The Arms Trade

MOST PEOPLE can remember where they were on September 11, 2001; on 9/11 – as it has become known. I was among around 2,000 people taking part in a protest outside a massive arms fair in London’s Docklands. It was, of course, a coincidence that it was taking place in the UK at the same time as a major act of terrorism was happening in the United States, yet there are connections between the proliferation of weaponry and violence in our world.

This massive arms fair was entirely legal. Held every two years, the most recent one in 2007, the Defence Systems & Equipment International Show attracted more than 1,350 exhibitors and military delegations from 56 countries. It was a showcase for weapons systems, ranging from logistics software to tanks and rocket launchers. Pistols and assault rifles were on display and ammunition carefully lined up. There were rows upon rows of computer screens to control battle management systems, modern communications gear and surveillance equipment.

Silent voices

Over the years, Christian protest has built up around the fair. In 2005, a two-hour candlelit vigil of protest included war veterans from London’s East End, who pointed out that the area had been devastated by weaponry during the Second World War. Two bishops were there – the Anglican Bishop of Barking and the Catholic Bishop of Brentwood. The aim of the vigil was to be in solidarity with the silent voices of the human tragedy of war and violence. It was pointed out that Scripture and Christian social teaching suggests that real security does not come from weaponry and violence but from justice.

According to the Canadian-based research group, Project Ploughshares, 38 serious conflicts directly affecting the lives of millions of men, women and children are currently taking place across the globe. In Africa, wars rage across whole regions, drawing everyone in – even the youngest of children. Recognising this, the World Council of Churches has instituted a Decade to Overcome Violence, whilst the United Nations has also declared that 2001 – 2010 should be a decade devoted to creating a Culture of Peace for the world’s children.

Undoubtedly, the arms trade fuels conflict and leads to an increase in casualties. Indeed, there is a remarkable correlation between the rise of the modern arms trade and the rise in the number of civilian casualties in conflicts. By the end of the 1990s nearly 90 percent of war victims were non-combatants and at least half of these were children. Recent detailed academic studies of arms transfers over a number of years show that the arms trade is a significant element in the likelihood of a country sliding into war and recording increased political violence.

Uncomfortable facts

The UK is the third largest arms exporter in the world, after the US and Russia, and has, according to government figures, exported around £33 billion (around $64 billion) of arms and military equipment in the last five years alone. Whilst the government argues that it has an ‘ethical’ stance when it comes to arms sales, recent high-profile deals challenge this. Selling weapons to India whilst trying to broker peace between India and Pakistan, is one example. Pakistan, for instance, spends more on the military than on health and education combined. It has been estimated that arms sales are responsible for a fifth of the total international debt owed by poor countries. Yet, despite this, governments in arms-producing countries such as the UK continue to help companies push their arms on the global South. The UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade has identified 20 countries engaged in serious conflict that the UK has armed since 1997. The arms trade plays a crucial role in creating and exacerbating poverty. It destroys communities, undermines human security and encourages disputes to be settled militarily. It saps the resources of already-poor countries, and does so with the support and encouragement of the governments of arms-producing nations.

Enormous figures

The sheer amount of money that is devoted to war and conflict is enormous. World military expenditure currently stands at more than $1,000 billion per year. Such enormous figures are hard to grasp, and in many ways they can only become understandable by making comparisons. For example, total world spending on development aid in 2004 was around $87 billion, whilst the World Bank estimates that the extra spending needed to achieve all the Millennium Development Goals is around $121 billion per year. The world currently spends over 12 times as much on the military as on overseas aid. Military spending towers above commitments to tackle the deep-rooted causes of future global insecurity, such as the gap between rich and poor, the impact of climate change and resource shortages, and militarism itself.

In 2003 the heads of Europe’s largest military companies joined together to call on European taxpayers to further increase military spending. Arguing that Europe is falling behind the US in the spending stakes, they said that we must increase our military spending to “remain a credible player in the game”. However it is not just in the US and the UK that military budgets are spiralling upwards. In Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East, military spending has risen significantly in the past 10 years. According to the respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “the post cold-war ‘peace dividend’ had almost vanished by 2002”.

