More from the Amnesty report:Israeli, Swiss and UK firms and exports from Serbia & Montenegro(506)
The current moratorium on arms transfers originating from the BiH wartime stockpiles has helped focus attention on arms stockpiles and the arms industry in Serbia and Montenegro.
International and local observers in Belgrade say that arms stockpiles of newly manufactured weapons and ammunition from Serbia and Montenegro are being transferred to Iraq and Afghanistan.The Taos executives mentioned the involvement of a previously unknown Israeli-registered company, "Talon," which they said was an arms-brokering company "based in Tel Aviv, Israel", playing a major role to facilitate the transfer of weapons from Serbia to the Middle East.(507) A Montenegrin arms company executive also stated that Talon acted as an "agent" on behalf of Taos in Serbia & Montenegro, but that a confidentiality clause in their contract forbade them for discussing the company’s identity. Moreover, the Serbia & Montenegro Ministry of International Economic Relations (MIER) stated that the company involved in procuring weapons for Iraq in Serbia & Montenegro is Talon Security Consulting and Trade Ltd, registered at an address in the "Diamond Tower" Twin Towers complex in Jabotinsky street, Ramat-Gan, Tel Aviv.(508)
Talon’s owner is Major Shmuel Avivi, according to the Federation of Israeli Chambers of commerce website.
An Israeli source described Shmuel Avivi as "former Israeli military attaché in Switzerland." Mr. Avivi declined to say whether he was currently a serving member of the Israeli defence forces.(509)
Mr. Avivi appears to have served as Israel’s military attaché in Denmark and Sweden. The Israeli source stated that "He [Mr. Avivi] operated out of Switzerland with a Swiss business partner whose first name is Henri." Henri goes by the name of Heinrich in Switzerland where he is known as
Mr. Heinrich Thomet, associated with at least two companies involved in arms dealing, Brugger & Thomet AG and BT International Ltd. Mr Heinrich Thomet stated that he worked together with Mr. Shmuel Avivi "occasionally" and that his company "are supplying Taos Industries on the US SOCOM(510) business" but that his company was not "actually providing any services for Iraq or Afghanistan, we are mainly working on the US government contract which is a SOCOM transaction."
Another company involved in arms transfers to Iraq is a UK-based company called Global Trading Group Ltd. Global have purchased large quantities of small arms and light weapons for Iraq, including an order for 1000 sniper rifles.(511) In documentation supplied to the Ministry of International Economic Relations, Global Trading Group Ltd give as their address premises currently used by a high street store selling hi-fi equipment. This is a different address from the one supplied in their official UK company registration papers.
Global Trading Group Ltd is a new company, incorporated on April 5, 2005, the only publicly available document is the appointments report which describes the company as a "private limited company"; no information is supplied under section entitled "Nature of business" and no accounts have been filed to date. According to UK company house data, Global’s business address is a private one, which appears to be the home of one of the directors of the company.
One of the directors of Global Trading Group Ltd is listed in the Company house documentation as "Fawzi Francis Toma", who is described as a British citizen born in 1958. Mr Fawzi Toma is known in Iraq as Mr. Fawzi Hariri, a one-time aide to Kurdish faction militia and political leader Massoud Barzani and now a senior figure within Barzani’s political party the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP). Mr. Hariri liaises with foreign governments on behalf of the KDP and currently serves as chief of staff of the Iraqi foreign ministry, currently headed by Mr. Hoshyar Zebar, also of the KDP.(512)
According to Companies’ House documentation,
Global Trading Group Ltd’s registered business address is at the home of another company director, Praidon Darmoo, who lobbied the UK government to support the war in Iraq in 2003. A Global Trading director stated that the weapons supplied by Global Trading Group Ltd were on behalf of another company in Jordan who held the contract with the Iraqi Ministry of Defence but that he had seen the end user certificate which he said was issued on behalf of the Iraqi ministry of defence and was sent to Belgrade.(513)
<snip>
Air carriers and the lack of delivery verificationThe first four flights carrying arms destined for Iraq were carried out by Aerocom, an air cargo company accused in an April 2003 UN report to the UN Security Council for smuggling weapons from Serbia to Liberia in 2002 in contravention of the UN arms embargo on Liberia.(473)
