Transparency International officials privately accept that there has been widespread fraud on contracts to supply equipment to Britain's armed forces. They also concede this has been shielded by civil servants and government ministers from both parties. Yet the world's leading anti-corruption organisation is more concerned with maintaining its own image, and its relationship with the British government, than it is with fulfilling its mission to publicly expose this corruption.
Cobus de Swardt, Managing Director of Transparency International, is involved in a scandal at its UK chapter. TI is the world's foremost anti-corruption organisation, and Cobus heads its Berlin-based International Secretariat. TI member and anti-fraud campaigner Rob McCartney is accusing the organisation of helping to cover up widespread fraud and corruption in purchasing weapons and equipment for Britain's armed forces. “This may have cost the lives of British service personnel, and is also potentially costing British taxpayers billions of pounds every year “ he says.
Britain spent around £20 billion on military equipment in 2006-2007. This was more than any other country in the world except the USA, several times the value of UK arms exports, and sixteen times as much as it spent on aid to Africa. The arms industry is currently mounting a campaign for annual spending on arms to be increased by billions of pounds (The Financial Times ran a front page story “Defence Squeezed” on 14th April 2008, and other media have also recently carried stories claiming the military equipment budget needs to be increased by several billions).
At the TI(UK) members meeting on 26th February, Cobus de Swardt emphasised the importance of accuracy in everything produced by TI. “I pointed out that the 'National Integrity Systems TI Country Study Report United Kingdom 2004' was seriously wrong on four important points” says Rob. “These false statements and omissions all distort the picture in favour of the British government, which paid for the report. For instance, the Ministry of Defence is known to have been actively involved in corruption, yet it has its own police force and controls all criminal investigations into its own activities. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has specifically quoted this as a reason why Britain is not complying with its anti-corruption convention. The report speaks about the MOD Police yet says that the Metropolitan Police is the only force directly accountable to a government department.
“I reminded Cobus that I had been complaining to the International Secretariat about the report since last April (see
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/369088.html and http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380641.html), and that my complaint had not been properly addressed. In response Cobus said that if TI adopted a confrontational stance it would lose influence. This is rubbish, its already confronting the British government over its decision to block the investigation and prosecution of BAE Systems for bribing Saudi officials. At the end of the meeting I again complained that the issues I raised had not been properly dealt with. TI(UK) officers then agreed to a separate meeting with me to discuss this”.
“At the London office on 7th March:
I spent around 90 minutes explaining to TI(UK) officers the details of one type of fraud, namely changing the specification and overcharging for changes. I explained that it is an absolutely basic rule in the arms industry that changes to specifications should be kept to a minimum because they lead to vast increases in costs and huge delays. This was repeatedly hammered into me during my induction training. Yet some managers use every possible excuse to change the specification and vastly overcharged for such changes. In at least one case, they were so determined to jack up the price that they even put things into the specification which their own people said were impossible. I was told it didn't matter if the system didn't work.
I pointed out that, in 2004, the former head of Britain's largest arms company gave a interview to BBC radio. He said that the company regularly put in low bids for UK contracts, with the intention of using changes to increase prices and profits
I drew attention to the crash of an RAF Nimrod in Afghanistan which killed 14 aircrew. An old and decrepit Nimrod exploded in mid-air because a leaky fuel tank ignited. The plane should have been replaced three years before the crash by more up to date aircraft. This didn't happened because because changes to the specification had delayed the replacements for years, and doubled their cost to £4 billion.
I demonstrated how publicly available evidence proves that a Labour minister and two Tory ministers all lied to protect a company publicly accused of using this method of fraud by a member of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. I also pointed out that this example invalidates claims by the MOD that it is no longer a problem
I pointed out that another TI member, who had been done a report on fraud at the MOD for the Treasury, said that MOD civil servants had told him blatant lies to protect fraud.
I quoted an example of MOD civil servants lying in written evidence to the criminal investigation into my own allegations made in 2000. Giving misleading evidence is a crime. I also told them that the MOD Police refused to do anything about this because “we work for the MOD, we're part of the MOD” and “as long as they're happy, that's all we care about”.
TI(UK) officers accepted all this. They had no real defence for the report and agreed that withdrawing it would be an easy and powerful way of drawing attention to the subject. However, they told me that it would be damaging to admit they had put out wrong information and that the International Secretariat would oppose withdrawing the report. They did not propose any alternative action on UK arms corruption. I was not asked for, and did not give, any assurances that I would keep what was said secret from other TI members”.
Rob McCartney also says he has been prevented from distributing a leaflet to other TI members to inform them of what is going on in their own organisation. He tried hand it out at a joint TI/Royal African Society event at the House of Commons on Thursday 27th March 2008. “The only way I can contact them is by handing out leaflets at infrequent meetings arranged by TI” he said, adding “TI officials got the RAS to do their dirty work.”.
