purposes, someone in Saudi intelligence may know just the men for the job.

On March 31 the Iranian majlis security and foreign affairs committee warned "Saudi Arabia knows better than any other country that playing with fire in the sensitive Persian Gulf region is not in their interests,"
On Saturday, April 2, Iraq's Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki criticised US Middle East policy as discriminating among the popular movements in motion against different Arab regimes (obviously not counting his own): "Whatever decision is made on Libya should be applied to any government that suppresses its people with iron and fire," he said.

The following day the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council held a special foreign ministers' meeting. It passed a resolution which "severely condemned Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Bahrain in violation of international pacts."

Those who were counting on either the United States or Israel to go to war with Iran are now wondering whether Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah might be given the honour of at least kicking off. Saudi is nearer, and unlike an Israeli attack its action would be less likely to bring the Muslim world to the Iranian side. If the Saudis get into difficulty the Obama administration could always try Anthony Eden's ploy at Suez and claim it was going in to separate the "warring sides". '

King Abdullah is reported to have privately told visiting US officials that he felt the US had thrown Mubarak to the wolves, and was backing unrest in the Arab world. In public, of course, he and the GCC supported the so-called no-fly zone over Libya, to protect the rebels, and there is likely to be Saudi support for some of those opposing the regime in Syria, which has angered the Israeli government by welcoming two Iranian warships that had been allowed through Suez when Israel wanted them stopped.

On Monday, April 18, the GCC foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council, asked the UN Security Council to take action for stopping Iran's "provocative interference in their countries' domestic affairs," saying this "flagrant interference" posed a "grave security to, and risked flaring up sectarian strife, in the GCC countries." The resolution went on to state: "The GCC will not hesitate to adopt whatever measures and policies they deem necessary vis-à-vis the foreign interferences in their internal affairs."

That sounds like war.

Iran, meanwhile, which has the advantage of manpower, has used the Basijj volunteer corps to stage student demonstrations with stones and the odd firebomb at the Saudi embassy in Teheran. Iran's Foreign Ministry also summoned the Pakistani charge d'affaires on April 16 to warn against the recruitment of Pakistanis attracted more by good money than faith to serve in military operation in support of the Bahraini king.

On Monday, April 18, Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa announced that Saudi and allied GCC troops would stay in the kingdom until Iran no longer poses a menace. "Gulf force is needed to counter a sustained campaign by Iran in Bahrain," he said.

While the Saudis and their allies are beset by fears of Shi'ite unrest and banned incoming flights to Bahrain from Lebanon and elsewhere, the Iranian regime is once again coping with national minorities in the only way it knows. It has had trouble with Baluchis and Kurds, and now it is the Arabs in Khuzestan, south-west Iran whom it has to fear. On April 11-12 there was trouble at Ahwaz and government forces killed at least 15 demonstrators before cutting off Ahwaz's links with the outside world. The Iranian regime accuses Saudi and United Arab Emirates agents of causing the trouble. It may be remembered that it was supposedly on behalf of the Khuzestan Arabs that Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, and the regime must fear the possibility of unrest and repression there undermining its good relations with the current regime in Iraq.

It was reported yesterday that the Iranian government is sealing its borders to counter "terrorist" infiltration in three regions.

Meanwhile on another front the Saudis and their allies in the Gulf have reportedly warned the US that the Iranian nuclear plant at Busheyr could be the site of an even bigger calamity than the Fukushima disaster in Japan, polluting several countries around it. That seems to step away from the argument over whether the plant has a military capability. But the Saudis are also reported to be shopping for missiles with a nuclear capacity.

Dr.Qaradawi says...

THESE are difficult times for anyone who tries to understand the Middle East in simple terms and wants to know which are the goodies and baddies, and whether all insurrections are the same. Watching some of the heated polemics between friends in a small corner of the British Left you'd fear the Libyan civil war was about to spread to our streets. Fortunately, my inside information is that it won't go beyond abusive words exchanged in the University of London Union bar and on Facebook.

Unfortunately though I've heard occasional reference to "the Libyan working class" as a theoretical concept, nobody either side of the argument has come up with a word from a Libyan worker.

Meanwhile, we may turn for possible guidance to a man of the cloth. A Dr.Qaradawi from Egypt says that the people who demonstrated in Bahrain, where the authorities are now cracking down on trade unions and sacking union members, deserve no backing because their movement is "sectarian" (he presumably means Shi'ite, though in fact the evidence is the struggle has support across the religious, if not the social divide).

But Dr.Qaradawi supports the rebels in Libya, and what's more, issued a fatwa calling for the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi. I don't know whether SAS or Green Beret forces sent in to Libya as "advisers" will be able to claim the prize. In any case, other Muslims, even those opposed to Gaddafi question what right Dr.Qaradawi has to go issuing fatwas.

I might have to ask Ken Livingstone, who once upon a time received a little Libyan help (via my old firm), but in his job as Mayor of London entertained Dr.Qaradawi to tea for his advice on matters theological. These are difficult times for testing our loyalties.

http://www.debka.com/article/20817/
http://www1.albawaba.com/main-headlines/al-qaradawi-says-bahrain-events-are-sectarian-revolution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/17/bahrain-king-royal-wedding
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8391896/Royal-Wedding-King-of-Bahrain-rejects-invitation-from-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/173396.html

No nukes would be good news

Asians in London demonstrate against India-Pakistan nuclear weapon sparring. Nice to hear statesmen also worried.