Aerocom’s flights from the US-military controlled Eagle base at Tuzla in BiH were carried out on August 7, 8, 21, and 22, 2004.(474) Planned and actual take-off times were noted. According to BHDCA documentation and confirmed by Taos, the flights comprised of 99,000 kg of small arms and light weapons, almost entirely Kalashnikov AK47 assault rifle variants and derivatives. In addition to this, neither the BHDCA nor Eurocontrol were informed about the fourth flight on August 21, records of which were only kept at Tuzla airbase.(475)
Apart from using a company named by the UN as engaged in weapons smuggling from Serbia in previous months, there were a number of other irregularities of concern. The plane, a Russian-made Ilyushin 76, registration number ER-IBV, using call signs MCC9071 and MCC9073 when departing Tuzla, was flying illegally because Aerocom had lost its Air Operating Certificate (AOC) on August 6, 2004 the day before it carried out the series of arms flights from Tuzla.(476) The AOC is the single most important document required by airline companies in order to operate. The flights were actually scheduled for August 1, but were delayed for reasons unknown.(477) According to a flight operations specialist at the Moldovan Civil Aviation Authority, CAA(478), Aerocom’s AOC was not renewed following concerns expressed by Germany and other EU member states regarding the company’s "safety and security record".(479)
Even more importantly, it cannot be established with any certainty that the weapons carried by Aerocom were actually delivered to Baghdad. The coalition air traffic control authority, the Regional Air Movement Coordination Control Center (RAMCC),(480) has no records of any landing slot requests made by Aerocom under their registered call signs during the month of August. RAMCC Iraq chief Major Fred Boehm told in written correspondence that Aerocom had filed requests to land at Baghdad but that these flights originated from Kuwait and related to an Antonov 12 aircraft.(481)
Requests for further information from the Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) met with no response. According to civil aviation sources flying into Iraq, the Iraqi CAA has remained non-functional, and full authority in practice was vested in the RAMCC, something that the RAMCC documentation makes clear. In addition to this, it is alleged that the Iraqi CAA was not in a position to keep records of landing slot requests during the period in question – August 2004 – as they existed at best on paper.
Subsequent appeals to the RAMCC to re-check records by Artic Group Ltd, a Ukrainian company which acted on behalf of Aerocom for the BiH-Baghdad flights [see further below], failed to elicit any response from the RAMCC.(482) Under military regulations, all planes landing at Baghdad airport have to file landing slot request forms with the RAMCC except in emergencies. It would be extremely dangerous for an unauthorised aircraft to attempt a landing at Baghdad airport as there are rigorous security protocols and defences in place, giving added weight to the RAMCC motto "Better not fly without us".(483)
Speedex and Artic both state that they have documents to prove the delivery of the weapons to Baghdad but they have refused to make such documentation available, saying it would compromise client confidentiality.(484) This argument is slightly spurious given the fact that they themselves have identified the consigner – Taos Industries - and the consignee – the US Department of Army/Department of State, US Mission Iraq – and claim to have delivered the weapons.(485)
Taos claims the weapons were delivered to Baghdad but say they do not possess documentation that would prove the planes actually landed at Baghdad and that the weapons were actually delivered. However, Taos do say they have documents to prove that they were paid for the weapons.(486) Taos claims that it would be difficult to obtain documentary evidence of landings and delivery because of the chaotic situation in Iraq combined with high staff turnover in Baghdad.(487) This may seem unconvincing given that the operation was a significant and sensitive US-sponsored arms deal and it is the US authorities that have most control over military affairs in Baghdad, yet an executive of Taos Industries described his experience:
"Sometimes we’re not paid for as much as six months because they can’t find the material, they can’t [unclear] the documents….I mean we have guys…I have a guy over there about every two months to walk around with the officers and point out the boxes with our material, to point out our material… and to find our documents, things can easily get lost or get confused."(488)
The US government department responsible for authorising the arms shipments to Iraq and liaising with the freight-forwarders, the Project Contracting Office, PCO, is not the agency responsible for receiving the weapons on arrival in Baghdad.(489) Weapons delivery is "probably" handled by the US "Defense Contract Management Activity."(490) This is part of the Office of Management and Budgets (OMB).
