Great Britain, Great Arms

Did you know the UK is now the world’s leading arms dealer? UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), the Government’s trade promotion organisation, said that a £9.7 billion increase in business over the past 12 months had put the UK ahead of the United States in the global market. Over the past five years altogether, the US still dominates, with $63 billion worth of arms exports but the UK is second with $53 billion.

The increase is nothing to be proud of, but try telling UKTI. Digby Jones, Minister for Trade and Investment, said of the news: “As demonstrated by this outstanding export performance, the UK has a first-class defence industry, with some of the world’s most technologically sophisticated companies.”

Read that as most technologically sophisticated merchants of death.

In October this year, Oxfam released a report into how irresponsible arms deals undermine developing nations’ effort to meet their Millenium Development Goals. The MDGs were agreed to in 2000 by 189 countries to improve areas such as education, health care, poverty and environmental sustainability by 2015. According to the MDG Africa Steering Group, “The continuing threat of conflict threatens to reverse development gains in many parts of the continent.”

In 2003, Oxfam and Amnesty estimated 500,000 people die every year from small arms, roughly one every minute, and Kofi Annan said that “in terms of the carnage they cause, small arms could well be described as weapons of mass destruction.” We need only look as far as Mumbai for the shocking truth behind this statement.

Now Oxfam’s latest report highlights how irresponsible arms deals jeopardise the MDGs by fuelling conflict and human rights abuses as well as diverting government funds from development projects. The report calls for an immediate adoption of an international Arms Trade Treaty to stop these arms deals, but with the UK willingly taking part in such deals, support from our government doesn’t look likely.

The most recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report identified 21 “major countries of concern.” Another FCO report also identified ten of these countries as recipients in UK arms deals. As the leading trader, the United Kingdom must shoulder a fair deal of the responsibility for human rights abuses and impeded development worldwide.

The third largest defence contractor in the world is Britain’s BAe Systems, who are currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office regarding payments “allegedly made to a South African official who had influence over the £1.5bn contract BAe won to supply planes - at nearly twice the price of a rival bidder.” Joe Modise, South Africa’s defence minister at the time, is alleged to have taken a £500,000 bribe from BAe. Meanwhile, according to the Oxfam report, “South Africa’s progress towards the MDGs is slow or in some cases is even moving in reverse. The figures for underweight children, child mortality, and access to improved sanitation have all deteriorated since 1990.”

Furthermore, the Financial Times recently published an article claiming BAe had “paid at least £20m to a company linked to a Zimbabwean arms trader allied to President Robert Mugabe.” The trader, John Bredenkamp, is accused by the UN of supplying equipment to the Zimbabwe air force.

Away from Africa is the most controversial of BAe’s arms deals, which was thrust into the limelight when the British government stopped another investigation, drawing damning criticism from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development for its failure to tackle bribery and corruption in a trade described by Transparency International as the third most corrupt in the world.

In 1985, the UK began to fulfil a number of massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia, known as the Al-Yamamah contracts. The main contractor was BAe Systems. In the early ‘90s, the National Audit Office investigated these contracts, but never released the findings, the only NAO report never published. In 2003, The Guardian newspaper alleged a £20 million slush fund to bribe Saudi officials had been set aside by BAe Systems, prompting an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

According to the Guardian, this isn’t the first SFO investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal. In 2001, the SFO referred similar allegations to the Ministry of Defence making the ridiculous decision to leave any investigation to the MoD, who subsequently blocked any such activity.

In late 2006, BAe Systems was negotiating a huge contract to supply new Typhoon fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia, valued at £6-10 billion. On the 1st December 2006, The Telegraph claimed the Saudis had given the British government ten days to drop the investigation or lose the deal to a rival French bid. On 14th December 2006, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith discontinued the SFO investigation, citing the “need to safeguard national and international security”.

In April this year the High Court ruled that by dropping the investigation the SFO had acted unlawfully. The SFO appealed against the decision to the House of Lords, who unanimously voted in their favour and overturned the decision in July. Despite the SFO’s unflinching subordination, the United States’ Department of Justice continue to investigate the contracts and even detained BAe CEO Mike Turner for twenty minutes at an American airport earlier this year.

This is a Saudi Arabia well known for its human rights abuses. In 2006, a US State Department report highlighted “significant restriction of civil liberties… and infliction of severe pain by judicially sanctioned corporal punishments.” Earlier this year, a Human Rights Watch report drew attention to the continued persecution of Ismaeli muslims in Saudi Arabia, noting in particular how following a confrontation between government and Ismaeli demonstrators in April 2000 “Saudi authorities imprisoned, tortured, and summarily sentenced hundreds of Ismailis, and transferred hundreds of Ismaili government employees outside the region. Underlying discriminatory practices have continued unabated.”

