>> Campaigning to end college arms investments

>> for a word version of this page: doc

Why do we find the arms trade problematic?

  1. The arms trade diverts resources from essential services, such as health and education, in some of the world’s most impoverished regions. In 2002, arms sales to Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America totalled $17b. Meanwhile, in these areas, over 1b people had to survive on less than $1 a day, and nearly 800m suffered from chronic hunger (Control Arms Coalition). Indeed, in 2005, the UK sold significant quantities of arms to 10 countries in the bottom 1/3 of the UN’s Human Development Index; these included at least £18.1m of arms sales to Pakistan and at least £31m to Nigeria (CAATnews). In 2001, Tony Blair personally ensured successful completion of a £28m deal to Tanzania involving military air traffic control system made by BAE Systems. Both the World Bank and the IMF criticised the deal as far too expensive – in fact, Tanzania could have purchased a better system for an eighth of the cost (CAAT).

  2. It fuels pre-existing conflicts and causes destabilising arms races in areas of tension. In 2005, the UK licensed weapon sales to countries which the Foreign Office has itself condemned as human rights violators, including Afghanistan, China, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Nepal, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan(Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) . During Indonesia’s brutal 24-year occupation of East Timor, in which the Indonesian military killed more than 200,000 people – one third of the total population – BAE Systems supplied them with Hawk jet fighters which were regularly used against the civilian population (Mark Thomas). In 2002, whilst Pakistan and India teetered on the brink of a potentially nuclear war, Tony Blair himself, and other high-profile lobbyists, visited India in order to sell £1b worth of Hawk jets . The UK has consistently sold arms to Israel including bombs, rockets, torpedoes, machine guns, missiles, mines and components for tank and combat aircraft. This is despite the ongoing conflict in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the UN stating that Israel “violates humanitarian law” (CAAT) and Amnesty International condemning Israel’s recent attacks in Lebanon as ‘war crimes’(AAmnesty International)). Iran and Syria, suspected of providing arms to Hizbollah in Lebanon, have been rightfully condemned by Western governments for aggravating the conflict, yet the British and American arming of Israel has arguably had equally destabilising effects.

  3. The inadequacy of current arms trade legislation, combined with the lack of political will to enforce those laws that do exist, results in a situation whereby military equipment and instruments of torture often end up in the hands of oppressive regimes - thus making chronic human rights abuses possible. In the past decade, BAE Hawk jet fighters, among other things, have been sold to Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, all of which are notorious for their appalling human rights record (CAAT). The UK government has granted licences in the past few years for ‘oversized’ handcuffs (over 165mm), more commonly known as leg irons, both to Saudi Arabia and the USA. These were used for the torture of British citizens in Saudi prisons and Guantanamo Bay (Mark Thomas). In 2005, despite a UK arms embargo on Sudan, the Indian company Ashok Leyland, of which four board members were UK citizens, supplied 100 Stallion 4x4 army trucks to the Sudan Defence Ministry. Trucks such as these were vital in enabling Janjaweed militias to attack anywhere in Darfur, and those supplied by Ashok Leyland were very probably used for this purpose. Although the arms embargo was extraterritorial (meaning it applies to any UK citizen anywhere in the world), no Ashok Leyland board member has yet been prosecuted (Mark Thomas).

  4. There are many reports detailing the extensive culture of corruption and bribery within the arms industry, with both foreign governments officials and arms company representatives being implicated. Over the years, bribery has been a habit that most British arms companies have indulged in. It was only in 2002 that Britain made bribery of a foreign official a real offence – however, no one has as yet been prosecuted under these laws. The Exports Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), a government body which provides insurance for UK businesses exporting goods to high-risk markets (including a significant proportion of arms deals), has turned a blind eye to corruption over the decades. This has resulted in millions of pounds of UK taxpayers money being paid out for the benefit of arms dealers and corrupt governments in many countries (CAAT).

