1. Syria crisis: battle for Qusair – live updates
2. Syria: Obama pins hopes on peace talks
3. Syria condemned in UN vote doubts grow about backing rebels

1. Inequality surges in world’s richest countries, esp. in times of crisis

Gulf state paid British arms manufacturers almost £4bn in past four years in face of human rights concerns

The UK has granted arms export licences to Saudi Arabia worth almost £4bn over the past four years despite growing fears about the human rights record in the kingdom during the Arab spring, new figures show.

Last year the government approved licences worth £112m for 209 items, including crowd control ammunition grenades, components for military aircraft and combat vehicles, and components for electronic warfare.

The details have been set out by the watchdog Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), which pulled together figures from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) for the value and destination of licences approved in 2012.

According to the CAAT study, the UK sold £433m worth of military equipment and services to Oman last year, £306m to the US and £142m to Brazil.

But CAAT's concern focuses on continued arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which last year had licences approved worth £26.2m and £4.6m respectively.

The government insists the rules for granting licences are robust and transparent, but campaigners argue the regulations still allow substantial arms exports to authoritarian regimes.

"These figures for 2012 show the UK arms industry continues to focus on the Gulf states, despite their reputation for human rights abuse and lack of democracy," said a spokesman for CAAT.

The group points out Saudi Arabia's ranking in the The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2012fell from the previous year - it was given zero points for "electoral process and pluralism". The only countries ranked lower in the 170 strong table were Syria, Chad, Guinea-Bissau and North Korea.

Saudi Arabia's press was assessed as "not free" by the Freedom House Freedom of the Press Index 2013 which listed it as joint 182 of 197 countries listed.

"The prime minister and arms company executives visit Saudi Arabia to beg for orders and routinely roll out the red carpet for Saudi delegations to the UK, as they will be doing in September for the DSEi arms fair," the spokesman added.

"It's time to end this damaging and dangerous relationship and stop selling arms to this repressive regime."

According to government's figures, the UK last year licensed weaponry and other military equipment and components worth £111.7 million to Saudi Arabia.

This included aircraft, helicopters, and drones worth £81.4m; armoured vehicles and tanks worth £8.8m; and grenades bombs worth up to £3.2m.

A spokeswoman for BIS insisted the UK took enormous care before granting applications - and there was no evidence any British exports had been used to internal repression in any of the Gulf states.

She insisted the criteria were rigorous and the government had turned down applications where there was doubt what the equipment might be used for.

"The UK government takes is export licensing responsibilities seriously and operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world. Any application to export a product covered by an export control is assessed against internationally recognised criteria on a case by case basis. Each assessment we make takes into account the intended end use of the equipment, the behaviour of the end user, the risk of diversion and the prevailing circumstances in the country concerned. We pay particular attention to allegations of human rights abuses."

Alistair Burt, the foreign office minister for counter proliferation, has repeatedly denied that Britain has granted export licences to countries where the equipment might be used to suppress dissent.

"We do not and will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or where it might be used to facilitate internal repression," Burt said last year.

David Cameron visited Saudi Arabia twice last year during which he defended arms sales to Gulf countries as "entirely legitimate", particularly as the arms industry supports 600,000 jobs in the UK.

The prime minister said he had travelled to the Gulf to support British businesses and help them "to compete and thrive in the global race" .

Ministers argue defence and security exports support legitimate rights to self-defence. They concede the government does have concerns about human rights in Saudi Arabia and deny the commercial relationship with the kingdom prevents the UK from speaking frankly and openly about the problems.

1. World Briefing | Middle East: Saudi Arabia: New Virus Spreads
2. Saudi princes fail in attempt to keep court documents secret from media
3. Saudi Arabian woman in historic Mount Everest climb

1. Saudi Arabian woman in historic Mount Everest climb
2. First Saudi woman climbs Mount Everest
3. Mount Everest, amphetamines, and the ethics of experiment

Raha Moharrak, who was among a party of 64 climbers, becomes first female from the country to scale the mountain

A Saudi Arabian woman has become the first woman from her country to climb Mount Everest.