SO LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE WHISTLE BLOWERS

I WASN'T expecting too many startling stories from the latest Wikileaks exposures, and so I haven't been disappointed. I am pleased to hear US and British leaders have been worried, as they ought to be, about who might get their hand on Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and at the dangers of a nuclear flare-up between India and Pakistan.

It might have been better if they had done something to stop either of these Asian states acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place.

I am not surprised to read that the Saudi rulers, who have waged a proxy war against Iran in the guise of sectarian killings on Iraqi streets, just as they assisted the Taliban in Afghanistan, should have been urging the United States to move from sanctions to open war on Iran, using the pretext of its nuclear programme. Only last year first the Saudis and then the Israelis were, like embarrassed lovers caught snogging, denying reports of an agreement by which Israeli planes could cross Saudi airspace to attack Iran.

It is evident from some of the leaked documents that both the Israeli military and some Arab regimes are at least as concerned about what the Saudis call "Iranian meddling" in the Middle East, its influence in places like Lebanon and Gaza, as over its real or pretended nuclear threat.

Meanwhile, of course, they reserve the right to meddle themselves, whether through Mossad's activities in Iran or Saudi preference for a military dictatorship in Pakistan.

Some of the leaks may amuse, such as the undiplomatic comments on the behaviour of British royals, or the Russian leaders' resembling Batman and Robin, or the Pakistan government allegedly trousering $26 million intended for barbed wire and protection against a feared Taliban air attack. Were they overestimating Saudi aid to the Taliban (where did they put those planes from British Aerospace?), or since the Afghans might not have an airfield among their mountains, expecting a raid by flying carpet (eastern Vertical Take Off)?

More seriously, some leaks may do some good, as in the denunciation of Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa as a war criminal, which has led to cancellation of his visit to the Oxford Union (not as a criminal but because Thames Valley police could not guarantee security), and embarrassment for Tory Defence Secretary Liam Fox who was keen to do business with him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-pakistan-nuclear-fears
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/saudis-distrust-pakistan-embassy-cables
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/america-pakistan-barbed-wire-bill


Whatever doubts I might have had about the documents and those leaking them have been settled for now by the response of America's desperate and dangerous loony party. Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has called for whoever leaked the 250,000 US diplomatic cables to be executed. His fellow potential Republican nominee, Sarah Palin, anxious that the average American voter should remain almost as ignorant as she is, wanted Wikileaks founder Julian Assange "hunted down". (Swedish and British police seem to be finding reasons to comply with this wish)

"And anyone who had access to that level of information was not only a person who understood what their rules were, but they also signed, under oath, a commitment that they would not violate. They did", says Huckerbee " … Any lives they endangered, they're personally responsible for and the blood is on their hands."

And what about the lives they may have saved?

Bradley Manning, a 23-year old army intelligence analyst has been charged with transferring classified data and delivering national defence information to an unauthorised source. He faces a court martial and up to 52 years in prison.

Kathleen McFarland, who served in the Pentagon under the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, and now works for Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, says "It's time to up the charges. .. Let's charge him and try him for treason. If he is found guilty, he should be executed." Not bad from a 'news' organisation noted here for jingoism, tax evasion and using illegal means such as telephone hacking to spy on people.

Seems the colonies are getting in on the act. Tom Flanagan, a senior adviser to Canada's Tory prime minister, Stephen Harper, issued a 'fatwa' on Canuck TV: "I think Assange should be assassinated, actually," he said. "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something." Flanagan chuckled as he made the comment but did not retract it when questioned, adding: "I wouldn't feel unhappy if Assange does disappear."

Funny, that's what a lot of people, including Canadians I know, feel about the Harper government and its advisers.

But when the patriots have finished going on about "American blood" (as distinct from other brands, which they don't mind shedding), and the jokers have finished chuckling about contract killings, other people may feel that we owe the whistle blowers a debt. So much of this official secrecy, in "the Land of the Free" or anywhere else, is nothing to do with saving the lives of services personnel let alone the public, and all about saving embarrassment to politicians and exposure of racketeers.

Here in the homeland of the "mother of all parliaments" we have seen how we were lied to, to get us into war with Iraq. If we are going to be dragged into more bloody messes like that in Afghanistan, or expected to vote for those who commit crimes in our name, we have a right to know what's really happening.

One man who did what he could to alert people to the dangers he saw, and did eighteen years for it, mostly in solitary, is Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu. As he wrote in a poem from prison, "I am your spy". Vanunu is still prevented from travelling and punished for speaking to foreigners.

VANUNU . "I am YOUR spy".
http://www.toysatellite.org/babel/vanunu/poem.html

Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate, and Gerry Grehan, Chair of the Peace People, Northern Ireland, have written to President Barak Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, other world leaders and prominent personalities, to ask for their help in obtaining the lifting of all restrictions on Mordechai Vanunu and for him to be granted freedom to leave Israel.

"We are appealing to you on behalf of a good man, a man of peace and conscience, who was returned to prison for three months on 23 May 2010. He was released from prison on Sunday 8 August 2010. We need your support to help gain his freedom from Israel.