  5. The UK government subsidises the arms industry to an estimated £850m per annum (BASIC, Oxford Research Group & Saferworld), creating an unnaturally large military production capacity as well as diverting public funds from institutions of greater benefit to UK citizens, such as the Health service. There is even a government body, the Defence Exports Services Organisation (DESO), which exists solely to support and promote the sale of UK military equipment and services. Although some would argue that the arms industry is good for the economy as it provides employment, it is estimated that each export-related job in the defence industry is subsidised by about £13,000 per year and the MoD’s own report concluded that “the economic costs of reducing defence exports are relatively small and largely one-off” (MoD/York). No other business sector receives anything like this level of government backing!

 

What is the state of arms trade regulation in the UK and why is it insufficient?

  1. A license is required to export arms. This is issued by the Export Control Organisation, working out of the Department of Trade and Industry, though if the deal is seen as problematic it can be referred to the Minister of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, all of whom will get a say in the matter. In practical terms, the final arbiter is the Prime Minister. However, as is clear from the sale of arms to countries with objectionable human rights records such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, licenses are granted without due concern for how arms are being used.

  2. A British arms dealer cannot export to countries which are under embargo (e.g. Burma, Zimbabwe). The UK recognises the UN, the EU and the OSCE embargoes. However, each embargo has different conditions, so that although Britain has an embargo on China, it is different from its embargo on Zimbabwe: everything on the UK Military List is banned from going to Zimbabwe, but not all of it is banned from going to China. Also, different countries regard different ‘goods’ as ‘military goods’. Until the introduction of the Trade in Controlled Goods (Embargoed Destinations) Order 2004, it was perfectly legal for British arms dealers to find countries with less stringent regulations from which to operate, if they wished to sell arms to a specific embargoed country. This law now makes it illegal for British citizens, no matter where they are in the world, to arm embargoed countries (Mark Thomas). Nevertheless, countries easily slip through the net - for example, despite numerous UN resolutions, there is no arms embargo on Israel – and it remains to be seen whether or not the new legislation is enforced.

  3. Back in June 1998, all EU members adopted the European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports which aims to prevent arms being sold to regimes who would use them for internal oppression and external aggression, or to countries in which the funds would seriously hamper their sustainable development. However, the code is not legally binding and the UK government has repeatedly broken it: Labour has backed exports by BAE Systems to the USA which were then used in F16 planes and sold to Israel; it backed Hawk jets being sold to India at a time when a war with Pakistan looked likely; and it played an integral part in Tanzania purchasing a military air-traffic control system in 2001.

  4. In July 2006, an EU directive to curtail the export of ‘goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ became UK law. However, while torture equipment in Britain comes under the ‘restricted’ UK Military List, alongside Weapons of Mass Destruction and long-range missiles, this means that it is still possible for UK arms dealers to obtain licences to export such items. Furthermore, Britain has not committed to regularly updating the list of prohibited or controlled goods to take into account new data and technological developments, making it in far from exhaustive or definitive, and leaving arms companies free to develop torture equipment not covered by the current list. Even the Export Group for Aerospace and Defence (the arms industry’s export-control lobbying group) describe the attempts to list torture equipment item by item as ‘deeply misguided and doomed’ (Mark Thomas).

 

Is the arms trade good for the economy?

No, the UK government subsidises the arms industry to an estimated £850m per annum (BASIC, the Oxford Research Group & Saferworld), creating an unnaturally large military production capacity as well as diverting public funds from institutions of greater benefit to UK citizens, such as the Health service. There is even a government body, the Defence Exports Services Organisation (DESO), which exists solely to support and promote the sale of UK military equipment and services – no other business sector receives anything like this level of government backing. Although some would argue that the arms industry is good for the economy as it provides employment, it is estimated that each export-related job in the defence industry is subsidised by about £13,000 per year and the MoD’s own report concluded that “the economic costs of reducing defence exports are relatively small and largely one-off” (MoD/York).

Furthermore, the area with most jobs directly related to arms exports is the South East, which has virtually full employment. Where specific towns have a high concentration of arms export dependent jobs, government and community initiatives could create new training and employment opportunities for those whose jobs were affected. Past military redundancies have had the least negative impact when military companies have worked in partnership with trade unions, local authorities and agencies to assist people to find alternative employment. In fact between 1995 and 2002, jobs dependent on military exports fell from 145,000 to the present level of around 65,000 with no major impact on the economy.

