This difference between selling them arms and saying they were not selling lethal equipment went on until three politicians – Sir Richard Loose, Sir Adam Butler and Paul Channon – decided that something ought to be done about it. These three had all – by complete coincidence – been at university together and they were the ministers of state at the foreign office, the defence ministry and the department of trade.
They drew up a series of guidelines. The first was that we should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side. The second was that, subject to that overriding consideration, we will attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations. Huge sighs of relief went through all the big companies which sell arms equipment. The third added we should not in future approve orders for defence equipment which in our view would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong the conflict.
Then a curious thing happens. Having decided on these guidelines, the three decide they are not going to publish them. Why?
The guidelines went to the prime minister – Margaret Thatcher – and she said, ‘Hold on a minute. I am negotiating the biggest arms deal in the history of the world with Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia are friendly with Iraq.’
They didn’t publish the guidelines for a whole year until Thatcher and Michael Heseltine – who declares himself completely clean on all these matters – signed the £20 billion contract. ibid.
At The end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 there was enthusiasm in the West because Saddam Hussein was building up a whole armoury in Iraq. There was a tremendous opportunity to make money.
The problem was the guidelines. So in December 1988 three ministers of state – Waldegrave at the foreign office, Alan Clark at the Ministry of Defence and Trefgarne at the department of trade – held a secret meeting to devise new guidelines.
They changed the rules so it was alright to send arms for defence. As a result the amount of equipment that went to Iraq grew by ten times in the first year and by 100 times by the time the scandal came to light.
These three ministers decided not to publish the fact they had changed the guidelines. ibid.
The first terrible event was encountered by Nicholas Ridley, then secretary for trade, when he was enjoying his Easter holiday. Someone told him that customs had seized some rather unpleasant goods – vast cases of what appeared to be the biggest gun ever built, for export to Iraq.
This was lethal equipment even by Ridley’s definition. It had been made in two of the biggest engineering factories in Britain, who were in constant contact with the department of trade. ibid.
The second embarrassing event was that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Suddenly the whole public attitude is whipped up against Iraq. Everyone is in favour of prosecuting the merchants of death.
Customs arrest the engineer in charge of the supergun project and the managing director. Guilty as hell of breaking the export law, a straight-forward conviction is expected.
Except that customs are called in by the attorney general, Sir Patrick Mayhew, who says it is not a good idea to prosecute. He told customs they were free to do it but he would stop them going ahead with the prosecution. Customs withdrew – but they proceeded against another company called Matrix Churchill.
The directors were appalled. They said we did this in concert with the government and intelligence. One of the key intelligence agents in Iraq at that time was a man working for Matrix Churchill. Paul Henderson. He was managing director and a government intelligence agent.
They started to leak documents. One document leaked to the Sunday Times said that Alan Clark, when he was minister of defence, held a meeting of all the machine tool manufacturers. He said from now on when you want to sell arms to Iraq put it under general engineering. ibid.
It is obviously going to come out that the defendants did what the government told them to do. They were guilty of selling arms to Saddam Hussein, but not half as guilty as the people who were cooperating with them in the government.
When the defendants wanted to prove the government had known about their illegal exporting, the government issued a public immunity certificate. Most people think this certificate has something to do with security. It has nothing whatever to do with security. It defends the discussions between civil servants and ministers from any revelation or disclosure.
But at the trial the lawyers forced the government documents out, the trial collapsed and the Scott Inquiry was set up.
There has been the most tremendous attack against the Scott Inquiry from the establishment. The ruling class is trying to protect itself from the revelations. Many of the people named in the Scott report have been promoted. ibid.
There was a great deal of publicity and empathy last week for the four tourists, two of them Britons, murdered in Yemen. There has been nothing for the 68 Iraqi civilians murdered by the American and British governments shortly before Christmas.
The parallels between the two attacks are striking. Both were premeditated lawless acts for political ends, and they are connected. It is likely the Britons died as a direct consequence of their own government's criminal actions in Iraq.