Big business for UK

For UK firms, selling weapons and related equipment to the world’s modern armies is big business. The industry employs about 295,000 people in the UK, says the Defence Analytical Services Agency; about 65,000 of these jobs are guaranteed by exporting weapons and other military equipment. The industry’s biggest customer is the UK’s Ministry of Defence. The UK brand is a huge bonus when it comes to finding customers abroad. “If it is used by UK forces, that puts you ahead of the competition straight away,” says Chris Pugh-Bevan of Irvin-GQ, whose 350 workers make parachute systems, aerial delivery systems and search-and-rescue equipment. The Ministry of Defence demands work to high specifications, and much of the equipment is battle-tested in places as diverse as Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Iraq.

Britain’s defence giant BAE Systems developed a new turret for armoured fighting vehicles, based on feedback from British forces in Iraq. “We work closely with the customer,” says BAE engineer Colin Stephenson. “The Ministry of Defence sends us ‘subject matter experts’ who have just returned from Iraq, and they tell us exactly what works and what doesn’t work in the turret”. Initially, the turret could only fire when standing still, but the newly ‘developed’ turret has a stabilised gun that can be fired while the tank is moving.

Government complicity

The British government has a long history of supporting the arms industry, saying it contributes to economic growth and employment. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was recently exposed as having tried to halt an investigation into a huge Saudi arms deal. Blair’s personal note to the country’s Attorney General was disclosed in the High Court during a legal action brought by anti-corruption campaigners. The campaigners argued that the decision to kill off the investigation was unlawful. Blair had become alarmed by the Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegations that BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest arms company, had paid massive bribes to Saudi princes to win lucrative contracts.

However, current Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced in November 2007 that he was committed to tightening UK arms controls. Extending export controls means UK citizens will no longer be able to sell small arms and light weapons to the world’s worst conflict zones merely by running their business outside the UK’s jurisdiction. Anna Macdonald, head of the Control Arms campaign at Oxfam, says, “The new arms controls which Mr Brown has proposed are welcome, as is the Prime Minister’s commitment to working toward an international ban on cluster munitions”. She pointed out, however, that serious loopholes remain. If the government is serious about stopping UK citizens doing business that fuels human rights abuses and undermines development, then, in Oxfam’s view, these controls should cover the brokering of all conventional weapons, such as tanks and helicopter gunships. Amnesty International too takes the view that, “the government must now seize this opportunity to close all the remaining loopholes that continue to allow UK arms to fuel human rights abuses and armed violence around the world”.

**************************

PAPAL CONDEMNATION
“One must acknowledge with regret the growing number of States engaged in the arms race: even some developing nations allot a significant portion of their scant domestic product to the purchase of weapons. The responsibility for this baneful commerce is not limited: the countries of the industrially developed world profit immensely from the sale of arms, while the ruling oligarchies in many poor countries wish to reinforce their stronghold by acquiring ever more sophisticated weaponry. In difficult times such as these, it is truly necessary for all persons of good will to come together to reach concrete agreements aimed at an effective demilitarization, especially in the area of nuclear arms. At a time when the process of nuclear non-proliferation is at a stand-still, I feel bound to entreat those in authority to resume with greater determination negotiations for a progressive and mutually agreed dismantling of existing nuclear weapons.”

  Extract from Pope Benedict XVI’s message for World Peace Day 2008

UNIVERSITY LINK
At the end of 2007, the ecumenical peace group Fellowship of Reconciliation and Campaign Against Arms Trade published a report revealing that 26 top UK universities have received contracts for at least £725 million (around $1,400 million) over six years in sponsorship by arms companies and public military bodies. The new report, Study War No More, looked at each university between 2001 and 2006, and uncovered over 1,900 projects funded in this way. Examples of military projects included a scheme researching unmanned aerial vehicles over ten universities, funded jointly by BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) and public sources, which is run by a university professor and a project manager from BAE. In addition to research projects, arms companies were found to have sponsored numerous courses, bursaries, industrial placements and careers fairs. Co-author Martha Beale of Fellowship of Reconciliation and Campaign Against Arms Trade said, “We were staggered to discover the depth of military involvement in higher education”. She felt it raises crucial questions about research funding and academic independence.