Le système BAE en crise, à l’image du Royaume-Uni

Le système BAE en crise, à l’image du Royaume-Uni

5 octobre 2004 — Petite touche par petite touche apparaît ce que le Guardian nomme « the BAE System ». La puissance du groupe d’armement britannique, dont on sait qu’on peut se demander s’il est encore britannique, s’appuie sur l’énorme contrat Al Yamamah, passé dans les années 1980 avec l’Arabie Saoudite, et qui représente le plus phénoménal montage de corruption institutionnalisée jamais établi dans le monde industriel. Aujourd’hui encore, vingt ans après, BAE vit sur les rentes de Al Yamamah, comme le signalait le Guardian du 5 septembre 2004 (« [2003]has been a relatively serene year, […with] the cash funnelling into the business via the Al Yamamah contract with Saudi Arabia which is directly linked to the price of oil »)

D’autre part, le “système BAE” installé autour du montage Al Yamamah continue épisodiquement à rencontrer des difficultés, essentiellement dans la forme de révélations qui parviennent jusqu’à la presse. C’est le cas aujourd’hui avec une enquête et des révélations venues de la BBC et reprises notamment dans le Guardian. Il s’agit de détails sur des activités de corruption structurelles, consistant à contribuer à l’“entretien” de certaines activités de luxe de dirigeants saoudiens. Les détails sont précis, assortis de documents publiés. Ils impliquent un dirigeant important de BAE et constituent un signe convaincant que le “système BAE” approche du point de crise.

« The chief operating officer of giant arms firm BAE, Steven Mogford, is today named in a BBC programme as the man behind the company's “slush fund”, which made £60m of corrupt payments to Saudi officials, including providing prostitutes, Rolls-Royces and Californian holidays. Mr Mogford, aged 48, is also accused on tonight's Money Programme of giving orders to suppress an internal investigation into the slush fund.

» Mr Mogford's signed authority appears on BAE's files authorising huge corrupt payments with the words “OK to pay”. The Guardian is publishing these documents on its website today. They directly implicate one of the arms firm's most senior executives in a spreading scandal.

» Last week a Ministry of Defence civil servant, John Porter, was arrested and questioned about alleged unauthorised free holidays and gifts he and his wife received from BAE's slush fund.

» The documents we are publishing today suggest that BAE used an elaborate process of false accounting to make huge payments, many of them to the top official responsible for Saudi arms purchases, Prince Turki bin Nasser. »

Cette affaire complique encore un peu plus la situation de BAE, qui se trouve par ailleurs dans une phase stratégique décisive. Il y a un peu plus d’un mois que le groupe britannique a vu son président changer. Le nouveau président, qui vient de BP, est là, espère-t-on, pour préciser la stratégie de BAE : transatlantique (intégration dans le système US, en fait) ou européenne ? Le problème est que, peut-être, sans doute, ni les USA ni l’Europe ne sont pressés aujourd’hui de faire entrer chez eux BAE. (C’est une situation typiquement britannique et, dans le rôle de BAE, chacun aura reconnu Tony Blair.) D’autre part, devant ce peu d’empressement des partenaires potentiels, la stratégie de BAE est caractérisée par une indécision grandissante (comme dit un analyste cité dans le texte, Zafar Khan, de SG Securities: « They have put together this group strategy so that they can say they have got everything covered. But what is missing is a sense of direction. »)

(Dans cet extrait de l’article, on mesurera les incertitudes dans lesquelles s’abîme aujourd’hui BAE : sur six paragraphes cités, quatre commencent par “but”, indiquant les difficultés à concrétiser l’option envisagée au paragraphe précédent.)

« But the question for the review is, can it grow from these starting points in future? This time last year the 'silver bullet' solution was still in play: a US merger, gaining access to the largest defence budget in the world with one shot. The Evans/Turner partner of choice was Boeing, but BAE was also linked with General Dynamics — allegedly interested in BAE's submarine business — and Lockheed Martin. One by one, however, the Americans got cold feet.

» Nevertheless, in addition to its successful US business, BAE has a significant role on what may become the biggest defence contract of all time — the F-35 joint strike fighter, which could be worth up to $300bn. BAE acts as a subcontractor to Lockheed Martin on high-value electronic warfare systems. The alliance, it argues, gives it a platform for persuading the Pentagon — its second largest customer after the British Ministry of Defence, it claims — of its capability.

» But there are significant obstacles to US growth. Chief is the lack of co-operation over the transfer of technology from US companies to foreign ones. This has come to a head with the F-35. As things stand, BAE has difficulty accessing details via software codes of the programme, which is hampering its collaboration. The MOD has battled to get these restrictions lifted, and is now taking a harder line on it.

» But as one observer said: “What is absolutely fundamental to BAE's relationship with the US is getting them comfortable in the issue of technology transfer. The current issue is JSF, but that is so large a programme, that even on its own this is a strategic issue. If they are going to grow in the US, which they will have to do via joint ven tures, they have to get this sorted out.” (…)

» Meanwhile, there are those in the industry who would be advising a straight European partnership. One senior industry figure who often works with BAE as a partner, says: “A US merger is out. I have always thought a European strategy is better for BAE anyway, creating a European prime, together with Thales and Eads. They may not be in the US but they would fully be a part of the European industry and there is a chance for growing here.”

» But there are problems here too. Getting too close to the Europeans would increase suspicion in Washington. But, at the same time, observers believe BAE must move. As one says: “In Europe, as in America, it is military aircraft that drive things. But if you look at the major programmes in Europe, the Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale have all peaked and are all going to tail off in the coming decade. This will spark consolidation in Europe, and BAE has a choice as to whether to be part of that or not. It is not difficult to see the benefits of being on the inside.” »

Le scandale rampant de la corruption qui continue à émerger épisodiquement va encore compliquer les affaires de BAE. Personne n’aime s’associer à une société qui traîne si visiblement une casserole aussi bruyante. Pendant ce temps, le groupe BAE perd constamment de son expertise technologique parce qu’il est associé en seconde main aux programmes US (restrictions dramatiques de transfert de technologies) et qu’il n’est plus associé à des programmes européens de pointe.

…Décidément, BAE est l’exact reflet de la situation britannique.