INDEPENDENT COMMENT ON THE AITKEN AFFAIR
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.There are remarkably few things that governments forbid companies to do. Of these, perhaps the most important, is the supply of weapons to an unfriendly foreign power, or one involved in military activity that is against British interests.
It is now clear that BMARC, the company of which Jonathan Aitken was a director, supplied naval guns to Iran in contravention of just such a government embargo.
This took place when Mr Aitken, now Treasury Chief Secretary, was a senior backbencher; it was referred to at BMARC board meetings as "Project Lisi". In the company's monthly report to directors the guns were marked for delivery in kit form to Singapore. There they were assembled and sent to Iran.
Yet through the Scott Inquiry on arms to Iraq, and now in the documents revealed by this newspaper today, it emerges that during the period of the arms embargo to the Middle East, British companies were making money out of illegal arms sales.
Mr Aitken has denied any knowledge of arms sales to Iran.
He has told others that he has never heard of Project Lisi. At a critical board meeting he left, he says, before the relevant agenda item. Had he known about the flouting of the embargo he would not have countenanced it.
Directors of companies are required to exercise "due diligence". One of the most obvious potential problem areas for an arms exporting company is observance of government restrictions. Yet Mr Aitken says that he knew nothing about it. Is the British public really supposed to feel satisfied with this? We do not think so.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments