It began with one student and an Arabic newspaper. He raised the front page,
which carried a blurred, pixellated photograph of Gillian Gibbons, above his
head and launched his tirade. “In the name of Allah the most compassionate
and merciful,” he shouted, “we invite all people in the world to take Islam
and we need from our Government to dismiss this teacher from Sudan.” One by
one members of the crowd at the Khartoum University campus began to join in,
each in turn picking up the paper and shouting abuse. |
ANDREW FASTOW’S allegation that the NatWest Three were involved in the
financial deceits which brought down Enron does not mean the men are guilty.
But it does mean that they have a case to answer — a case which is rightly
being tried in the US. <br/>
<br/>
The US has had no particular beef with British businessmen. It seeks out
suspects of white-collar crime whoever they are, wherever they are. Kobi
Alexander, the chief executive of Comverse Technology, was apprehended this
week in Namibia, ending his two-month flight from American law enforcers
seeking to prosecute him for the back-dating of stock options. The “perp
walk” — the US practice of hand-cuffing and frog-marching a
multi-millionaire American executive out of his office and into a waiting
police car in full view of the waiting, tipped-off camera crews — has become
a regular feature of the nightly news in the US. Foreigners who do business
in America know full well that the Land of the Free is not nice to
criminals, nor even criminal suspects. <br/>
<br/>
The public outcry over the extradition of the NatWest Three — Gary Mulgrew,
David Bermingham and Giles Darby — has from the outset felt like a
misplaced, sometimes mendacious venting of national frustration at
Washington. <br/>
<br/>
The fact is that this case has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, with the
presidency of George W. Bush, with Tony Blair’s Atlanticist inclinations.
Even the esteemed British chief executives and chairmen who signed up to the
letter calling for fair trials abroad looked like suckers: their campaign
seemed to put patriotism, even a huffy anti-Americanism, before the due
process of law. <br/>
<br/>
Certainly, they had a just complaint: the British Government agreed an
extradition treaty without securing reciprocity from the US. But, for that,
more fool the British Government. It knows a pledge from the Administration
will not necessarily be honoured by Congress, particularly involving the
issue of extradition. <br/>
<br/>
Fastow’s claims against the three British men may be suspect. The quiet chief
financial officer of Enron has made a second career for himself shopping his
old acquaintances. In 2002, he was indicted on 78 counts of fraud,
money-laundering and conspiracy. Thanks to his “co-operation with the
authorities”, he has been sentenced to six years in prison. <br/>
<br/>
Nonetheless, Fastow’s legal deposition describes a “close, personal
relationship” with Mulgrew. Enron collapsed in 2001, undone by an intricate,
ingenious web of financial fraud. Fastow claims that, in his financial
dealings with the men as late as 2000, they “knew what I expected”. The
deposition seems to skewer the argument that the men should be tried in
Britain. They may have to face allegations of defrauding their former
British employers too, but if they played a part in Enron’s downfall, then
they have a case to answer in America as well. There is a principle at
stake, one which underpins global capitalism and one which is as dear to
every Briton as it is to every American: respect for the due process of law. |