Indonesia is no better, but according to the Guardian “British arms sales to Indonesia rose from £2m in 2000 to £40m in 2002” and as recently as 2007 we were negotiating a deal to sell Hawk jets. The same year, HRW published a report regarding the Papua province that found “both army troops and police units, particularly mobile paramilitary police units, continue to engage in largely indiscriminate village ‘sweeping’ operations in pursuit of suspected militants, using excessive, often brutal, and at times lethal force against civilians.” According to the Campaign Against Arms Trade, this violence has been facilitated by the use of British equipment.

Indonesia was also picked out in the Oxfam report, and an earlier HRW report, for the way the military is funded by its own businesses as well as the government. This money is controlled by military interests rather than civilian interests, thus hampering its ability to meet the Development Goals, yet the British continue to deal with such regimes.

As of April this year, the UKTI now devotes more staff to the promotion of the arms trade than all other sectors of British industry put together. One of its main roles is to promote Britain at international arms fairs like that in Malaysia, which included delegations from such model democracies as China, Burma, Indonesia and the Philipines and customers from Somalia and Iran. Its work is defended because of the economic contribution of arms sales, despite these sales only accounting for 1.5% of total exports and only 0.2% of the UK workforce.

In today’s climate of fear, this violence we fuel sounds a lot like the sort of terrorism we are apparently fighting. According to dictionary.com, the definition of terrorism is:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Western governments tend to conveniently forget the first clause of that last sentence - that a government can use terrorism to govern. You don’t need to be a political scientist to realise the abuses of the Saudi and Indonesian governments are ‘terroristic’, and Britain encourages this through corporate and state sponsored terrorism.

With such power backing the global arms trade, the chances of the UK agreeing to an Arms Trade Treaty appear slim. Personally, I feel ashamed to live in a country which is one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism, directly responsible for the infliction of violence on thousands, if not millions around the world.

More of the same... (Facebook comments)

A selection of comments from Facebook about the Obama article: Ashley-lein Wright (Oklahoma) wrote at 15:16 on 13 November 2008 One of the largest things that Obama has been saying over the course of his campaign is that he wants to surround himself not only with people he agrees with, but with those he doesn´t. Milton Friedman is a giant in economics, one with whom I completely disagree. His Chicago School, however, the one that supported the Pinochet coup and the dismantling of the Southeast Asian economies, is much more subdued than in the past. Goolsbee was trained at Yale and MIT, and was never a part of the major disaster capitalism movement at Chicago in the 70´s and 80´s. I think you would be hard pressed to find an economist who was not influenced my Friedman, which doesn´t mean they agree with everything he did. It would be similar to trying to find a physicist who was not influenced by Einstein or Feinman. Obama counts among his economic policy advisors a man named Joseph Stiglitz as well, who is a major critic of unfettered capitalism and the like. Campaign contributions in the United States are a tricky thing. The hopeful thing about Obama is that a majority of his donations came from the people, the difference between the donations into the Obama campaign and the Mccain campaign are incredible. Every modern president has taken money from a slew of companies, like Goldman Sachs or Lehman. I agree with your statement that actions speack louder than words, but as far as Obama´s policy goes, it looks as though it will err towards the people rather than corporations. He favors ending the Bush tax cuts, which have caused the middle and lower class in America to actually make less money today than 8 years ago, and raising the capital gains tax.

Report - Delete

Ashley-lein Wright (Oklahoma) wrote at 15:32 on 13 November 2008 Coming out against the war on drugs would have been impossible during a presidential campaign, He would have lost by a mile. Obama has consistently refused to take money from lobbyists, a common occurence that shatters the illusion of one person one vote. Middle Eastern policy is bound to be a touchy subject with Obama, after a campaign in which he was accused of being a terrorist and a ¨secret muslim.¨ I don´t think that his refusal to accept Ahmedinijad´s congratulations is a weakness, there is not a leader of a western country on Earth who would do so. On Latin America, Obama has expressed support of a referendum in Puerto Rico, a US colony, on what type of government the people would prefer. Giving the island a chance at self government, one that should have happened 50 years ago. I understand the trepidation, after 8 years of Bush in office it´s justified. I think that it´s too early to call whether Obama is capable of the things he has so eloquently spoken about. Even his election represents a massive change in the US electorate, however. Something which could be even more important than his term in office. Seventy percent of hispanics, and 70 percents of those under 25 voted Obama, which means they voted ¨against¨ homeland security, and for attempting to create a better society. The fear machine that has been in play since Reagan failed, just like the unregulated capitalist machine did a few months before. I belive that Obama will be able to execute a significant amount of change in US policy. He has already formed a commitee committed exclusively to dismantling many of the most harmful policy decisions of the Bush administrations. But even if he doesn´t, I believe the US electorate has finally woken up, which is something that can last much longer than a Presidential term in office. Great article, Jamie! Off to Colca Canyon... Report - Delete