"He is Mordechai Vanunu the Israeli nuclear whistle blower. In October l986, Vanunu told the world that Israel had a Nuclear Weapons Programme. He was kidnapped and given 18 years imprisonment for espionage and treason. Twenty four years later he continues to be punished. In the Jewish Scriptures there is great emphasis on justice and freedom. He served the full 18 years of his sentence (twelve years in solitary confinement, described by Amnesty International as 'cruel, inhuman and degrading'). Upon his release, the Israeli Government put severe restrictions upon him, including forbidding him to leave Israel and speak to the foreign media. It was the breaking of these restrictions, in summer 2004, by speaking to the foreign media, (mainly a long interview to the BBC), which resulted in his being returned to solitary confinement again this May.

"In June Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience and called on the Israeli authorities to lift the restrictions immediately. 'The restrictions on Mordechai Vanunu arbitrarily limit his rights to freedom of movement, expression and association and are therefore in breach of international law. They should be lifted and he should be allowed to start his life again as a free man. Mordechai Vanunu should not be in prison at all, let alone be held in solitary confinement in a unit intended for violent criminals. He suffered immensely when he was held in solitary confinement for 11 years after his imprisonment in 1986 and to return him to such conditions now is nothing less than cruel, inhuman or degrading." 18 June 2010 Amnesty International

"Yet, now that he has been released from prison he still has to remain in Israel and the restrictions will be reviewed and probably renewed yet again, as they have been renewed each year for the past 6 years. Vanunu is seen as a traitor by some, a hero by others. One thing is clear, he has been punished and served the full sentence and it is time after 24 years to do the human thing and let him live as a free man.

The Israeli Supreme Court continues to accept the Secret Services' claims that he still has secrets, but a report by Reuters, 20 December 2009, shows that he does not :

" ... Yet Uzi Eilam, a retired army brigadier-general who ran the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission between 1976 and 1986, said anything that Vanunu -- a cause célèbre among disarmament campaigners -- might still disclose about Dimona is of little relevance. "I've always believed he should be let go," said Eilam.

"I don't think he has significant things to reveal (about Dimona) now."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BJ0A5

However, we believe that he will be free and our hope is that you will in some way facilitate his early release which would be welcomed by a world waiting and watching for a peaceful and secure future for Israel and its people. We would greatly appreciate your advising us of any action you take - http://mailto:info@peacepeople.com/.

Shalom,
Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate
Gerry Grehan, Chair of the Peace People

Numerous international figures have added their names to the letter, and there is an international online petition:

http://humanrights.change.org/petitions/view/release_mordechai_vanunu

Since his first release from prison Mordechai Vanunu has not had any new secrets to reveal. But he has urged that the troubled Middle East should be made a nuclear weapon-free zone, as an urgent first step towards a nuclear weapon-free world.

We have seen the death and suffering which the Israeli 'Defence' Forces have been prepared to inflict with largely "conventional" weapons on Gaza and Lebanon. There are well-funded American Christian outfits more fanatical than any ayatollah, who are spending money in Israeli politics, hoping to push Israel towards a nuclear Armageddon.

We don't know whether Iran's Ahmadinejad is really developing nuclear weapons. But besides providing a pretext for imperialist war on Iran, such a "threat" only offers the prospect of a massive, murderous suicide bombing which cannot liberate anybody. The Palestinian people want their homeland, not a radioactive ruin.

Instead of hypocritically punishing Iran, which hasn't nuclear weapons, while supporting Israel, which has, the great powers and the so-called international community could combine to demand that Israel give up its nuclear weapons, and in so doing, remove the Iranian or other governments' arguments for the right to develop theirs. This balanced approach would be much more effective than war threats or sanctions.

Demanding a nuclear-free Middle East might also seem hypocritical, since America and Russia, not to mention France and Britain, have not given up theirs. But its success might well be a first step in the world-wide move, giving people both confidence and determination to make their rulers continue the process.

Is the Israeli government, besides its vengefulness, concerned that freeing Vanunu to roam the world would give a boost to such a campaign? Are other governments afraid that having him free might encourage their own whistle blowers, besides loosening their grip on the power to destroy?

All these governments, whatever their differences, are ready to conspire against you and I.

Blessed are the whistle blowers! If knowledge is power, then we need those who give us the chance to know.

Boycott? What boycott?

SCOTTISH Palestine Solidarity Campaign has sent out a message alerting supporters that on June 13 "the Edinburgh Leith Festival Gala Day will be sponsored by Veolia Water, a company complicit in Israel’s illegal occupation, apartheid and colonisation of Palestine.

"Leith Festival organisers have not responded formally to the Scottish PSC appeal to refuse any association with a company that is:

· involved in Israel's tramway project that links illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank to Jerusalem

· directly implicated in maintaining illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)

· playing a key role in Israel's attempt to make its annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem irreversible

"Veolia is actively involved in furthering Israel’s violations of international law and the continuing dispossession of the Palestinian people. Veolia is using Leith Festival as a cynical public relations exercise – the same company that violates international law in Palestine, also discharged raw sewage into the Firth of Forth (fined £13,500). Artists for Gaza have also written to the Leith Festival and also have not had any formal reply.

"Members of the Leith Festival board of directors are sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinian people. Words, however, are not enough. Leith shouldn't be going against the world-wide rejection of Veolia for its involvement in Israeli crimes. Veolia

· lost the eight-year, $4.5 billion dollar contract to operate Stockholm county's subway

· lost a 700 million contract in Bordeaux in France

· was told to get lost by Sligo and Galway councils in Ireland

· is losing as much as $7.5 billion in lost contracts.

