One of the major obstacles to peace today is the number of weapons in the world, and the arms trade, legitimised and supported by governments, only serves to increase this problem

UK Government support of the Arms Trade Fuels Conflict, Aids Oppression and Harms Development, keeping poor countries locked in poverty. For over 40 years there has been a government department which has actively promoted the buying and selling of arms overseas. SPEAK believes that this is not the role of the government and this disproportionate level of support is both morally and economically unacceptable.

Inspired by Isaiah’s vision of a redeemed earth, we seek to be 21st century prophets, speaking out against government support of an industry which is fundamentally at odds with peace and justice. We want to expose the scandal of the arms trade and shed light on its power to fuel conflict, aid oppression and harm development.

SPEAK is campaigning to end government support of the arms trade because it…

Fuels Conflict – According to the Armed Conflicts Report 2009, there are 28 conflicts in 24 countries, 10 of which have resulted in over 100,000 deaths. Many of these countries are fuelled, worsened or prolonged, by the sale of arms by the UK. There have been been instances of the UK selling arms to both sides of a conflict.

Case Study 1: Israel

Background

After the Six-Day War in June 1967, Israel occupied the Sinai (in Egypt), the Golan Heights (in Syria), and the Palestinian regions of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. UN resolution 242 (1967) called for Israel to withdraw its forces. Since then, only the Sinai has been returned and negotiations have centred on a return to pre-1967 borders. The international community does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories. In 2005, Israel withdrew its security forces and removed settlements from the Gaza Strip and four areas of the West Bank under the Disengagement Plan. However, despite Gaza gaining some degree of independence and having its own government, Israel has continued to control its airspace and borders. In 2007, Israel introduced a blockade on all imports and exports. Israel stated that the blockade was intended to stop Hamas firing rockets at Israel. However, Hamas refused to stop rocket fire until Israel lifts the blockade. The blockade had a severe effect on Gaza's economy, with 95% of factories closing down, and threatened vital food, medical and energy supplies. According to the UN, Gaza is one of the worst humanitarian situations in the world. Of its 1.4 million people, 80% of the population live on UN hand-outs and half of these are children who have never been outside it the borders. 

Increased Conflict

On 18th December 2008 a six-month ceasefire was due to end. During this period there had been a reduction in rocket fire from Hamas but Israel did not lift the blockade fully. Hamas announced that it would not be renewing the truce and on the 24th December began an intensification of rocket fire to Israel. On the 27th December Israel launched an air offensive on Gaza followed by a ground invasion on 3rd January 2009. During the three week conflict, the UN estimated that the fighting destroyed or damaged 14,000 homes and left tens of thousands of Gaza’s

inhabitants homeless. A large amount of farmland, 219 factories, 240 schools, and numerous health facilities were destroyed or damaged. More than 1,400 Palestinians, including 313 children, and 13 Israelis lost their lives.

The subsequent reconstruction of Gaza has been hampered by the ongoing blockade, which has prevented important rebuilding materials, such as cement, from

being imported blockade, which has prevented important rebuilding materials, such as cement, from being imported.

www.christianaid.org.uk/emergencies/past/gaza-crisis/gaza-crisis-background.aspx

www.caat.org.uk/press/recent.php?url=140709prs

UK Arms Sales

On the 21st April 2009, David Milliband admitted that UK components were “almost certainly” used in the weapons Israel used against Gaza during winter 08/09. He was referring to F16 combat aircraft, Apache attack helicopters, Saar-Class corvettes and armoured personnel carriers. In July 2009, the UK withdrew export licenses for components for Sa’ar combat ships which fired missiles to Gaza from the coast. However, no complete embargo was introduced. As a CAAT spokesperson said “This

episode shows that we don't know how UK components, whether exported directly to Israel or via the US, will be used.” Despite the crisis and Gaza as a ‘country of major concern’ for the FCO regarding human rights, the government in 2008 approved around £30m worth of arms licences to Israel. The UK is also a regular supplier of components exported directly to Israel and via the US, for incorporation in weapons exported to Israel by US suppliers. This steady flow of weapons in to Israel not only enables but also legitimises the use of extreme forceby that state.

NB. We recognise this is a complex issue that many people feel disempowered  about. But we would ask one question – if you feel unable to take sides in the on-going conflicts, can you stand by while our nation arms one side?

Aids Oppression – In 2008, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s annual Human Rights’ Report, ‘listed 21 “countries of major concern”.  Of course, the UK supplied arms to 11, including China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Columbia. In supplying arms to oppressive regimes, the UK government has perpetuated and worsened the systematic abuse of human rights all over the world.

Case Study 2: Indonesia and West Papua

Background

West Papua is located on the Island of New Guinea and is home to tropical rainforests, diverse wildlife and rich natural resources. Although the Island was a Dutch colony along with most of the islands that currently make up Indonesia, the people of West Papua are ethnically distinct from Indonesians and have a different, history, language and culture. However, in 1969, Indonesian military annexed West Papua and continue to control the country under a repressive regime to this day.

Human Rights

It is estimated that up to 200,000 Papuans have died since Indonesia annexed West Papua in 1969.

