G8 countries account for around 85% of the global arms trade a highly profitable, heavily subsidised and under-regulated business. Unlike almost every other industry, the arms trade is not subject to any independent monitoring scarcely believable given the heavy regulations on food and medical drugs. According to Transparency International, the arms industry is the second most likely to involve bribery.1
The 'arms trade' includes anything from fighter-jets and submarines down to small weapons and firearms. Campaigning has often focussed on the production and sale of large weapons, but according to the Small Arms Survey,2 over 500,000 people are killed every year by small arms one death every minute - proving that there is also a major problem with control of small arms, including private gun ownership and, in many places, police violence.
All the G8 countries except Russia are members of NATO and many of them are major arms producers. Between 1997 and 2001 at least two thirds of the world's arms deals came from just five G8 countries USA, Russia, France, Britain and Germany. However, despite their heavy representation in weapons production G8 countries are the least affected by the use of arms. Of the 150 wars fought between 1945 and the mid 1990s, more than 9 out of 10 were in the developing world. The overwhelming majority of people killed or injured by weapons are poor.3
It is important to remember that weapons production and government are often deeply intermeshed. In many G8 countries there is a 'military-industrial complex' where state subsidies support arms companies and arms companies exercise excessive political influence.
Previous G8 Summits
G8 meetings traditionally talk about reducing weapons production in terms of 'global security' and 'combating international terrorism', ignoring the substantial role that conventional weapons play in killing civilians the majority supplied by companies based in G8 countries. Arms proliferation controls have focused on programmes for weapons of mass destruction in a few 'rogue states', ignoring both the substantial weapon-building programmes of many G8 countries and the death and destruction caused by smaller scale weaponry. For example, in 2002 the G8 allocated $20 billion to a programme to prevent 'terrorists' acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons while there were still no global regulations on the small arms trade. The US has in fact increased military 'aid' to many countries since September 2001, including some its own State Department classifies as having a 'poor' human rights record or worse.4 In 2004 the US set aside $4.7 billion for counter terrorism, including military assistance to 25 'frontline states' who support its current anti-terror policies. These include Afghanistan, the Philippines and Yemen. In the same period $2 billion was spent on anti-poverty programmes. The UK has similarly increased its trade with the human-rights abusing Indonesian government since the start of the 'War on Terror'.5
In the 2003 G8 Summit, Brazilian president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva made a proposal for a global hunger fund 'that would not only give food to those in need but would also create the conditions necessary to strike at the structural roots of hunger. There are many ways of gaining financial resources for such a fund. Taxes could be levied on the international arms trade: this would prove advantageous from both an economic and an ethical standpoint.' With the global value of weapons sales in 2001 standing at $21.3bn and set to rise, a 1% tax would have raised hundreds of millions for aid programmes and reduced poor countries' spending on weapons, as well as being a heavier tax on the rich, as most arms deals are between rich countries. None of the G8 leaders responded to his proposal and few journalists covered it.6 Leaders of poorer countries can attend the G8 summit, but they are spectators without an equal voice.
The official G8 website states that 'Over the past few years, the G8 has been actively involved in leading international efforts to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction'7 - ironic considering the weapon-building programmes of many of its member states.8
It continues:
The attacks of September 11 demonstrated that terrorists are prepared to use any means to cause terror and inflict appalling casualties on innocent people. We commit ourselves to prevent terrorists, or those that harbour them, from acquiring or developing nuclear, chemical, radiological and biological weapons; missiles; and related materials, equipment and technology. We call on all countries to join us in adopting the set of non-proliferation principles we have announced today.9
The promotion of long term stability and prosperity in the Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) remains a priority for the leaders of the G8 countries and an important objective of next years UK presidency.10
It is hard to take this claim seriously given that US- supplied F16 fighter jets, with parts made in Britain and Canada, are used by the Israeli army to kill Palestinian civilians.11
Links between government and arms companies.
It is hard to expect the G8 to make reasonable decisions on curbing the arms trade when the relevant governments and the companies who profit from the trade are so deeply interlinked.
In the UK, 600 civil servants work for the arms trade, paid for by the government, through the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), a sector of the MoD whose objective is to help the arms industry sell overseas. According to Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT):
[DESO] co-ordinates the direct government support for arms exports, providing marketing assistance and advice on negotiation and financing arrangements, as well as organising exhibitions and promotional tours. Heads of DESO are seconded from the UK arms industry giving the companies a direct voice into the heart of government.12
The current head of DESO, Alan Garwood, is seconded from BAe Systems. In an article describing the 'intermeshing of arms companies and the civil service' CAAT campaigners estimate that 'each year arms exports cost the public purse about £888 million in subsidies' partly in the form of civil servants being paid by the government to work as sales representatives for arms companies, and travel grants for foreign buyers to attend arms fairs. This happens in very few market sectors. Nearly half the work of civil servants in the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD) is related to arms exports.