Raha Moharrak was one of 64 climbers who scaled Mount Everest from Nepal's side of the mountain on Saturday.

Tilak Padney of Nepal's mountaineering department says 35 foreigners accompanied by 29 Nepalese sherpa guides reached the 29,035ft (8,850-metre) peak on Saturday morning after climbing all night from the highest camp on South Col.

May is the most popular month for Everest climbs because of its mild weather.

Moharrak, 25, is originally from Jeddah but lives in Dubai. She is part of a four-person expedition that also includes the first Qatari man and the first Palestinian man attempting to reach the summit. Their Twitter page states that they are "working with Reach Out to Asia to raise money for Nepali education". The "Arabs with Altitude" group includes Mohammed Al Thani, a member of Qatar's royal family; Raed Zidan, a Palestinian property businessman and Masoud Mohammad, an Iranian living in Dubai who owns an ice-cream franchise.

The first people to climb Mount Everest were Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay on 29 May 1953.

1. First Saudi woman climbs to top of Everest
2. Mount Everest, amphetamines, and the ethics of experiment

1. World Briefing | Middle East: Saudi Arabia: New Virus Spreads
2. Saudi princes fail in attempt to keep court documents secret from media
3. Saudi princes fail to win sovereign immunity in UK court case

Allegations against former defence minister and his son emerge in papers obtained by Guardian

Two prominent Saudi princes are involved in a London-registered company that supposedly facilitated "money laundering" for Hezbollah in Lebanon and helped smuggle precious stones out of Congo, according to contested allegations in court documents obtained by the Guardian.

The claims emerge from court papers that lawyers for the Saudis have spent a year trying to suppress, including resorting to threats that relations with Britain would be damaged if they were revealed.

Lawyers for the two princes – Prince Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a former defence minister, brother of King Abdullah and chairman of the country's influential allegiance council, and his son Prince Abdulaziz bin Mishal bin Al Saud – dismiss the claims as fabrications, "extortion" and "blackmail".

They contend that their former partner, a Jordanian, Faisal Almhairat, "misappropriated" money from accounts, denied them access to company books, shut down the shared business and "interfered with the negotiations" on telecommunications deals. Almhairat, in turn, disputes their claims.

In the context of Middle East politics, the suggestion that two prominent Sunni Muslims from the Saudi royal family have been surreptitiously dealing for profit with Hezbollah, a Shia force supported by Iran, is extremely damaging. Hezbollah is designated a terrorist organisation by the US.

The Guardian and Financial Times originally requested to see the court documents – filed as part of a commercial dispute between Almhairat and the Saudis – in spring 2012. On Thursday, the court of appeal finally agreed to the immediate release of the statements of case.

Among other allegations is the claim that at the "instigation" of Prince Abdulaziz, Saudi police issued an arrest warrant for Almhairat and asked Interpol to issue a red notice sanctioning the extradition of the Saudis' former business partner to Saudi Arabia.

The case revolves around a catastrophic breakdown in relations between Almhairat and the Saudis. They were business partners in a London registered telecommunications company, Fi Call Ltd, whose capital value was £300m.

Fi Call was developing a software application for smartphones that would allow users to make free phone calls. The Saudis' shares were mainly held through Global Torch Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company that the princes are said by Almhairat to control. Almhairat's shares are held by his Seychelles-based firm Apex Global Management.

The dispute, which erupted over allegedly misappropriated money and the sale of $6.7m (£4.3m) worth of shares, has "thrown up a nuclear mushroom cloud" of litigation, according to Mr Justice Morgan, who gave judgment at an early stage in the litigation.

The case raises questions about whether the transparency of British justice can be upheld at a time when the Ministry of Justice is eagerly inviting wealthy, international claimants to resolve their disputes in London's commercial courts.