This, and the real danger of revenge attacks, was clearly not a consideration when the bellicose figure of Tony Blair rose in parliament to play Palmerston, and George Robertson pleaded the case for state murder, then disclaimed it in the letters columns of the Guardian. ‘We believe’, he wrote, ‘that none of the munitions that missed [their targets] hit civilian targets’. Note that the word he chooses is believe, not know or can verify.
Consider this Defence Secretary. Shortly after the election, Robertson proposed a military experience for new Labour MPs who, he said, should spend at least 21 days ‘getting to know’ life with the troops. He described the head of Indonesia’s murderous special forces, a kind of Waffen-SS responsible for genocide in East Timor, as ‘an enlightened officer, keen [on] human rights’. He further distinguished himself by making clear his government was prepared to use ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons against Iraq.
As for Blair, his platitudes misled parliament and us all. Far from ‘punishing’ Saddam Hussein, the real Anglo-American objective is to secure an American oil protectorate to the Caspian Sea, along with isolating Iraq, so that its high-quality crude oil, 20 per cent of the world’s reserves, is not allowed to flow into the international market and force down the price of Saudi oil. Shoring up Saudi Arabia is critical for American and British capital; most of the British arms industry is dependent on the al-Yamamah deal with Saudi sheikhs.
To this end, Blair and Robertson approved the equivalent of hundreds of Omagh bombs hurled at a country where an estimated million children have died as a result of sanctions. This is a silent holocaust which Ethical Man Robin Cook disingenuously denies while another 5,000 children die every month. When you next hear Blair and Straw and Blunkett lecturing us on morality, on the importance of the family and doing your homework, think of their government’s crime in the Gulf. John Pilger, article 8th January 1999, ‘The Press is Obsessed with Petty Vendettas While British Ministers Continue to Support a Silent Holocaust’
I can assure you that my idea is going to be to give this country a status in the world based on the righteousness of its action. Ramsay MacDonald, former UK prime minister
Can our shrinking military keep Britain safe? We ask if defence cuts have allowed Russia to move its forces ever closer to our coast. A former head of special forces dismisses the government’s key plan to replace regular soldiers with part-timers. Dispatches: Britain's Defence Squeeze, Channel 4 2015
The Royal Navy seemed to be a little short of ships. ibid.
Almost as many admirals as there are warships. ibid.
Here is my first principle of foreign policy: good government at home. William E Gladstone
Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years – to create a disunited Europe. Yes, Minister: The Writing on the Wall s1e5, Sir Humphrey to Jim, BBC 1980
A scandal involving British aid money. We discover how a police force in Syria is being funded with bags of our cash. Panorama: Jihadis You Pay For, BBC 2017
We give £13 billion a year in foreign aid. ibid.
956: Yet if the previously secret document I am holding is genuine, travelling between London and Paris might have been a mere domestic jaunt … ‘Franco/British union’ … Half a century ago the British and French governments were actually discussing a suggestion … to actually merge the two countries. Document: The Marriage Cordiale, Radio 4 2007
The world is changing faster than ever. But what do these unpredictable times mean for Britain? Do we still have power and influence? Some of the answers lie inside one British institution – the Foreign Office. Inside the Foreign Office I: Keeping Power and Influence, Channel 5 2018
A pyramid of 14,000 staff. ibid.
The man who runs the Foreign Office is the chief civil servant Sir Simon McDonald. Every six months he gathers selected top ambassadors from around the world for an uninhibited discussion. Inside the Foreign Office II: Brave New World
‘The British Foreign Office is here to achieve three things: to protect our people, to promote our prosperity, to project our values.’ Inside the Foreign Office III: Brits in Trouble, Sir Simon McDonald
Each year the Foreign Office deal with over 30,000 Brits in trouble abroad. ibid.
The Forced Marriage Unit deals with over 1,000 cases a year over 65 countries. ibid.