Maybe so. I remember the Irish traincrews who refused to train Israeli drivers for the West Bank settlers' rail project. And my friend Dan Judelson of European Jews for Just Peace(EJJP) was able to tell a London meeting a few years ago that a Dutch bank had been persuaded to drop Veolia from its portfolio. An example of targetted boycott working then?

So what's this? http://www.inminds.com/article.php?id=10043

Action Alert - Prevent Alstom From Building The Haramain Express Railway!
To members of Support FreedomCall UK decision to boycott Israel

Ziyaad Lunat


Saudi Arabia awarded French company Alstom a multi-million dollar contract for the construction of Haramain Express Railway, to link the holy cities of Makkah and Madina. Alstom is in violation of international law for its part in the construction of the Jerusalem Light Rail, which will link illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (including East Jerusalem) with the city of Jerusalem. The construction of the light rail is part of a wider Israeli policy to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Jerusalem and turn permanent the illegal occupation of the city.

The decision by the Saudi Arabian authorities is in violation of its own international commitments. The Arab League barred member states from dealing with companies involved in the construction of Jerusalem Light Rail project. The Saudi contract sends a signal of approval for Alstom's actions in Jerusalem and highlights the lack of integrity of the Haramain project: the Saudi Arabian government has chosen to link two of Islam's holiest cities by sponsoring the colonization of another.

Across the world a divestment campaign is taking pace against Alstom and its partner company Veolia, with victories in Sweden and France. In 2006, Dutch ASN Bank took the responsible decision to divest from the project. Alstom and Veolia are accused by Palestinian civil society, represented by the BDS National Committee, BNC, of complicity in grave violation of international law and Palestinian rights for their role in the JLR project. Despite the pressure, the two companies have refused to end their participation in the project. With construction at an advanced stage, Alstom and Veolia are guilty of actively colluding with Israeli apartheid.

Demand That Saudi Authorities Divest From Alstom NOW!

1 - Write to the Saudi Railway Organization and to the Saudi Arabian diplomatic representation in your country demanding immediate cancellation of the contract with Alstom.

Saudi Railway Organisation contact details (http://tiny.cc/llcfC)

karni@saudirailways.org (Vice President)
shafqatrabbani@sro.org.sa (Project Manager)
salim@sro.org.sa (Project Manager)
sohail@sro.org.sa (Project Engineer)

Saudi Arabian diplomatic representations worldwide: http://tiny.cc/NvtOd

Please bcc us on your correspondence: saudialstomdivestment@gmail.com

2 - Sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/BDSaudi/petition.html

3 - Write about this issue in your local media. Discuss it in your local mosque and community centers. Participate in actions for boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel.


Find Out More!

The Case Against Veolia and Alstrom:

GulfNews: Company in Saudi rail project linked to Israel: http://www.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi_arabia/10318520.html
Divestment campaign gains momentum in Europe: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10418.shtml
Veolia looses 3.5 billion EUR contract in Sweden: http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=2807
PLO takes Veolia Transport and Alstom to court in France: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9104.shtml
Legal action in France against Veolia and Anstrom: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6674.shtml
Time to hold Veolia to account: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10295.shtml

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians From Jerusalem:

Ethnic Cleansing in East Jerusalem: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10381.shtml
Civic Coalition to Defend Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem: http://www.ccdprj.ps
Israeli House Demolitions in Jerusalem Slideshow: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/mar/06/israel-palestinian-territories
Policy of Residency Revocation of Palestinians in Jerusalem: http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/Revocation_of_Residency.asp

Global Movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel: http://www.bdsmovement.net/


Those Saudis again! But what about a supposedly more militant regime? let's go back to April, and the day when the world's media was full of Western reaction to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel speech at the UN conference on racism, in Geneva. With all the furore, and walk-outs, which only boosted Ahmadinejad in the eyes of many "anti-imperialists", not many noticed a little item from the Palestinian Ma'an news agency;

"Bethlehem – Ma’an – Palestinian civil society groups called on Tehran to cut ties with two French companies profiting from work in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank on Tuesday.

"A day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took center stage as a critic of Israel at a UN conference in Geneva, the Palestinian Campaign for Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) criticized Iran for business ties with Veolia Environment and Alstrom.

"According to the Tehran Times, the Tehran Municipality is involved in negotiations with Veolia Environment for the development of the city’s urban transport system.

"Alstom has a headquarters in Tehran and received a number of large contracts, including a 192 million euro contract with Iran's state railways in 1999 and a larger 375 million euro contract to supply 50 turbo compressors to Iran in 2002.

"The two firms are the investors behind the Citypass consortium that won a 2002 tender issued by Israeli authorities for a light rail line that connects Jerusalem to settlements in the occupied West Bank. The consortium is responsible for construction, operation and maintenance of the system for a 30-year period.

"The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) called on Tehran to 'take the necessary steps to ban Veolia and Alstom and their subsidiaries from any contracts and operations in the country.'

"Veolia and Alstom have already been targeted for boycott in countries across Europe. In 2006 the Dutch ASN Bank decided to exclude Veolia from its portfolio on account of the firm’s actions in occupied Jerusalem. In 2008, the company lost its bid to for a contract with Stockholm for eight years, worth 3.5 billion euro, partially due to a strong public sentiment against the company due to its involvement the Jerusalem rail project.

"Later, the Swedish national pension fund AP7 blacklisted Alstom, partially for its Jerusalem involvement. Less than a week ago Veolia lost a contract worth 750 million euro in Bordeaux, France after to pressure from pro-Palestine activists.

President Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN’s Durban Review Conference against racism sparked a walkout by European diplomats and drew condemnation from Israeli and Western officials.

Ahmadinejad called Israel the 'most cruel and racist regime' during his speech."

But business is business.

So maybe the company will manage without sponsoring the Leith festival if it can still pull the odd Middle Eastern contract.

Protests trouble Saudi visit, but Labour insists on business as usual

SAUDI King Abdullah has flown into Britain for a state visit, arousing a sandstorm of controversy, with his claim that the British government has not done enough to counter terrorism, and charges by a conservative think tank that hate literature found in British mosques had been funded by the Saudis.

The monarch has claimed that London's terror bombings might have been averted if the British security services had heeded Saudi intelligence warnings, a claim which the British government denies. He has also declared that the row over bribes and backhanders paid to Saudi officials for arms deals is a "British affair" and not his business.

It was reported that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, now the Saudi king's national security adviser, received payments amounting to £1 billion from BAE systems (former British Aerospace). But the Blair government halted a Serious Fraud Office investigation, just as the Thatcher government squashed a report on the al Yamama deal by the National Audit Office. (There were reports suggesting that not only did Thatcher herself promote that deal but a member of her family may have personally benefitted). In a rare show of independence the Labour government has refused to co-operate in US investigations into the BAE deals. Allies are also competitors, and business is business.

Robert Fisk, a journalist well-known for his Middle East reporting, finds it ironic that King Abdullah should "lecture us on terrorism".

http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article3109869.ece

" Weren't most of the 11 September 2001 hijackers from – er – Saudi Arabia? Is this the land that is really going to teach us lessons?" , Fisk asks. "The sad, awful truth is that we fete these people, we fawn on them, we supply them with fighter jets, whisky and whores. No, of course, there will be no visas for this reporter because Saudi Arabia is no democracy".

"Yet how many times have we been encouraged to think otherwise about a state that will not even allow its women to drive? Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister, was telling us again yesterday that we should work more closely with the Saudis, because we 'share values' with them. And what values precisely would they be, I might ask?"

Fisk reminds us how the Saudi regime backed Saddam Hussein's war on Iran, including the massive gassing of Kurds at Hallabja, with British and US military equipment paid for by the Saudis. He mentions political prisoners, and quotes a description of public beheadings in the Saudi kingdom, though as he says they probably won't discuss these things when King Abdullah dines with the Queen at Buckingham Palace this evening..

What kind of "shared values"?

Huge arms deals and terror intelligence links
· Security threat cited when fraud inquiry was dropped· Whitehall official questions king's claims

Richard Norton-Taylor

Tuesday October 30, 2007
Guardian

Arms and intelligence have been at the centre of Britain's unique and close relationship with Saudi Arabia for decades. They still are.
Only last month the two countries announced a deal for the sale of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft to the desert kingdom for £4.4bn. Whitehall officials said the potential total value of the contract would be much higher, though they will not say whether it might approach the scale of the £20bn-plus al-Yamamah contract with Saudi Arabia negotiated by the Thatcher government and involving the sale of Tornado jets, also made by BAE Systems.
The Eurofighter deal was being put together at the time that a bribery investigation by the Serious Fraud Office involving allegations against BAE was dropped.
Tony Blair at the time made no mention of the arms deal. Instead, he said that the Saudis had privately threatened to cut intelligence cooperation with Britain unless the fraud inquiry was stopped.
Mr Blair went so far as to say that Britain's national security would be at risk unless the fraud inquiry was abandoned.
Yesterday, however, the question of what Britain did with Saudi intelligence surfaced. As King Abdullah arrived in London for a state visit, he claimed that Britain did not act upon information provided before July 7 which he said "may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy". The claims are not new. More than a year ago the parliamentary intelligence and security committee said it had "looked in detail into claims that the Saudi Arabian authorities warned the British agencies [a reference to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ] about the attacks".
Some information was passed by the Saudis about "possible terrorist planning for an attack on the UK". The intelligence was assessed to be "not credible".

The Guardian's intelligence specialist goes on to observe;.
The Saudis, however, have an interest in raising the issue and to be seen to be proactive now in the fight against terrorism. Saudi money helped to prop up the Taliban and fuel the spread of Islamist extremism in the madrasas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, and 15 of the 19 hijackers of the airliners involved in the September 11 2001 attacks on the US were Saudis. A significant number of foreign fighters joining al-Qaida in Iraq are Saudis, according to western military and intelligence agencies. Washington has been critical of what the US has perceived to be Saudi dilatoriness in rooting out those suspected of funding terrorists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,,2201572,00.html

We might add that George Dubya probably does not like being reminded that the Bin Ladens were his business partners not long before Osama hit the news. The Bush administration announced in July that it plans to sell to sell $20bn (£9.8bn) of advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, alongside a 25% increase in US military aid to Israel.

Protests tomorrow - beyond Our Ken?

Acting Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable, who is a petroleum economist by profession, has said he will boycott the Saudi visit.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has the excuse of paternity leave to give it a miss. But we have not heard from Ken Livingstone, that well-known defender of democracy, women, and gay rights, who is hosting another banquet for the Saudi king at the Guildhall tomorrow. Maybe Ken will take the opportunity to raise a few of the points that won't have raised at the Palace do?

