10 Comments

• Geoffrey Payne 13th Nov '10 - 10:35am

  We should not be exporting arms to dictators and abusers of human rights. We must consider how a country might use those weapons both at present and in the future. It is OK to sell arms to Australia but certainly not to Israel or Saudi Arabia. It is unacceptable that we repeat the policies of previous Labour and Tory governments.
  I am sure there is a lot more to it than the couple of sentences published here, but that it is considered important enough to mention British jobs and not human rights is a warning of how the government sees it’s priorities.

  That said, I was pleased to see David Cameron denounce waterboarding as torture. A big concern I have is t he Tory party links with the US republican party, but maybe this time the government will not accept at face value that we have to agree with every US policy as Tony Blair did.

• Thomas 13th Nov '10 - 10:50am

  @Geoffrey Payne: I think youre reading too much into that. They probably feel it covered by the reference to export controls.
  British defence and British industry have been cosy, incompetent bedfellows for far too long in my opinion. We should be sourcing our equipment on principles of quality and value, not on how much its going to protect the profit margins of those who terminally under deliver.

• Toby Fenwick 13th Nov '10 - 11:39am

  The reason its there is that the MOD hopes that exports will subsidise UK military procurement – and as we’ve insisted on buying very advanced, British-made weapons, there are very few countries worldwide that have the cash or the strategic requirement for these very expensive toys. And many of them are places we would not like to do business with. As the MOD is broke, flogging high priced weapons abroad – my hazy recollection is that we’re trying to ink a deal with Oman for Typhoon jet fighters – becomes ever more important in attempting to balance the numbers. As such, this policy is one of fiscal necessity rather than one of strategy.

  I don’t think that our arms sales to regimes with dubious human rights records is helpful; Saudi is further complicated because of the medium-term risk of an Al Qaeda inspired revolution against the Saudi monarchy. But those countries with a record on using force against their own people, or civilians under occupation (e.g. Sudan, Nigeria, China, Israel) should in my view be debarred from British defence sales.

• Jedibeeftrix 13th Nov '10 - 6:24pm

  “Should the MoD have that as a goal? And if it does, should it fourth of the seven”

  Yes, and yes.

• Paul McKeown 13th Nov '10 - 9:03pm

  Such a priority reveals the MoD in its true colours, that of a representative in government for industrial interests. Selling British industry is a function which – if it should exist in government at all – should be located in BIS and/or the FCO. The MoD should have one focus: that of anticipating threats to national security and deterring them as best as possible within budgetary constraints imposed and/or negotiated with the Treasury. A ridiculous policy and indicative of the idiotic thinking that has poisoned British defensive posture for several generations. Shades of military/industrial complex.

• Darren Reynolds 14th Nov '10 - 11:07am

  What Paul said.

• Tom Papworth 14th Nov '10 - 11:41am

  No. The government should not be promoting exports in any field. That sort of mercantallist nonsense should have gone out with the Corn Laws.

  As for the arms industry, we’d have a far better equipped military if we bought a lot more stuff off the shelf instead of reinventing the wheel (or rather, the Infantry Fighting Vehicle) every time.

  I also largely agree with Geoffrey (Yes, it does happen!), though there is a difference between sellng the Saudi’s fighter jets (not usable in repressing civilians, but handy in defending their borders) and selling them electric shock battons (which have only one purpose and I’m genuinely surprised that the UK even makes!).

• RichardSM 14th Nov '10 - 1:53pm

  .
  Toby Fenwick wrote: “But those countries with a record on using force against their own people, or civilians under occupation (e.g. Sudan, Nigeria, China, Israel ……………..Britain, USA.

• Kaye Stearman 15th Nov '10 - 6:25pm

  The MOD justifies its export promotion aim by stating that it helps to strengthen British influence and helps support British industry and jobs. In fact, it does neither.

  Selling dangerous and expensive weaponry may strengthen our influence with dictatorial and authoritarian regimes but is that the sort of influence we want to wield? Ask many people what is our most influencial “weapon” and they will say the BBC World Service and the English language – let’s promote both.

  The number of British jobs supported by the arms industry is small – just 0.2% of the total – and they have been failing for many years. The proportion of exports is tiny – just 1.5% of all exports. What’s more, both are heavily subsidised. While exact figures are not available, Campaign Against Arms Trade calaculates that each job is subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £9,000.

• david orr 17th Nov '10 - 7:53pm

  We should not be exporting arms full stop!