Selling Guns - It's good for jobs and good for Britain!

Although it was completely unreasonable of the Saudis to demand the inquiry was stopped to get the sales, at the same time the global arms trade generally is a rather dirty business. To pretend it would be lovely if it weren't for this is a bit of a joke, which is what some people are doing. Think of this case as the tip of the iceberg - most of it is submerged out of sight.

On a related topic, if this deal is so terrible isn't it just as "criminal" to refuse to recognise Taiwan as an independent country just because the Chinese make threats? I mean, seriously, the position of virtually all countries that represent China has nothing to do with the fact they think Beijing's right - it's to do with money. And how dare China interfere with other countries' foreign policies?

Where's the international condemnation of that? :?

@ Si

That's quite sad, actually. I can't believe that the United Kingdom, supposed paragon of rule of law and democracy, would do something so nakedly antithetical to these ideals.

It's things like this, and the no-bid contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel, that erode democracy. One thing is for certain: since 1978, democracy, personal freedom, and rule of law have increased in China. The same cannot be said for the West. And that is a tragic thing indeed.

@ Raj

Even though the arms trade is a dirty business, that does not imply the government should also actively encourage it to remain dirty. Gambling, meatpacking, and real estate/construction in the United States were once all quite "dirty" (they were under the control of the mafia) yet the government did not tolerate it. My hope is that the UK citizenry will push for this investigation to be resumed; it would be pitiful to see the home of the Magna Carta compromise its ideals for a paltry arms contract.

As for China and Taiwan, that is an issue for a different thread. But I will say that China's efforts are not nearly as blatantly illegal as what is going on here.

The government did not crush the investigation. They merely explained to the SFO what impact their dithering was going to have on the country. The SFO could have carried on, but it decided the case was too shakey to justify the risk in lost jobs. The SFO shouldn't have had that pressure put on them, but maybe they realised the case was quite weak. I doubt they'd have stopped if they thought they were almost in a position to prosecute.

No, it is not an issue for a different thread. You yourself talked about compromising on ideals. Now why the hell should we compromise on our belief of freedom and our right to have our own foreign policy?

The answer is because that people can morally justify to themselves not selling weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia (because they're not in a business linked to the arms industry), but they're not willing to risk losing cheap toys for Christmas imported from China.

Because China isn't asking this of Great Britain; China is asking this of Taiwan. So it's none of your business...

Erm, no, China is asking it of Britain. It asks it of every country. It insists that Taiwan be recognised as a part of China and/or that Taiwan never been recognised as an independent country - or else there would be repercussions in relations with China. Ergo it is Britain's business as the threats are made towards us (and everyone else).

Oh, sorry, didn't catch that.

But regardless, Britain has no law that prohibits not recognizing the popular will in another region. Britain has a law that prohibits bribery by domestic companies to land foreign contracts, which this investigation was trying to prove happened between the BAE and the Saudis.

Well, duh - you couldn't ever have a law like that. But that doesn't change the fact it should be an option open to the UK and ties with China shouldn't be reliant on that.

Besides whilst there is a law against bribery, there is a legal discretion to end these sorts of investigations, as was exercised. Lord Goldsmith did nothing illegal himself. What people are objecting to was he did it because of the Saudis. Again, nothing illegal there. Just as there's nothing illegal in shitting on the Taiwanese to please China.

So the comparison is valid.

Enlighten me; what legal discretion exists here? Why should it exist? And why is it applicable in this case?

False; interfering in a police investigation is usually grounds for criminal prosecution

False; what people are objecting to was that he set a bad precedent for further investigations of this sort.

False; if the activities the BAE execs had engaged did not strike the investigators as illegal, then why would then initiate an investigation into not only BAE's dealings with Saudi Arabia but also several other countries?

I'm sorry, you seem to have a point, but it's kind of unclear here. Why are the British "shitting" on the Taiwanese?

BAE is looking to become an American registered company.

Do they have similar anti bribery laws in the States?

Not if you are exercising a power given to you and exercising it in a legal manner. The SFO is accountable to the Attorney-General. If he had acted illegally he would be investigated for it. Just as Tony Blair and the Labour Party is being investigated over the cash for honours affair.

That as well - it's part of the same thing. So it isn't false.

What the hell does that have to do with what I wrote? I wasn't even talking about BAE in the bit you quoted me on!

Oh, good God. Why is it that talking to you is like trying to get blood out of a stone?

Because the UK has chosen money and trade with China above the rights and best interests of tens of millions of Taiwanese. They are hurt by their exclusion from world bodies and humiliated by having to call themselves "Chinese Taipei" if they are let in. How the hell would you feel if your country had a flag and national anthem imposed on it by a non-domestic organisation just to please another country? Don't tell me you wouldn't mind, because most people would.

But who gives a damn about Taiwanese when there's more money to be made from China? :roll:

No; the main objection is the precedent that a country whose soft power is built upon maintaining a high standard of legal integrity can do things expected of the Russian government--not that the Saudis specifically interefered in this case.

Actually, the other side of the choice wouldn't be money and trade, but the rights and best interests of hundreds of millions of Chinese workers that derive their livelihoods from continued access to export markets.

First, how would they suffer from Taiwan being given a place in the international community? Second, if it's their government that creates problems by laying out the ultimatums over Taiwan, etc then that's too bad.