As Peter Tatchell says: "As well as flogging and executing gay people, Saudi leaders are guilty of detention without trial, torture and the public beheading of women who have sex outside of marriage. Migrant workers are de facto slaves. The media is heavily censored. Trade unions, political parties and non-Muslim religions are banned. The country is a theocratic police state."

Labour left-winger John McDonnell asks why the prime minister is prepared to condemn lack of democracy in Burma or Zimbabwe, but "remains silent when it comes to the Saudi dictatorship?" The MP has submitted an Early Day Motion, 2102, in parliament and is also supporting this demonstration tomorrow:

Socialist Youth Network
Youth Wing of the Labour Representation Committee

PROTEST THE SAUDI STATE VISIT!
Wednesday 31st October 6pm – 8pm
Saudi Embassy,

30-32 Charles Street, W1J 5DZ

Speakers include: Yahya al-Alfaifi (Saudi trade unionist), Katy Clark MP, John McDonnell MP, Marsha-Jane Thompson (SYN Co-Chair), Sandy Mitchell (former British prisoner in Saudi Arabia), Murad Qureshi AM, Peter Tatchell

Brown's red carpet out for Saudi royal dictator

RED CARPET, RED CHINA
Why are the carpets for royal visits traditionally red? To hide bloody trail dripping from hands perhaps.
But Gordon Brown isn't first to
welcome King Abdullah. Here is Saudi ruler in Beijing with China's
President Hu Jintao. Business is business.

"And just to prove that we're sincere,
We'll sing the Red Flag once a year"

DON'T know if they still sang the Red Flag at the end of this year's Labour Party conference - in a spirit of post-modern irony perhaps as delegates filed past the big commercial lobbyists in the foyer - but Gordon Bown's New Labour government is preparing to roll out the red carpet for a reactionary royal dictator.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is due to arrive in London for a state visit on October 30. Having buried the serious fraud office investigation into bribes for Saudi arms deals, just as they helped Mrs.Thatcher shove away an earlier report from the National Audit Office, the Labour leaders have also said they won't help a US case against British Aerospace (the cheek of our competitors!). Nor are they prepared to help British citizens alleging wrongful imprisonment and ill-treatment in Saudi Arabia.

So with the Bush administration pledging more military aid to the Saudis, Brown and the British bosses must be rubbing their hands at the thought of more juicy contracts.

Over in Swansea there's a man who will probably see the visit differently.
Trades unionists in the Welsh city were out campaigning over the National Health Service one Saturday when a young man offered to help them handing out leaflets. Afterwards they got talking. They learned that the man who had joined them was Yahya al-Faifi, and that he had come to Wales to get away from persecution in his native Saudi Arabia for his trade union activity. Yahya had been sacked from his job and put under police surveillance after organising a meeting for fellow-workers to discuss their wage grievances, and whether they should accept a new contract, at Dhahran air base.

When he heard that other Saudis had been arrested and jailed merely for petitioning for the right to form a union, Yahya decided to seek refuge abroad before the authorities came for him. That he came to Britain was appropriate. His employer at Dhahran had been BAE systems, that is, what used to be called British Aerospace.

The Swansea trades union council have helped Yahya find work, and he has been helped by them also in setting up a General Federation of Free Workers Trade Unions Struggling Against Oppression in the Arabian peninsula, with a support group, the Campaign for Democratic Trade Union Rights in Saudi Arabia.

Contact:
workers_cry_saudi@yahoo.co.uk

swanseatuc@btinternet.com

One Labour MP who is not afraid to upset Brown's plans to welcome the Saudi ruler is John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington, who might have been left-wing challenger for the Labour leadership if more MPs, and our national union leaders, had put their money where their mouths had been, instead of putting their mouths to kissing Gordon Brown's backside.

Anyway, here's what John McDonnell has written:

Friday, October 12, 2007

Government to Welcome Saudi King,
Famed Dictator of Oppressive Regime.

Today I tabled an Early Day Motion in Parliament protesting at the upcoming state visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.I tabled the motion because like many others I am angry that the Government will be paying the Saudi king a warm welcome while thousands of incarcerated Saudis face the most brutal forms of torture and the threat of public execution.This is a dictatorship that allows no political parties, free elections, independent media or trade unions and deprives women and gays of their most basic rights.

The invitation to King Abdullah reflects the double standards of the British Government which talks about promoting human rights, but allows the economic interests of oil multinationals and the defence industry to dictate our foreign policy.The full text of EDM 2102: State Visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia reads as follows:

That this House notes with concern the state visit of King Abdullah bin Abdul Azaz al Saud of Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom on 30th October 2007; believes that Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive societies on earth, with no political parties, free elections, independent media or trade unions; views with alarm the systematic human rights abuses that exist within the Kingdom, such as the lack of basic rights for women, the practice of public beheadings and the repression of homosexuals; condemns the recent sale of 72 Eurofighters to such a barbaric regime; and calls upon the British Government to base its foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia on democracy and human rights rather than on narrow economic interests.

Mr.Brown goes to Washington, while US offers arms to bring Saudis into line

PRIME minister Gordon Brown flies into Washington with assurances that, whatever his aides have suggested, Britain under his government will stand loyally by US foreign policy and its wars - which is more than George W. Bush can say for his public at home.