Rob McCartney has released a version of the leaflet:with an added header to explain it has been banned by TI. He plans to try and distribute it again at the next TI meeting in London Docklands on 30th April, and is appealing for others to support him. He points out that “a group of people handing out the leaflet would carry more weight than a single person”. He also hopes that people outside the UK may distribute it at meetings arranged by TI in their own countries. It is available to read or download in Open Document Text format at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/ti/bannedbyti27march2008.odt
and in Word 97/2000/XP format at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/ti/bannedbyti27march2008.doc
Anyone who wants to take part in action to publicise this issue you can email Rob McCartney from his home page at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/
Britain spent around £20 billion on military equipment in 2006-2007. This was more than any other country in the world except the USA, several times the value of UK arms exports, and sixteen times as much as it spent on aid to Africa. The arms industry is currently mounting a campaign for annual spending on arms to be increased by billions of pounds (The Financial Times ran a front page story “Defence Squeezed” on 14th April 2008, and other media have also recently carried stories claiming the military equipment budget needs to be increased by several billions).
At the TI(UK) members meeting on 26th February, Cobus de Swardt emphasised the importance of accuracy in everything produced by TI. “I pointed out that the 'National Integrity Systems TI Country Study Report United Kingdom 2004' was seriously wrong on four important points” says Rob. “These false statements and omissions all distort the picture in favour of the British government, which paid for the report. For instance, the Ministry of Defence is known to have been actively involved in corruption, yet it has its own police force and controls all criminal investigations into its own activities. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has specifically quoted this as a reason why Britain is not complying with its anti-corruption convention. The report speaks about the MOD Police yet says that the Metropolitan Police is the only force directly accountable to a government department.
“I reminded Cobus that I had been complaining to the International Secretariat about the report since last April (see
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/369088.html and http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380641.html), and that my complaint had not been properly addressed. In response Cobus said that if TI adopted a confrontational stance it would lose influence. This is rubbish, its already confronting the British government over its decision to block the investigation and prosecution of BAE Systems for bribing Saudi officials. At the end of the meeting I again complained that the issues I raised had not been properly dealt with. TI(UK) officers then agreed to a separate meeting with me to discuss this”. “At the London office on 7th March:
I spent around 90 minutes explaining to TI(UK) officers the details of one type of fraud, namely changing the specification and overcharging for changes. I explained that it is an absolutely basic rule in the arms industry that changes to specifications should be kept to a minimum because they lead to vast increases in costs and huge delays. This was repeatedly hammered into me during my induction training. Yet some managers use every possible excuse to change the specification and vastly overcharged for such changes. In at least one case, they were so determined to jack up the price that they even put things into the specification which their own people said were impossible. I was told it didn't matter if the system didn't work.
I pointed out that, in 2004, the former head of Britain's largest arms company gave a interview to BBC radio. He said that the company regularly put in low bids for UK contracts, with the intention of using changes to increase prices and profits
I drew attention to the crash of an RAF Nimrod in Afghanistan which killed 14 aircrew. An old and decrepit Nimrod exploded in mid-air because a leaky fuel tank ignited. The plane should have been replaced three years before the crash by more up to date aircraft. This didn't happened because because changes to the specification had delayed the replacements for years, and doubled their cost to £4 billion.
I demonstrated how publicly available evidence proves that a Labour minister and two Tory ministers all lied to protect a company publicly accused of using this method of fraud by a member of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. I also pointed out that this example invalidates claims by the MOD that it is no longer a problem
I pointed out that another TI member, who had been done a report on fraud at the MOD for the Treasury, said that MOD civil servants had told him blatant lies to protect fraud.
I quoted an example of MOD civil servants lying in written evidence to the criminal investigation into my own allegations made in 2000. Giving misleading evidence is a crime. I also told them that the MOD Police refused to do anything about this because “we work for the MOD, we're part of the MOD” and “as long as they're happy, that's all we care about”.
TI(UK) officers accepted all this. They had no real defence for the report and agreed that withdrawing it would be an easy and powerful way of drawing attention to the subject. However, they told me that it would be damaging to admit they had put out wrong information and that the International Secretariat would oppose withdrawing the report. They did not propose any alternative action on UK arms corruption. I was not asked for, and did not give, any assurances that I would keep what was said secret from other TI members”.
Rob McCartney also says he has been prevented from distributing a leaflet to other TI members to inform them of what is going on in their own organisation. He tried hand it out at a joint TI/Royal African Society event at the House of Commons on Thursday 27th March 2008. “The only way I can contact them is by handing out leaflets at infrequent meetings arranged by TI” he said, adding “TI officials got the RAS to do their dirty work.”.
Rob McCartney has released a version of the leaflet:with an added header to explain it has been banned by TI. He plans to try and distribute it again at the next TI meeting in London Docklands on 30th April, and is appealing for others to support him. He points out that “a group of people handing out the leaflet would carry more weight than a single person”. He also hopes that people outside the UK may distribute it at meetings arranged by TI in their own countries. It is available to read or download in Open Document Text format at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/ti/bannedbyti27march2008.odt and in Word 97/2000/XP format at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/ti/bannedbyti27march2008.doc Anyone who wants to take part in action to publicise this issue you can email Rob McCartney from his home page at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/ 
Homepage:
