by René Lavanchy

A former senior British diplomat has launched a stinging attack on Britain’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, accusing the Government of an obsession with arms deals and dismissing discussions on human rights as “all talk and no trousers”.

Carne Ross, formerly Middle East expert to the UK’s United Nations Security Council delegation, told a hearing this week that Britain’s diplomatic relations deserve “much greater scrutiny” than they currently do, to ensure they are in the public interest.

And the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia said that the Saudis “had difficulty understanding” Britain’s independent judicial system.

The remarks came as pressure group Campaign Against Arms Trade launched a new legal battle with the Ministry of Defence to obtain documents relating to Saudi Arabia’s al-Yamamah arms deals with BAE Systems.

Campaigners have long maintained the deal – struck between the two governments, despite being commercial – was obtained through bribes paid to Saudi officials. But the British government says disclosing the documents would be a breach of confidentiality and not in the public interest.

At a tribunal in London this week to decide if the documents should be released under the Freedom of Information Act, Mr Ross said: “The quality of the relationship with Saudi Arabia has become an end in itself, to which all other values have been subsumed”.

He added that the importance of maintaining a friendly relationship had “come to outweigh other things such as the prevention of corruption…
Al-Yamamah has become the pivot around which UK-Saudi relations revolve”.

CAAT, together with fellow campaigners Corner House Research, are seeking to obtain two memoranda of understanding on the al-Yamamah deal, signed in 1986 and 1988.

Although the documents, marked confidential or secret – are not thought to contain direct evidence of corruption, they hope it will help them understand how the agreements worked, and to what extent they were underwritten by the taxpayer.

Requests for the documents have been rejected by both the Ministry of Defence and the Information Commissioner.

This week, British Ambassador William Patey told the tribunal that upsetting the Saudi government – such as by releasing the documents – could have serious consequences: “Without Saudi agreement, it is difficult to see how there could be a generalised peace in the Middle East.”

Asked if the UK concentrated on commercial interests to the detriment of human rights in Saudi Arabia, Mr Patey said: “Human rights is one of the principal objectives of my embassy’s mission… We have a country business plan and the promotion of good governance in human rights in Saudi Arabia is part of that broader objective.” The Saudis did not ignore the issue either, he insisted.

When asked about Saudi understanding of British principles of democracy and accountability, he said: “They understand that that is our system. They do not always like the consequences of that.”

But Mr Ross, who worked for the diplomatic service until 2004, rejected Mr Patey’s views: “I’m well aware that the British ambassador will vocalise concerns about human rights… it’s all mouth and no trousers.” The Saudis knew not to take such concerns seriously, he said.

The hearing is expected to conclude this week.