Last year, Blair and Bush backed Israel's war in Lebanon, vetoing calls for ceasefire and stepping up munition supplies. This year, while Congress is prepared to talk about withdrawal from Iraq, our New Labour government rules it out. Forget wishful thinking. Labour's change of leadership is no more than a change of style.

Though the Middle East is likely to be high on the two leaders' agenda, we don't know whether Bush will remonstrate with Brown over the Blair government's decision to quash investigations into British Aerospace(BAe) bribery to secure its giant Saudi arms deal. This investigation is being taken up in the United States, ostensibly because a US bank was used to transfer money to a Saudi prince, more likely because BAe competitors remain disgruntled.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/26/business/EU-FIN-COM-Britain-BAE-Saudi.php

America itself is offering a huge deal to the Saudis, as it struggles to keep Middle East allies in line, and threatens war with Iran.

July 28, 2007
U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
By DAVID S. CLOUD
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.
But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.
In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.
The officials said the plan to bolster the militaries of Persian Gulf countries is part of an American strategy to contain the growing power of Iran in the region and to demonstrate that, no matter what happens in Iraq, Washington remains committed to its longtime Arab allies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M.Gates are visiting Saudi Arabia this week and are expected to press the Saudi rulers to help Iraq's pro-occupation, mainly Shi'ite government or at least stop undermining it.

America's former ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, has accused the Saudis of responsibility for fake documents circulated in Baghdad which aimed to tag Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki as an Iranian agent, and accused him of tipping off Shi'a cleric Moqtada al Sadr about a planned crackdown on his Mahdi army militia.

Some time ago, discussing how far US agents pursuing a divide and rule policy in Iraq were behind sectarian killings and bomb attacks, an Iraqi friend cautioned us to remember that "America does not have suicide bombers". It seemed a valid point to think about. But then I replied, "Maybe America hasn't, but the Saudis have". I was just guessing, but now it seems the US -and British - governments are saying it has got out of hand. According to the Guardian:
'Relations have been strained since King Abdullah unexpectedly criticised the US, describing the Iraq invasion as "an illegal foreign occupation"'

State department spokesman Sean McCormack, says only that Rice and Gates, on their trip to the region, "will be wanting more active, positive support for Iraq and the Iraqi people".

Khalilzad, who is now US ambassador to the UN, wrote in the New York Times last week: "Several of Iraq's neighbours - not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States - are pursuing destabilising policies."

According to the Guardian 's Ewan MacAskill, "The Bush administration is also expressing its unhappiness with the Saudis for failing to stem the flow of Saudi jihadists across its border to fight in Iraq, often as suicide bombers. The US estimates that about 40% of the 60 to 80 foreign fighters entering Iraq each month are from Saudi Arabia".
US accuses Saudis of telling lies about Iraq

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2136599,00.html

Although MacAskill also refers to concern about a US Israeli-Palestinian "peace plan", it was the Saudis who earlier this year put their name to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace plan based on Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, and Israel which rejected it as a "non-starter" because it included calling for a "fair solution" to the Palestinian refugee problem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1898736.stm

The Israelis are said to be concerned that Saudi Arabia is being offered satellite controlled weapons, which have been supplied to Israeli forces since the 1990s.
The arms offer to Saudi Arabia is being followed up with a promised $30.4 billion supply to Israel, $9.1 billion more than it received over the past ten years, an increase of nearly 43 percent. A US official said this was because Israel needed to replace equipment expended in its war in Lebanon, as well as to maintain its advantage in advanced weaponry over other countries. As for the sales to the Saudis and other Gulf States, US officials warned that the Saudis and others were in talks with suppliers other than the United States. If American supplies were blocked or tied with too many conditions, other suppliers might step in, and this would reduce American influence.

* Meanwhile in a possible bid to restore Britain's standing and ability to play a role in Palestine, Brown is reportedly to appoint Michael Williams as a Middle East peace envoy, distinct from Tony Blair's role as US-backed "quartet" envoy. Williams, a former BBC journalist who served as an adviser to Robin Cook and Jack Straw at the Foreign Office is currently working for UN secretary general Ban Kimoon.

Shaikh Yamani and Shut Your Mouth!

DOES YAMAMA KNOW YOU'RE HERE? Reports claimed Margaret Thatcher's son Mark did well with go-between Wafic Said in Saudi arms deals. Here he is accepting a lift downtown to help police with their inquiries - but this was in South Africa two years ago, over his involvment in funding aborted Equatorial Guinea coup plot.

The long-running investigation into the multi-billion pound al Yamama arms deal with Saudi Arabia has been stopped because the Saudi rulers threatened to pull out of a deal to purchase 72 Eurofighter jets from BAE Systems, putting millions in profits and thousands of jobs at risk; but also because the British and US governments are hoping the Saudis - and arch rivals the Iranian regime -can help pull them out of the bloody Iraq quagmire.

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith insisted the decision was made in the interests of national security and that economic and commercial interests played no part. In a statement to the House of Lords, amid claims the Government was hiding bad news on the day Lord Stevens released his report in to the death of Princess Diana, Goldsmith said the Prime Minister and other ministers were concerned.

"They have expressed the clear view that continuation of the investigation would cause serious damage to UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic co-operation, which is likely to have seriously negative consequences for the UK public interest in terms of both national security and our highest priority foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. ..The heads of our security and intelligence agencies and HM Ambassador to Saudi Arabia share this assessment."

