wyreforestcaat.org.uk

Mark Garnier with Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, and Roxel VP for Strategy and Future Concepts,Peter diMuzio

Dear Mark Garnier MP

Thank you for your reply to my email message regarding defence exports and EDM 460. I have read your comments with much care and feel that you may have been misinformed on a number of the key issues. I would therefore like to respond to each of the points that you made in some detail.

Firstly, your email makes note of the ‘significant contribution that defence exports can make in helping to reduce the unit cost of equipment to our own armed forces.’  I would assert, however, that governmental support for arms exports only serves the interest of the international arms companies, and not the UK’s armed forces. Your comment ignores state subsidy and support given to arms exports, mainly through the costly Export Credit Guarantee Department. The total subsidy is, of course, difficult to calculate, but even the MoD, in its 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy, admitted that: “… the balance of argument about defence exports should depend mainly on non-economic considerations.” No independent study seems to have been undertaken which supports your argument, but should you know of one then I would be more than happy to read it and, perhaps, to review my position.

In your response you also assert that defence exports need protecting because they promote ‘strategic relationships with allies’. Unfortunately, you have also been misled on this key point, as most of the 100 plus countries who receive UK arms are not our allies. Also, many of those countries identified by the domestic defence industry as ‘key’ or ‘emerging’ markets are in the grip of conflict or – as with our ‘strategic’ relationship with Israel – have concerning records of human rights abuse. I would suggest that our selling arms to these countries is not the best way to strengthen our relationship with them; unless we are to condone their actions.

Whilst I agree with you that the UK defence industry ‘already adheres to some of the most stringent defence export standards in the world’, I am afraid that this is to damn with faint praise. The government’s stated commitment to only grant export licenses for ‘legitimate purposes’ has never been defined clearly enough to be of any use. The sad fact is that almost all license applications for arms exports have been granted. This includes arms to Israel for use in Gaza, and to Argentina for their invasion of the Falklands. When licenses are being granted for exports to China, Sri Lanka, Libya and Thailand, it becomes clear that these ‘stringent standards’’ do not guarantee that UK built equipment will not be used for the purposes of internal repression by brutal regimes.

In your reply you mention the coalition government’s commitment to the Arms Trade Treaty. Whilst it may strengthen the government’s hand in curtailing the circulation of small arms, it is unlikely to make any real difference to the problems associated with the wider arms trade. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for instance, has stated that the ATT will ‘not prevent any UK sales’, and this is supported by comments from Defence Manufacturers Association who say, ‘the eventual treaty will not bring new obligations for UK industry.’  It is clear that deals in those markets the arms trade finds most lucrative – such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, India and Pakistan – will continue unabated. The ATT gives the impression that the government is willing to take action, whilst continuing to support the arms companies in their deadly business.

Later this week the results of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be made public, and we are certain to see severe cuts to our most essential public services. I hope that you agree that the state subsidy of the arms trade cannot continue whilst our most vulnerable go without.