Memorandum submitted by Campaign Against
Arms Trade
1. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT)
is working for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international
arms trade, together with progressive demilitarisation within
arms-producing countries. Since it began in 1974, CAAT has been
approached by refugee groups from the many countries to whose
governments the UK has supplied arms whilst their people have
fled. Amongst these have been Pinochet's Chile, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia,
apartheid South Africa, Sri Lanka and Turkey. The refugees always
urge CAAT to press for an arms embargo on their countries.
2. Your press notice asks if aid can prevent
violent conflicts and reduce the number of international asylum
seekers. CAAT believes that, in addition, your Committee should
investigate whether ending arms sales to areas of conflict and
to governments which violate human rights would enable more people
to remain in the homes and communities they are currently forced
to flee.
3. Some overseas governments have been encouraged
to spend money on military equipment whilst the essentials of
civilised life—housing, education, health care and the like—are
still a dream for many of their people. Your Committee might also
consider whether this, too, means that people feel they have to
leave their own countries to find a better life.
WAR AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
ABUSE CAN
FORCE PEOPLE
TO BECOME
REFUGEES
4. The Institute of Public Policy Research,
in its paper "States of Conflict" (2003), shows clearly
that "repression and/or discrimination of minorities and/or
ethnic conflict" exist in all the top ten countries of origin
of asylum seekers entering the European Union. Unsurprisingly,
people flee when their lives are insecure.
5. However, all too often, whilst condemning
the human rights violations or the conflicts UK governments have
continued to supply arms to the perpetrators.
6. The current Government has introduced
criteria against which export licences for military equipment
are considered. Of the current Consolidated EU and National Arms
Export Licensing Criteria, three of the eight are relevant to
human rights and conflict—Criterion two with regard to "The
respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country
of final destination"; three regarding "The internal
situation in the country of final destination, as a function of
the existence of tensions or armed conflicts"; and four regarding
the "Preservation of regional peace, security and stability".
7. Whilst the introduction of these criteria
is to be welcomed, their implementation is at best sporadic and
at worst tokenistic. They do not appear to be being used in such
a way as to have much of an impact on stopping human rights violations
or conflict. The refugee groups asking for assistance in pressing
for arms embargoes continue to come to CAAT.
PROGRESS ONLY
WHERE LITTLE
MONEY IS
TO BE
MADE
8. Sometimes, following protests, UK governments
have taken action. For instance, the electric shock prods were
last on display at a UK government arms export exhibition in 1982.
CAAT wonders if one reason governments have bowed to pressure
on "torture equipment" is that it is low technology,
and there is not much money to be made from its sale.
9. It is business as usual, however, where
major companies are manufacturing the equipment and their profits
are threatened. Then, human rights are of secondary consideration.
UK governments withstood massive criticism to defend the sale
of Hawk jets to Suharto's Indonesia despite evidence that those
supplied on a previous occasion had been used to intimidate the
people of East Timor.
10. The UK government is currently defending
the supply to Indonesia of spare parts for BAE Systems Hawk aircraft
and Alvis Scorpion tanks. This is despite the key role being played
by this equipment in Indonesia's war against pro-independence
forces in Aceh. The Indonesia authorities had given " assurances"
to the UK government that the equipment would not be used offensively
or for counter-insurgency purposes. The UK government's response
was to rewrite, and weaken, the terms of the "assurances".
11. Alarmingly, in July 2002, the UK government
even changed its rules to allow the export by BAE Systems of components
for F-16 fighters being made by the US company Lockheed Martin
for sale to Israel. F-16s have been used against Palestinian civilians.
In a briefing to Labour MPs, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw justified
the changes by saying: "The Government has judged that the
UK's security and defence relationship with the US is fundamental
to the UK's national security. Defence collaboration with the
US is also key to maintaining a strong defence industrial capacity."
No mention was made of human rights, or the plight of the Palestinian
people who might be killed or rendered homeless as a result of
his decision.
12. CAAT also notes, that despite intensive
lobbying by the Quadripartite Committee as well as many non-governmental
organisations, the Government has refused to control the activities
of UK citizens or companies brokering arms wherever they are located.
As your Committee knows only too well, the links between the activities
of many of these brokers, conflict and refugees are deadly and
have left parts of Africa in bloody chaos.
13. It appears that, yet again, the Government's
election pledges to restrict and control the arms trade come to
nought when military companies lobby to be allowed to continue
their activities without additional regulation. CAAT notes that
in this case the Government has explicitly said, when rejecting
the Quadripartite Committee's recommendation to apply controls
to all trafficking and brokering, that it "would be likely
to criminalise legitimate business by UK defence companies overseas
carried out according to the laws of the appropriate country."
NOT JUST
DIRECTLY VIOLATING
HUMAN RIGHTS
14. Arms exports don't just violate human
rights directly. Such sales are used by governments of supplier
countries as instruments of foreign policy, military equipment
is sold to "friends", and with the equipment goes a
message of political approval for the recipient government. The
deals do not encourage respect for human rights.
15. Again, UK governments have accepted
this argument where UK companies have not stood to lose financially.
In 1991, for instance in 1991 an embargo on the sale of all military
equipment was imposed on Burma, not a major customer for UK arms.
16. However, where money might be made the
desire to sell arms can compromise the message being sent. In
2002, Prime Minister Tony Blair urged India to back down from
a confrontation, possibly nuclear, with Pakistan yet he continued
to press the Indian government to buy BAE Systems' Hawk jets,
a deal that has now gone through. Should there be a war on the
Indian sub-continent, an exodus of refugees of massive proportions
would result.
CONCLUSION
17. The Government wrings its hands over
the refugee "problem", but through its support for arms
sales actually encourages overseas governments to pursue policies
which make it more likely that people will be forced to flee their
homes.
18. To enable the UK to send a clear and
unambiguous message in favour of human rights protocols and against
armed conflict, the strong connections between the Government
and arms companies must be broken, and the support for and subsidies
arms exports ended. This would be a concrete step towards enabling
refugees and economic migrants to stay in or return to their homelands,
which is what most tell us they would prefer to do.
November 2003
| 
