Prior to the NATO bombing of Libya and with revelations that UK military
equipment was being used for internal repression, Norfolk CAAT wrote to
our local MPs.
We wanted to know why arms were sold to the Libyan dictator and tyrant, Muammar Gaddafi. We suggested "that our country should refrain from selling weapons to tyrants anywhere in the world" and asked them to work towards a change in government policy in this regard.
"Controlling" Exports
In general, the responses sang from the same hymn sheet. Chloe Smith, MP Norwich North, was not the only MP to claim that the UK "has some of the toughest rules on export licences and exports of arms anywhere in the world". Alistair Burt of the Foreign Office, responding to Simon Wright, MP Norwich South, extolled the "rigorous and transparent arms export control systems" and pointed to the export licensing criteria where "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are mandatory considerations".
However, this is the same criteria that was in place when 226 export licenses were approved to Saudi Arabia last year, a country listed by Alistair Burt's own department as being of "major concern" regarding human rights.
It's the same criteria that was in place when exports were permitted to both India and Pakistan, effectively arming both sides in a regional conflict.
And it's also the same criteria that was watered down by Jack Straw in 2002, when "the importance of the UK's defence and security relationship with the incorporating country" became a consideration.
Incorporation is where military components are sold and incorporated into weapons systems in the recipient country for onward export. Amnesty International have stated that this change of criteria was introduced specifically to allow "the export of UK components to the USA for incorporation in military equipment ... to be exported to Israel".
George Freemen, MP Mid Norfolk, wrote that he was "heartened" by the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox's, comments that "our own guidelines are quite strict".
Guidelines, indeed.
The Economy
In our letter we asked just one thing of our elected representatives: that they call on government to refrain from selling weapons to tyrants.
It's somewhat unsettling, then, that the initial response from Elizabeth Truss, MP South West Norfolk, is a defence of arms exports on financial grounds, "reducing the cost of equipment to our own armed forces, providing better value for money to the taxpayer", rather than to offer assurances that the dictators of tomorrow won't be able to procure British military hardware in the manner that Gaddafi did.
This in itself is not surprising. The taxpayer and the British economy are never far away from a defence of government support for the arms trade.
Alistair Burt claims that in 2009, "UK defence exports were worth over £7billion". But what he doesn't mention is that this industry employs just 0.2% of the national workforce.
When Elizabeth Truss talks value for money for the taxpayer she doesn't mention that more civil servants are employed by the UK Trade & Investment department promoting arms sales than every other industry combined. Or that in 2009/10 UK arms export subsidies amounted to just under £700m.
Perhaps the final word on value for money should be given to Alan Beattie, International Economy Editor for the Financial Times, when he commented in 2010:
"You can have as many arms export jobs as you are prepared to waste public money subsidising."
Arms Embargo
The UN arms embargo on Libya was put in place In February 2011. Some MPs were keen to highlight this, perhaps as evidence of decisive action. However just weeks before the Libyan uprising, arms exports for assault and sniper rifles, crowd control and other military equipment were still being approved. UK arms exports to Libya over the past five years amount to €119m and the country was considered a "priority market country" by UKTI DSO. All while under the rule of an authoritarian dictator.
Last year, Liam Fox indicated that the new government would be even more enthusiastic about arming the world than it's predecessor:
"There's a sense that in the past we were rather embarrassed about exporting defence products. There's no such embarrassment in this government."
Earlier this year, with much of the Middle-east in inner turmoil and significant unrest, David Cameron toured the region with the head of BAE, Thales and other arms manufacturers. Far from embarrassed he robustly defended his actions.
The UK has a long and undistinguished history of arming some of the world's most repressive regimes and odious dictators. Nothing from central government, nor our local MPs, suggest that is about to change.
"Controlling" Exports
In general, the responses sang from the same hymn sheet. Chloe Smith, MP Norwich North, was not the only MP to claim that the UK "has some of the toughest rules on export licences and exports of arms anywhere in the world". Alistair Burt of the Foreign Office, responding to Simon Wright, MP Norwich South, extolled the "rigorous and transparent arms export control systems" and pointed to the export licensing criteria where "respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are mandatory considerations".
However, this is the same criteria that was in place when 226 export licenses were approved to Saudi Arabia last year, a country listed by Alistair Burt's own department as being of "major concern" regarding human rights.
It's the same criteria that was in place when exports were permitted to both India and Pakistan, effectively arming both sides in a regional conflict.
And it's also the same criteria that was watered down by Jack Straw in 2002, when "the importance of the UK's defence and security relationship with the incorporating country" became a consideration.
Incorporation is where military components are sold and incorporated into weapons systems in the recipient country for onward export. Amnesty International have stated that this change of criteria was introduced specifically to allow "the export of UK components to the USA for incorporation in military equipment ... to be exported to Israel".
George Freemen, MP Mid Norfolk, wrote that he was "heartened" by the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox's, comments that "our own guidelines are quite strict".
Guidelines, indeed.
The Economy
In our letter we asked just one thing of our elected representatives: that they call on government to refrain from selling weapons to tyrants.
It's somewhat unsettling, then, that the initial response from Elizabeth Truss, MP South West Norfolk, is a defence of arms exports on financial grounds, "reducing the cost of equipment to our own armed forces, providing better value for money to the taxpayer", rather than to offer assurances that the dictators of tomorrow won't be able to procure British military hardware in the manner that Gaddafi did.
This in itself is not surprising. The taxpayer and the British economy are never far away from a defence of government support for the arms trade.
Alistair Burt claims that in 2009, "UK defence exports were worth over £7billion". But what he doesn't mention is that this industry employs just 0.2% of the national workforce.
When Elizabeth Truss talks value for money for the taxpayer she doesn't mention that more civil servants are employed by the UK Trade & Investment department promoting arms sales than every other industry combined. Or that in 2009/10 UK arms export subsidies amounted to just under £700m.
Perhaps the final word on value for money should be given to Alan Beattie, International Economy Editor for the Financial Times, when he commented in 2010:
"You can have as many arms export jobs as you are prepared to waste public money subsidising."
Arms Embargo
The UN arms embargo on Libya was put in place In February 2011. Some MPs were keen to highlight this, perhaps as evidence of decisive action. However just weeks before the Libyan uprising, arms exports for assault and sniper rifles, crowd control and other military equipment were still being approved. UK arms exports to Libya over the past five years amount to €119m and the country was considered a "priority market country" by UKTI DSO. All while under the rule of an authoritarian dictator.
Last year, Liam Fox indicated that the new government would be even more enthusiastic about arming the world than it's predecessor:
"There's a sense that in the past we were rather embarrassed about exporting defence products. There's no such embarrassment in this government."
Earlier this year, with much of the Middle-east in inner turmoil and significant unrest, David Cameron toured the region with the head of BAE, Thales and other arms manufacturers. Far from embarrassed he robustly defended his actions.
The UK has a long and undistinguished history of arming some of the world's most repressive regimes and odious dictators. Nothing from central government, nor our local MPs, suggest that is about to change.