The announcement followed reports that the Serious Fraud Office had uncovered details of a "slush fund" used to pay Saudi dignitaries for contracts, followed by reports that British Aerospace(BAE) feared the Saudis were preparing to switch the Eurofighter contract to France. BAE shares fell by 10% in the last month, and there was uncertainty for the jobs of 9,000 workers at BAE's aircraft division in Warton, Lancashire.

The Serious Fraud Office says: "It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest."

Lord Goldsmith said there were serious doubts over whether the investigation into the £40 billion contract secured by Margaret Thatcher, would result in a successful prosecution. It would also have taken another 18 months to bring to a conclusion, he said. "I consider, having carefully examined the present evidence, that there are obstacles to a successful prosecution so that it is likely that it would not in the end go ahead," he said.

Al Yamama (the Dove!) has been the subject of controversy for many years, from several points of view (including those of US and French competitors).
How come Saudi Arabia needed such a huge military expenditure, and was reportedly paying well over the odds for Tornado fighters and other hardware? (Payment was later made in crude oil). Who was the weaponry to be used against? How much of the commissions paid to prominent Saudis was repaid to company bosses in Britain (though these may have benefitted more by the excess charging), or go-betweens and politicians? How much went into Swiss bank accounts, and where might it go after that?

Labour MP Jeff Rooker passed on to Margaret Thatcher a copy of a memorandum, dated 2nd May 1989, which he had received, talking about planes with hardened nose cones, such as might be used to drop nuclear bombs. The memo, origin unknown, referred to "constant phone calls between Mrs. T and King Fahd and Sir Peter Levene and Prince Sultan", (Levene made the crude oil arrangement) and to an alleged " huge sum" paid to the Conservative Party.
See http://randompottins.blogspot.com/2006/03/arms-of-belgravia.html
Lobster magazine no.26 (Dorrel issue) had the memorandum.

Because taxpayers money was involved in backing British Aerospace the National Audit Office was asked to produce a report on al Yamama in 1992. But this was shelved before the general election, and despite Labour promises back then, it has never been published. The issue was raised in the House of Commons a few years ago:

Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement
Harry Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many copies of the 1992 National Audit Office report about the Al-Yamamah arms agreement were produced. [35029]
Mr. Alan Williams: 10 copies of the 1992 National Audit Office report on the Saudi Arabian Airforce Project—known as project Al-Yamamah—were produced.
The report looked at the use of taxpayers' money by the Ministry of Defence in relation to the project. It referred to confidential arrangements between the governments of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. The report was not published because publication would have breached that pledge of confidentiality.
13 Feb 2002 : Column 403W
The then PAC chairman (now Lord Sheldon) was quoted as saying after he and the then senior Conservative member of the PAC had considered the report in private in February 1992:
"I did an investigation and I find no evidence that the [MOD] made improper payments. I have found no evidence of fraud or corruption. The deal . . . complied with Treasury Approval and the rules of government accounting."

Some people remembering the late Robin Cook's pledge that Labour would give an "ethical dimension" to Britain's foreign policy may ask how this squares with competing to supply top-shelf military hardware to a reactionary dictatorship, and covering up massive corruption in the course of it?
The answer is that Robin Cook was shoved aside from interfering with the profitable arms trade. So far as the government was concerned his "ethical" suggestion was dead before he was.

Perhaps the most sensational allegation made about the Yamama deal is that some of the money went via Saudi accounts to al Qaieda and Osama Bin Laden, whether by way of the Bin Laden family contracting business (whose partners at one time included George W.Bush) or through certain "charities" patronised by Saudi princes.
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/soil/soiled-dove2.htm#Appendix%202

If true, (and allowing for inventive and disgruntled -e.g. US - competitors) that would add bitter irony to the situation now, when, having used the "War on Terror" to land their troops in the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain and the United States may be hoping the Saudi regime and the Iranian ayatollahs will be persuaded to help them find an exit strategy. This would involve Iran being given a field of influence over the Shias in southern Iraq (where British troops are stationed) while the Saudis, as they have already said, would be willing to step in as "protectors" for the Sunni population.

The only people who might take exception to this are the Iraqis who don't want to see their country carved up, or its oil wealth appropriated by Western companies. They might even want a secular, democratic united Iraq in which they can rebuild and make progress. That is why they are being lacerated by sectarian killings, bombings, ethnic cleansing of mixed areas and shadowy but well-armed death squads. For whose benefit?

The British government has evidently decided to try and avoid upsetting the Saudi rulers, or those here who have done well for themselves out of the oil for arms racket, so that it can get on with the dirty game. But it may all be blown whatever the law says.

See also: BAE inquiry decision may face legal challenge
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,,1973073,00.html

A historical overview of Saudi Arabia and the arms trade:
http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/countries/saudi-arabia.php

The late Paul Foot's comments on al Yamama and Jonathan Aitkin in a book review:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n01/foot01_.html

Some amusing stuff on Mark Thatcher:
http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2004/08/30/thatcher-biography.html

* FOR THOSE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER:

Shaikh Yamani was Saudi oil minister whose prominence in OPEC back in the 1970s led to various puns and jokes like the one I've used in the headline (actually taken from a humourous chorus performed in Lancaster in about 1973 by a group including Nigel Gray and Dr.David Craig, to whom probably goes the copyright). I hope the ex-minister himself will forgive me; so far as I know he is not involved in any of this business.