Taos Industries claims that even if the person in Baghdad who signed for the receipt of the weapons delivered by Aerocom could be found, it may prove very difficult to identify the arms themselves since there was no tracking system once the weapons left the airport.(491) Taos supplies were intended for the police as well as army units in Iraq and claims that EUFOR in BiH should have received documents following the Aerocom shipments, specifically a US DoD form known as DD1907, a signature and tally record in which the consignee representative should sign for all items at point of delivery. A Taos executive stated that the DD 1907 form should have turned up in BiH "four weeks" after delivery of the shipment. EUFOR officials said that completed DD1907 forms were the only evidentiary documents for delivery verification of arms and such forms should be completed and sent to show that the weapons have been delivered - and that this had been the case with other shipments.(492)
However, EUFOR refused to respond to written requests for confirmation that they are in receipt of the DD1907s for the Aerocom shipments.(493) One EUFOR official stated that "the DD1907 document is in practical terms meaningless since it deals with shipment weight, tonnage, rather than the number of weapons and systems delivered, we do not give the DD1907 any credibility, they could have delivered steel pipes and we in Sarajevo would be unaware if the shipment that arrived actually comprised of the material that left Tuzla."(494)
According to Turkish air traffic control documentation, five Aerocom flights did exit and enter Turkish airspace on the dates in question, ostensibly bound for and returning from Baghdad international airport. However this by itself does not constitute evidence that the planes themselves actually landed at their stated destination or that the cargoes ended up with the authorised end-users.(495)
While the coalition air traffic control stated that they have no record of the Aerocom shipments, even if the weapons were delivered to Iraq, there has been a significant risk of diversion of US-supplied weaponry inside Iraq to actors associated with grave violations of human rights. Firearms delivered to Iraq as part of a deal involving Taos Industries and two UK companies, Super Vision International and Helston Gunsmiths have allegedly ended up "in Al-Qaeda hands."(496)
In another report, US officers training the new Iraqi Security Forces are quoted as describing the arms distribution process as becoming "very murky" with one official estimating that "unaccounted equipment [including weapons] could total $500 million in value". The article also quoted a lawyer representing an arms broker which had supplied the Iraqi ministry of defence as saying that out of a shipment of 1,500 AK-47s, "nearly all of the AK-47 rifles disappeared."(497)
There were also other actors within the arms freighting and logistics network that have close, yet undefined, links to Aerocom, a now-defunct company. As already mentioned, the Aerocom flights involved Artic Group Ltd. In the BHDCA take-off slot request form, the telephone numbers provided by Aerocom do not contain the Moldova country code where Aerocom were officially based prior to AOC decertification. Instead, the contact numbers and staff names for Aerocom are identical to the numbers listed to Artic Group Ltd, a Kiev-based company.(498) The man named as "Aerocom operations manager" in the BHDCA documentation stated that he works for Artic and written correspondence with him originated from an Artic email address.(499) While Artic claims to have consulted with Aerocom staff in replying to written correspondence, they repeatedly failed to provide the requested contact names and numbers for Aerocom offices and staff and declined to respond to the allegation that Artic was in fact Aerocom operating under a different name.(500)
The aircraft used by Aerocom/Artic for the weapons flights to Iraq, was registered as ER-IBV (an Ilyushin 76T), and was leased by Aerocom from Jet Line International, an air cargo firm named as a partner company in the Artic Group website. However, since August 6, 2004 Aerocom could not legally operate the Ilyushin ER-IBV because the company had lost its Air Operating Certificate (AOC). Aerocom’s international call designator, MCC, assigned from the International Civil Aviation Organisation, was withdrawn in the first 2005 listing.(501)
This Ilyushin has since been operating under the AOC of Jet Line International. One Jet Line official, said that in fact "they [Artic] operate that aircraft under our AOC" and that "Artic owns ER-IBV".(502) Artic has been advertising the use of an Il-76 for charter flights from its website. A representative of Speedex, the freight-forwarding company responsible for contracting Aerocom, also said that Artic owns the ER-IBV plane.(503) Another Artic staff member appears to be the previous contact person for Jet Line International in Kiev.(504)
Jet Line International and Aerocom are also linked through Asterias Commercial, SA, describing itself as a company registered in Greece but also based in Kiev, Ukraine, and listing Jet Line International as one of its "partners." Asterias is named as the holder of an insurance policy for another Aerocom plane, ER-IBE for the period 2004 – 2005.(505)
web.amnesty.org/library/index/engact300082006