The address reflects Carlyle's
position at the very center of the Washington establishment, but
amid the frenetic politicking that has occupied the higher reaches
of that world in recent weeks, few have paid it much attention.
Elsewhere, few have even heard of it.
This is exactly the way Carlyle
likes it. For 14 years now, with almost no publicity, the company
has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians -
including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James
Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi
and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts
and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns
are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US
military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious
dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy
while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defense firms.
But since the start of the "war on
terrorism", the firm - unofficially valued at $13.5bn - has taken on
an added significance. Carlyle has become the thread which
indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the
personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least
the current president's father. And, until earlier this month,
Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among
the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family
of Osama bin Laden.
The closest the
Carlyle Group has previously come to public attention was last May,
when a Seoul-based employee called Peter Chung was forced to resign
from his £100,000-a-year job after sending an email to
friends - subsequently forwarded to thousands of others -
boasting of his plans to "fuck every hot chick in Korea over the
next two years". The more business-oriented activities of Carlyle's
staff have been conducted much more quietly: since it was founded in
1987 by David Rubenstein, a policy assistant in Jimmy Carter's
administration, and two lawyer friends, the firm has been
dispatching an array of former world leaders on a series of
strategic networking trips.
Last year, George Bush Sr and John Major traveled to
Riyadh to talk with senior Saudi businessmen. In September 2000,
Carlyle hired speakers including Colin Powell and AOL Time Warner
chair Steve Case to address an extravagant party at Washington's
Monarch Hotel. Months later, Major joined James Baker for a function
at the Lanesborough Hotel in London, to explain the Florida election
controversy to the wealthy attendees.
We can assume
that Carlyle pays well. Neither Major's office nor Carlyle will
confirm the details of his salary as European chairman - an
appointment announced shortly before he left the House of Commons
after the election - but we know, for the purposes of comparison,
that he is paid £105,000 for 28 days' work a year for an unrelated
non-executive directorship. Bush gives speeches for the company and
is paid with stakes in the firm's investments, believed to be worth
at least $80,000 per appearance. The benefits have attracted
political stars from around the world: former Philippines president
Fidel Ramos is an adviser, as is former Thai premier Anand
Panyarachun - as well as former Bundesbank president Karl Otto Pohl,
and Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the SEC, the US stock market
regulator.
Carlyle
partners, who include Baker and the firm's chairman, Frank Carlucci
- Ronald Reagan's defence secretary and a former deputy director of
the CIA - own stakes that would be worth $180m each if each partner
owned an equal slice. As in many areas of its work, though, Carlyle
is not obliged to reveal the details, and chooses not to.
Among the
defence firms which benefit from Carlyle's success is United
Defense, a Virginia-based contractor which makes vertical missile
launch systems currently on board US Navy ships in the Arabian sea,
as well as a range of other weapons delivery systems and combat
vehicles. Carlyle's other holdings span an improbable range, taking
in the French newspaper Le Figaro and the company which bottles Dr
Pepper.
"They are big,
and they are quiet," says David Mulholland, business editor of
Jane's Defense Weekly. "But they're not easy to get information out
of, [but] United Defense are going to do well [in the current
conflict]." United also owns Bofors, a Swedish munitions
manufacturer.
Carlyle has said that it
does not lobby the federal government, thus avoiding a conflict of
interest when, for example, Carlucci met Rumsfeld in February when
several important defiance contracts were under consideration. But
critics see that as a matter of definition.
"It should be a deep cause
for concern that a closely held company like Carlyle can
simultaneously have directors and advisers that are doing business
and making money and also advising the president of the United
States," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the Center for
Public Integrity, a non-profit-making Washington think-tank. "The
problem comes when private business and public policy blend
together. What hat is former president Bush wearing when he tells
Crown Prince Abdullah not to worry about US policy in the Middle
East? What hat does he use when he deals with South Korea, and
causes policy changes there? Or when James Baker helps argue the
presidential election in the younger Bush's favor? It's a
kitchen-cabinet situation, and the informality involved is precisely
a mark of Carlyle's success.
"The world of private
equity is an inherently secretive one. Firms such as Carlyle make
most of their money buying firms which are not publicly traded,
overhauling them and selling them at a profit, so the process by
which likely targets are evaluated is much more confidential than on
the open market. "These firms certainly don't go out of their way to
get into the headlines," says Steven Bell, chief economist at
Deutsche Asset Management. "They'd rather make a splash in
Institutional Pensions Week. The aim is to realize very high returns
for your investors while exerting a high degree of control over the
company. You don't want to get into the headlines when you force the
management to fire a director."