The legal dispute was initiated by Global Torch but a counter-petition by Almhairat forced the two Saudi princes to become involved in the case. The princes then tried unsuccessfully to extract themselves from the proceedings by claiming "sovereign immunity". Prince Mishal is aged 86 and said to be in frail health.

A further, preliminary hearing is due to take place next week at the Rolls Building in central London where commercial disputes are tried. That argument will focus on an application by the princes that the UK courts do not have jurisdiction to involve them in the counter-claim launched by Apex and Almhairat.

The full trial, if it goes ahead, is due to be heard in January next year. On Thursday three judges in the court of appeal, Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Briggs, lifted a stay on reporting court submissions. They are due to give their reasoning at a later date.

None of the factual issues have yet been resolved by the court. The allegations are fiercely contested on both sides. At one point in a court document, lawyers for Almhairat remark: "Each side maintains that the other is lying about almost everything."

During the appeal court hearing, Guy Vassall-Adams, counsel for the Guardian and Financial Times, said: "Global Torch has chosen to bring proceedings in this jurisdiction. This is an open justice jurisdiction.

"They [the Saudis] have to accept that these damaging allegations will be heard in open court in the usual way. The protection they are entitled to is a judgment delivered in public which will refute unfounded allegations. That's how a legal system works in a democracy under the rule of law."

The case continues.

1. Saudi princes fail in attempt to keep court documents secret from media
2. Saudi princes fail to win sovereign immunity in UK court case

Previously suppressed court papers provide extraordinary insight into way in which Prince Mishal and Prince Abdulaziz conducted business

Previously suppressed court papers released to the Guardian by the court of appeal provide an extraordinary insight into the way in which senior Saudi princes supposedly conduct their business.

The breakdown in commercial relations between Prince Mishal, a former defence minister, his son Prince Abdulaziz and their Jordanian former business partner, Faisal Almhairat, have degenerated into a barrage of accusations and counter accusations that will eventually have to be settled by judges in London.

The most wounding claims are contained in a petition submitted by Almhairat, who fled his native Jordan "in fear of his life" and has since been living in London. His documents claim that, at one stage, he sought the help of Scotland Yard's anti-kidnap squad.

Almhairat maintains that key conversations on which he relies were recorded on his iPhone and then downloaded on to memory sticks which were subsequently stolen in the UK. The Saudis say they never existed. They also dismiss the allegations as fabrications designed to blackmail them into settling the case on disadvantageous terms.

Almhairat's first allegation relates to a transaction said to have taken place in spring 2010, when he was asked to fly from the Jordanian capital Amman to Beirut to issue a bank guarantee for $5m to an intermediary who supposedly dealt with Hezbollah, the Shia political organisation which controls much of eastern Lebanon.

Almhairat claims he declined to become involved but then received a phone call from Prince Abdulaziz during which he was told: "We deal with whoever we want to deal with, whether it's Hezbollah, the mafia or even the Jews. The important thing is that you implement any given order without questioning.

"Even your King [of Jordan] does not raise a question … You agreed to obey us and in return you get our protection. Yet, be sure that if we remove our protection, you and all your family are dead within a second … Do as you are instructed. Otherwise your head will be at my feet without your body." Almhairat claims he was later told the banker's draft was to be used to "facilitate money-laundering for Hezbollah", allowing Prince Abdulaziz to earn a profit of $5m.

Almhairat's second main allegation relates to a charter flight said to have been paid for by Fi Call in late February/March 2011 from Nairobi to Amman. It was supposedly arranged on Prince Abdulaziz's instructions. The purpose, Almhairat was told, was to transport the prince's camping equipment. Almhairat, however, said that documents he obtained revealed certificates purporting to show that a mining company had been given permission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to export "5,000kg of ore nuggets worth $140m, plus another export of 5,000kg ore nuggets, 4,000kg of ruby gemstones, 3,000kg of green garnet, 7,000kg of malakis stone and 1,000kg of blue sapphire".