Jamie Potter wrote at 18:54 on 14 November 2008 Hey Ashley, thanks for the comments, nice to have an American perspective! I've read a lot about how Obama is intending to use advisers you wouldn't immediately associate him with and how he may even appoint Republicans in his administration (Robert Gates has been linked with the Defence position, worryingly enough), in order to get a kind of 'non-partisan' synthesis. In retrospect, I should have mentioned this really, because the point I'm making is that his election has been heralded around the world as a massive change in American foreign policy, but I believe there will be little difference. Although there will be advisers from both ends of the spectrum, I suspect the more conservative elements will temper any policies that are too progressive. Emanuel is effectively his gatekeeper, controlling who has his time and if Robert Gates is made Defence Sec, although it is only [well founded] speculation at the moment, it won't look promising. I kept the economic bit brief because the article is for a student audience, most of whom will only really be aware of the credit crunch rather than other economic issues, and I personally believe, as you say, there will be change for the good at home in America, but it has little relevance to us here. (Although I'd love to look into the relationship between domestic and foreign economic policy further) Anyway, this gives me a chance to include a bit I deleted from the article. From what I can find, Obama wants to double aid to $50 billion by 2012 to “invest in agriculture, infrastructure and economic growth”. Under the neoliberal, free market capitalism that's had a stranglehold on Washington for the best part of twenty years, we know the negative effects this can have on developing countries who are forced into trickle down economies rather than given the opportunity to develop of their own accord, and the subsequent resentment this causes for millions on the lowest rung of the economic and social ladder worldwide. Delete

Jamie Potter wrote at 19:11 on 14 November 2008 Unfortunately, I'm not as clued up on Obama's foreign economic policy as other areas, and maybe you can help me out here, but in light of recent history and the current thinking of the powers that be, would it be likely that conditional aid full of austerity measures is going to continue? I also wasn't aware that Stiglitz is linked to Obama, hopefully his influence may act as a helpful counterweight to any conservative economists in the administration. One thing that does makes me think neoliberalism, to some degree, may be here to stay is that Obama has voiced support for the National Endowment for Democracy which only ever seems to promote democracy abroad if it is beneficial to US interests (Venezuela, for example). Obama also supports intellectual property rights, something that is a major stumbling block to providing affordable healthcare, especially for AIDS, in the developing world. I've seen a lot about how Obama intends to clamp down on lobbyists' monetary influence, but according to an LA Times article I found, he rejects money from lobbyists on Capitol Hill, but not lawyers whose partners lobby there, nor does his ban extend to lobbyists in other state capitals who lobby not just regionally but nationwide, nor directly from corporations. I certainly think that for America, Obama does mean change for the better. I just wanted to point out that for the rest of the world, there's good evidence little will change. The strong Bush-style rhetoric will definitely stop flowing from the White House come January and the days of American unilateralism are numbered, but everybody seems to have their hopes fantastically built up. In the speechs, a new world is here, and on the surface that may seem so. Delete

Jamie Potter wrote at 19:15 on 14 November 2008 However, a lot of the anti-Americanism springs from such things as harmful economic measures, and I doubt appointments like Emanuel's, combined with Obama's own particular pro-Israeli stance, are going to change opinion amongst Arabs, particularly fundamentalists who are the sort to launch terror attacks or join the fight in Afghanistan etc. (Interestingly, according to one article I found, may have been written by Nader, Obama never once visited a mosque or reached out to the Muslim community during his campaign - could this come back to haunt him?) At the end of the day though, I'd rather have Obama than McCain, or even Clinton, and we can't go from nothing to 'utopia' in one presidency. It's the first of many more steps (hopefully, I'll come back to that in four years time!) and who knows, maybe successful changes at home could end up affecting future foreign policy?

More of the same...

Published in The Demon 17th Nov 2008

So Obama has done it, the world can rejoice and look forward to jelly and ice cream and everything will be hunky dory again. Or will it? Is Barack Obama really messianic, or more quixotic? I honestly hope I am proven wrong, but I don’t think we will witness any sea change any time soon. Obama is certainly a step in the right direction and at home he will ring the progressive changes, but what about the rest of the world? After months of campaigning and hearing about ‘the change we need’, what about the things the media ignore and conveniently overlook, that will affect those outside the States?