Human Rights abuses include:

• Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment
• Torture
• Rape
• Burning of houses and churches
• No freedom of Speech or association.

UK Arms Sales

The UK has a history of licensing the sale of weapons to Indonesia at times of horrendous internal repression, which continues to this day. Recent examples include Tactica Water Canon Vehicles which were sold in 1998 and used against the West Papuan people in 2005. Also in 2000, the UK lifted an EU-wide embargo to sell Hawk fighter jets to Indonesia. Months later, these were used in offensive against he people of Aceh. Despite their human rights record, export licenses were also granted in 2003-2008 despite human rights concerns. Shockingly, DSO held an arms fair just off the Indonesian coast in 2008 and officially invited them to DSEi in 2009.

Harms Development – As well as the obvious negative impact of a UK arms sale on situation of conflict and human rights abuses the arms trade also hinders development process for many poor countries. High levels of military spending are actively encourage by the UK government, even heavily indebted countries that desperately need to invest money in social an developmental programmes instead.

Case Study 3: Tanzania

Background

This is an old story but is such a powerful example of how the UK government pushes unnecessary arms deals onto poor countries that have no use for it. Tanzania is one of the poorest countries on earth. Half of the population lacks clean water, and almost one in ten babies die before their first birthday. The country has been crippled by its debt burden, and its per capita income is over $400/year. In 2001 the picture was little different.

UK Arms Sales

In December 2001, a £28 million deal between BAE Systems and the Tanzanian government was uncovered by the press and was immediately surrounded by a storm of controversy. The deal was for a military air traffic control system, but for civilian use, and the export license was granted by the government in the face of very strong opposition from some MPs and cabinet members, as well as civil society. Tony Blair personally promoted the deal, despite attempts by Clare Short and Gordon Brown to block it.

Development Harmed

The DTI defended the sale, claiming it would boost Tanzania’s tourist industry.

In fact, the system was designed for military use, and would need extensive (and expensive) modifications in order to make it useful for civil industry. Tanzania could have bought a civilian air traffic control system for a fraction of the price. It was also claimed that the system would provide lucrative economic benefits, because Tanzania would be able to begin charging aircraft for entering its airspace. Unfortunately this too would require additional equipment. The World Bank and the International Civil Aviation Organisation judged that the purchase was unnecessary

and overpriced. This sale not only plunged Tanzania into further debt, but it also used up money which could otherwise have been spent on constructive development programmes such as new and improved hospitals, instead of an unnecessary piece of military equipment. Evidence has since emerged about huge levels of corruption surrounding the deal.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/06/bae-tanzania-arms-deal

www.caat.org.uk/issues/bae/country_overviews.php#tanzania

So how is the government involved/So what’s this got to do with Tax?

For over 40 years there has been a government department devoted to promoting and selling arms to overseas buyers. At the moment this is done by the Defence and Security Organisation (DSO) which is within the UKTI which exists to support all UK businesses. BUT it has nearly twice as many staff as all the other industries’ support staff put together! DSO has 170 staff and the UKTI Sectors group which covers all other industries only has 129!

DSO was formed in 2008 shortly aster the closure of DESO  in 2007 and although its remit is almost identical to DESO it has moved away from it’s powerful position in the MOD and is much smaller.

DSO’s mission is roughly the same as DESO’s used to be, including:

1. Actively building relationships with overseas customers
2. Providing these customers with access to support from the UK armed forces and the MoD.
3. Organising arms fairs, such as DSEi (Defence Systems Equipment international)
4. Supporting industry-led overseas marketing campaigns

In short, it acts as a marketing department for the UK arms industry.

Why do they do it?

There has to be a business case for supporting and subsidising the arms trade to the tune of billions of pounds per year – but there isn’t! It should have quantifiable benefits to UK prosperity and security but the 4 main arguments given for its benefits are problematic:

1. The case for the economy - this has been distorted and is really very small, accounting for only 1.5% of total exports, especially in the light of such huge government support.
2. The case for jobs - this support would perhaps be more understandable if weapons exports were a vital part of the British economy, yet official figures do not support such a view. Indeed, arms exports jobs only account for less than 0.2% of total workforce and only 2% of manufacturing jobs.
3. The case for defence procurement (cheaper equipment for the UK armed forces) - again the logic behind this is flawed. By favouring UK companies, the government is actually reducing competition and receiving worse value for money.
4. The case for security – the simple truth is that exporting more arms all over the world can only lead to further instability and security threats. Moreover, exports undermine the investment by DFID in conflict prevention around the world and government support diverts public fund from climate change prevention and adaptation.

Campaign Objectives and Goals

We’re campaigning to:

1. Close the government department devoted to government support of the arms trade (currently DSO)
2. Establish a new government agency to facilitate diversification of skills and jobs from arms to civil sectors, especially green technology.

Ultimately we want to see an end to UK Government’s disproportionate level of political and economic support for the arms trade, to the amount of taxpayer’s money and political capital that’s poured into this industry. We believe these two goals would be crucial first steps.

We’ll also monitor other government departments through which support is provided, regulation of private military companies, the use of drones, and sales of arms to countries with concerning human rights records.