Almhairat sent an email saying he wanted nothing to do with the business. He says he later saw an email saying the goods had been taken from Kenyan customs to the local United Nations office where officials had supposedly scanned some of the boxes, seen dollars and decided to ask for money in return for looking the other way. The value of the shipment was said to be "2B", implying two billion, possibly in dollars.

In April 2011, Almhairat met Prince Abdulaziz and his father, Prince Mishal, in Dubai. Mishal is alleged to have told him: "When we enter a business we always have majority control of the company. We need to have majority control of the shares in Fi Call. You can keep a small percentage of the company as an incentive for you."

Mishal supposedly added: "You know that I have moved huge amounts of money for people like the Mubaraks. We've been doing this business for years. We can move money for anyone, including the Iranians, because no one dares challenge us … Help my son and you'll get our protection."Throughout the preliminary hearings lawyers for Prince Mishal and Prince Abdulaziz, as well as Global Torch – the British Virgin Island company they are said to control – dismissed the allegations as false, "scandalous and outrageous". The aim was to cause "reputational damage, embarrassment and distress".

The allegations should "not be aired in open court" because the allegations are "wholly false", it was insisted. "Publicity for the [Beirut ] allegation", it was said, would result in Prince Abdulaziz and Emad Ayshih, a director of Fi Call Ltd, being at risk of "serious personal injury or death from reprisals from citizens of Saudi Arabia or certain organisations".

Mark Warby QC, for the Saudi princes, said the allegations against the Saudi princes were "very grave" and were an attack on their reputations and their rights to a private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. In the Saudi submissions, put before the court first of all, they alleged that Almhairat misappropriated money from a joint account. They maintain he gave away intellectual property rights to telecommunications material without permission, failed to attend board meetings and effectively shut down the company without permission. Almhairat's lawyers deny the allegations.

On the Beirut transaction, the Saudis insist the money was merely being prepared to pay a subsidiary for telecommunications work. The $5m never left the bank, it is said. On the Kenyan aircraft charter, the Saudis insist that the emails which Almhairat refers to about precious stones are fictitious and malicious.

Publication of allegations of money-laundering links between two senior Saudi princes and Hezbollah are likely to prove deeply embarassing to the conservative kingdom, a sworn foe of Iran and Syria, Hezbollah's main backers. Over the past two years King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has emerged as one of the principal supporters of the Syrian rebels seeking to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. Hezbollah is blacklisted as a terrorist group in the US and its military wing is banned by the UK, and it is now fighting openly in support of the Assad regime. Abdullah has also been a staunch supporter of Sunni-led governments in Lebanon, where Hezbollah forms a part of the current coalition.

They are also likely to fuel the resentment of Saudis who believe that members of the royal family are corrupt, at a time when the kingdom has largely escaped the mass protests seen elsewhere in the region.

1. Saudi princes lose battle to keep court documents secret
2. Saudi princes fail in attempt to keep court documents secret from media
3. Saudi princes fail to win sovereign immunity in UK court case

Court of appeal dismisses claim by Prince Mishal and Prince Abdulaziz after challenge brought by Guardian and FT

Two Saudi princes have failed in their attempt to prevent the media seeing court documents in a sensitive commercial dispute.

The court of appeal dismissed the claim by lawyers on behalf of Prince Mishal, a former defence minster, and his son Prince Abdulaziz. The challenge was brought by the Guardian and the Financial Times.

The ruling upholds the principle that some court documents should be available for the fair and accurate reporting of cases. Lawyers for the Saudis had relied on the Human Rights Act to obtain an interim ban on the reporting of court documents related to the case.

Mark Warby QC, for the princes and Global Torch Ltd, the British Virgin Island company they are said to control, had argued that the principle of open justice "was not a trump card" that automatically removed all the other "fundamental rights" of claimants in a court case.

He said the allegations against the princes were very grave and were an attack on their reputations and their rights to a private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

Warby had sought an interim ban on the release of sealed court documents until the trial was heard in full. Some of the claims in the petitions, he alleged, amounted to an "arguable case" of extortion.