Economically, things don’t look different in the long term. Obama’s main adviser is Austan Goolsbee, economics professor at the University of Chicago, academic home of Milton Friedman, the intellectual architect of the ‘Chicago School’ of reckless, unfettered capitalism that has wreaked havoc around the world and it’s understood Goolsbee is a Friedman admirer. Another adviser, Jason Furman, once said raising Wal-Mart workers’ wages would be to the workers’ detriment because Wal-Mart would be forced to raise prices. And linked to the Treasury post is Larry Summers, who once encouraged dumping toxic waste in developing countries simply because the ‘economic logic is impeccable’.

Obama’s new Chief-of-Staff, the second most powerful man in Washington, is Rahm Emanuel, an ex-Clinton staffer and member of the New Democratic Coalition, which seeks to move Democrats to more pro-business positions. Nicknamed ‘Rahmbo’ for his aggressiveness Emanuel has close relations to Wall St where he made over $15 million in investment banking. Along with huge donations to Obama from the likes of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and the infamous Lehman Brothers, the type of institutions responsible for the current economic crisis, it is hard to foresee much needed fiscal reform.

Foreign policy is no more encouraging, especially after surrounding himself with advisers like Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State who said 500,000 Iraqi lives were worth the sanctions in the ‘90s. Although Obama is a critic of nuclear arms and the proposed US missile defence system, which is to be applauded, he wants to increase spending on the already gargantuan Pentagon budget and is keen to enlarge Nato, which is certain to rile Russia and hamper attempts to improve Russian-American relations.

Obama is famous for his anti-Iraq War stance after a 2002 speech stated any invasion would be a ‘dumb war’. Since then however, Obama has refused to be drawn into building legislation opposing the war. Rahm Emanuel was one of only nine Democrat house members not to vote against war in 2003. He also said he wouldn’t have voted differently even if there was proof WMDs didn’t exist. Although a withdrawal has been pledged and any improvement is welcome, details are not forthcoming. Some ideas emanating from advisers include maintaining the Green Zone with occupying troops numbering anywhere between 20,000 and 80,000.

In Afghanistan, Obama has stated his intention to increase the military presence there and he expects Europe to play [even a non-military] role in this. He also holds no qualms about bombing Pakistani targets if Islamabad doesn’t help combat Al-Qaeda.

Regarding Guantanamo Bay, Obama is committed to closing it down. The problem is the logistics are complicated and it can’t simply be shut overnight. This certainly isn’t Obama’s fault and there’s little he can do to hurry it up, so those expecting a quick change shouldn’t hold their breath. Elsewhere in Cuba he wants to improve diplomatic relations, allowing Cuban-Americans family visits, but has refused to lift the embargo strangling the island nation.

Obama has never set foot in Latin America, it barely featured in his campaign and it’s unlikely we’ll hear much anytime soon, although he does support the expensive and controversial war on drugs, which many people regard as a front for advancing business interests.

Back in the Middle East, like Bush and McCain, Obama supports the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of Washington’s most powerful lobby groups, and has pledged $30 billion aid to Israel over the next ten years to maintain its military advantage. Emanuel was involved in the Oslo Accords in 1993, but holds Israeli bias, having volunteered for the Israeli army in the first Gulf War. Obama also supported Israeli aggression against Lebanon in 2006 and refuses to enter negotiations with the democratically elected Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority, despite 64% of Israelis favouring such action.

And as for Iran, Obama told AIPAC “I will always keep the threat of military action on the table” and has currently not answered President Ahmadinejad’s election congratulations to avoid a “knee jerk reaction”, despite being ‘open’ to dialogue with Iran.

So, America fell into a vat of Bush-shit and came out smelling of Obama-roses. Things may look better for Americans, but elsewhere there may be little change. Obama has said he will talk not only with friends but enemies and favours diplomacy, ideas which should be warmly embraced. And let’s not insult his intelligence, because Obama understands the situation America faces, that a different America is needed, which he believes in, but surrounded by such advisers and holding the beliefs he does, will he really be able to implement ‘change we need’, or is it all just rhetoric?

He is definitely an improvement and certainly preferable to McCain. The days of a bombastic America charging around like a bull in a china shop are certainly over but let’s not declare him the messiah, let’s not get our hopes up only for them to be dashed. Beneath the surface there is still a lot to be wary of and ultimately, actions speak louder than words.

(There's a lot more I could add to this, and I may well do so soon, but I had to keep it succinct for The Demon)