The hundreds of millions of pounds saved by reducing or ending the UK arms trade could be invested in other industries like renewable energy and transport, which would create new, highly skilled jobs. It would also be a far more ethical use of public funds. Both the UK and the world would be better off without such a large UK arms industry (CAAT).

 

What will be achieved through putting in place ethical investment policies?

If internationally renowned and prestigious institutions such as Cambridge colleges decide to withdraw their support from the arms trade, this will send a powerful message to the British government and UK arms companies. It will further pressure the government to regulate the arms industry.

The legislation that has been put in place in recent years (anti-bribery laws, codes of conduct on the export of arms, international treaties outlawing anti-personal landmines and cluster bombs) are positive steps towards a properly regulated arms trade – but there is still a long way to go in enforcing this, further controlling the industry, and withdrawing the unacceptable level of government support for arms exports.

Such changes will only come about when the arms trade, in its current state, is publicly recognised to require urgent reform. Other charities, such as the Church of England and the University of Edinburgh, have put in place ethical investment policies and if Cambridge colleges follow suit, public opinion and media attention can further focus on the issue and press for change!

In line with current initiatives such as Fairtrade which are trying to impose a moral dimension to what we consume, putting in place ethical investment policies will allow students to further have a say in how colleges are run and how our actions impact upon the wider world.

 

Will ethical investment policies involve a financial loss to colleges?

No, research by the Ethical Investment Research Service EIRIS found that significant portions of the market (up to 20%) can be excluded from an investment universe as part of an ethical investment policy without affecting financial performance. The British arms industry compromises about 1.4% of the market value (at the end of 2004) of the FTSE All-share index. It is difficult to see how a deviation of 1.4% from the FTSE All-share index would make a substantial impact on investment performance.

 

Isn’t the arms trade necessary if we are to defend ourselves and our allies?

Yes, and CSAAT does not call for the total abolition of the production and sale of arms. It is unrealistic to imagine that states can survive without means of defending themselves, and a certain level of military and police power is necessary. However, it is the current state of the arms trade which we find problematic (see above).

It is not morally justifiable to invest in arms companies, as long as there is endemic corruption in the arms trade, illegal torture equipment is easily sold and bought internationally, and oppressive regimes can get their hands on military equipment with which to perpetrate human rights abuses.

 

Will an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which Amnesty International and Oxfam are calling for as part of the Control Arms campaign, resolve the existing problems in the arms trade?

The Control Arms campaign is calling for an international treaty to make states “exercise the highest degree of responsibility in international arms transfers”. This would be a legally binding treaty that would prevent transfers which: breach international law (e.g. UN embargoes); lead to serious violations of human rights, international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity; or, are likely to adversely affect regional stability and sustainable development. Additionally the treaty would force states to provide annual reports on their arms exports and submit to common standards of export control.

Qn international instrument that genuinely stopped arms exports to human rights abusers, regions of tension and warmongers the world over would be a great step forward. To be effective, though, such a treaty must not only prevent the circulation of Kalashnikov rifles amongst African conflict zones by shady arms brokers. It must also address state involvement in the arms trade: the fundamental engine of both the ‘legal’ and the ‘illegal’ trade - indeed, an estimated 90 per cent of ‘illegal’ arms transfers begin in ‘legal’ sales (CAATnews).

Furthermore, the Control Arms coalition has recently been joined by the UK government, despite its unstinting support for massive arms exports to regions of conflict and tension, and the Defence Manufacturers Association (the representative body of the UK arms industry). Last January, the Defence Manufacturers Association told its members that the Government had assured them that any eventual treaty “would not bring new obligations for UK industry” – this seriously undermines the argument that an ATT would be able to solve the problems of the arms trade (CAATnews).

 

 

 

This campaign is supported by CUSU, CU Labour Club, People & Planet Cambridge.