But Guy Vassall-Adams, counsel for the Guardian and Financial Times, told the appeal court: "Global Torch has chosen to bring proceedings in this jurisdiction. This is an open justice jurisdiction.

"They [the Saudis] have to accept that these damaging allegations will be heard in open court in the usual way. The protection they are entitled to is a judgment delivered in public which will refute unfounded allegations.

"That's how a legal system works in a democracy under the rule of law."

1. Saudi princes fail to win sovereign immunity in UK court case
2. OJ Simpson speaks in court in attempt to overturn armed robbery sentence

Appeal judges uphold ruling against two royals as their lawyers seek to impose reporting restrictions on business dispute

Two senior Saudi princes have failed to extract themselves from English justice after the court of appeal upheld a ruling that they are not entitled to sovereign immunity in a case involving their London-based business interests.

Lawyers for the princes were informed that they had lost their claim at the start of a two-day hearing on Wednesday into a related attempt to impose reporting restrictions on the sensitive commercial dispute.

The Guardian and Financial Times have requested documents detailing disputed transactions involving Saudi interests in Beirut and Nairobi. The case involves a London registered company, FI Call Ltd.

The Saudi royals are Prince Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a former defence minister who is the brother of King Abdullah and chairman of the country's influential allegiance council, and his son Prince Abdulaziz bin Mishal bin Al Saud. They and Global Torch Ltd, the British Virgin Island company they are said to control, are in dispute with a Jordanian businessman, Faisal Almhairat, and his Seychelles-based firm Apex Global Management.

The three appeal court judges, Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Briggs, are due to give the reasons for their sovereign immunity decision in due course.

Lawyers for the Saudis are relying on the Human Rights Act to obtain an interim ban on the reporting of court documents related to the case. Mark Warby QC, for the princes and Global Torch, said the principle of open justice "was not a trump card" that automatically removed all the other "fundamental rights" of claimants in a court case.

He said the allegations against the princes were very grave and were an attack on their reputations and their rights to a private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

Warby said he was seeking an interim ban on the release of sealed court documents until the trial was heard in full. Some of the claims in the petitions, he alleged, amounted to an "arguable case" of extortion.

"It's obvious that allegations of this gravity are going to have an effect – in the old language of libel, they [the Saudis] are going to be shunned and avoided."

But Guy Vassall-Adams, counsel for the Guardian and Financial Times, told the appeal court: "Global Torch has chosen to bring proceedings in this jurisdiction. This is an open justice jurisdiction.

"They [the Saudis] have to accept that these damaging allegations will be heard in open court in the usual way. The protection they are entitled to is a judgment delivered in public which will refute unfounded allegations.

"That's how a legal system works in a democracy under the rule of law."

He said parliament had sanctioned fair and accurate reporting of defamatory allegations that arise in court proceedings. "People understand that allegations are not proven matters."

Vassall-Adams said allegations of blackmail or extortion were being used as "a crutch … to support the [Saudis'] application for a private hearing".

"Private hearings are not necessary to do justice in this case," he said. "It's very clear the courts are extremely reluctant to allow article 8 rights to prevail over the principle of open justice."

Robert Howe QC, for Almhairat and Apex, said the Saudis' application was "an illegitimate and ill-judged" attempt to amend the principle of open justice through arguments used in privacy and defamation cases.

"This is against a backdrop of a flood of attempts by wealthy litigants to try and close the court doors" by applying for privacy for their claims. Merely stating that there was an "arguable case" that allegations were false was not sufficient to order what was in effect a privacy hearing, Howe said.

Public faith in the administration of justice has already been damaged because normal reporting of the case has already been prevented, he said. No request has been served on the court to strike out the evidence.

"The matter of the allegations do raise important issues of widespread public interest," Howe said. "My client has had the misfortune to become embroiled in a very difficult dispute with some very rich individuals … It's a basic constitutional position that [such a hearing] should be held in public."

The case continues.

1. Ethiopia: Court Hears Grand Corruption Case