A 'secondment' is when someone goes temporarily from their usual employment to somewhere else. Since 2000, BAe Systems has provided 45% of all secondees to the MoD. Others have come from Qinetiq and corporate accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young. There have also been cases of senior MoD staff being seconded to arms companies.13
Some sectors of the MoD are now privatised (e.g. DERA is now QinetiQ) further blurring the borders between government and arms companies. See sections on companies below.
Every two years, Britain is host to DSEi, Europe's largest arms fair.14
Conclusion
Tony Blair claims to be prioritising Africa's problems and climate change at this G8 summit. It is hard to see how he can do this without addressing the significant links in many African countries between the demand for natural resources such as oil and gas and the supply of weapons. Nearly all G8 countries are guilty of supplying weapons, small arms or torture equipment to the African countries they depend on for supplies of fossil fuels and other raw materials.15 For example, Britain and Russia are both accused of supplying weaponry and technology for oil extraction to Sudan during the recent war. In 1998 the former president of French oil giant Elf admitted that his company had supplied weapons to both main parties in the conflict in the Congo.
It is impossible for the governments of the world's richest countries to effectively deal with the world's problems with their current lack of transparency and lack of acknowledgement that they, along with the companies they support, are partly to blame for those problems. Until problem-solving is separated from the drive to make profits it is hard to see any far-reaching change being achieved.
References
1. Transparency International press release 'Transparency International releases new Bribe Payers Index (BPI) 2002' 14/5/02 www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2002/2002.05.14.bpi.en.html , viewed 28.2.05
2. Control Arms website 'The human cost of arms abuse' www.controlarms.org/the_issues/human_cost.htm viewed 7.3.05
3. 'Shattered Lives: the case for tougher international arms control' report by Control Arms 2003 www.controlarms.org/documents/arms_report_full.pdf , last viewed 8.3.05
4. Ibid. Afghanistan, Azerbijan, Colombia, Georgia, India, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey and Yemen have all received increased military aid. In some of these cases sanctions have had to be lifted.
5. See note 3
6. For one who did, see www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,988816,00.html Gideon Burrows 'Arms and the Taxman', The Guardian, 1/7/03
7. www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097073665785 has links to non proliferation agreements from previous summits, nearly all talking about 'international terrorism' as the major threat to peace.
8. For examples in the UK, look at www.aldermaston.net/, about the government's plans to develop facilities to build the 'next generation' of nuclear weapons at Aldermaston in Berkshire and www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/index.htm for missile defence ('Star Wars').
9. 'Statement by G8 Leaders: The G8 Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction', from the summit at Kananaskis, 2002. www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097073665785
10. 'Policy issues 2005: supporting reform in the Middle East' www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097073730729
11. Amnesty International report 'A Catalogue of Failures: G8 arms exports and human rights violations', 2003. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ENG-IOR300032003 , viewed 8.3.05
12. 'Time the Whitehall gunrunners were fired', Andrew Wood and Ian Pritchard, The Guardian, 16.8.04. See also CAAT report, 'The political influence of arms companies', April 2003. www.caat.org.uk/information/publications/other/political-influence-0403.pdf
13. Ibid.
14. The next DSEI will be in September 2005 in London. 15. www.dsei.org/
15. See note 12
The 'arms trade' includes anything from fighter-jets and submarines down to small weapons and firearms. Campaigning has often focussed on the production and sale of large weapons, but according to the Small Arms Survey,2 over 500,000 people are killed every year by small arms one death every minute - proving that there is also a major problem with control of small arms, including private gun ownership and, in many places, police violence.
All the G8 countries except Russia are members of NATO and many of them are major arms producers. Between 1997 and 2001 at least two thirds of the world's arms deals came from just five G8 countries USA, Russia, France, Britain and Germany. However, despite their heavy representation in weapons production G8 countries are the least affected by the use of arms. Of the 150 wars fought between 1945 and the mid 1990s, more than 9 out of 10 were in the developing world. The overwhelming majority of people killed or injured by weapons are poor.3
It is important to remember that weapons production and government are often deeply intermeshed. In many G8 countries there is a 'military-industrial complex' where state subsidies support arms companies and arms companies exercise excessive political influence.
Previous G8 Summits
G8 meetings traditionally talk about reducing weapons production in terms of 'global security' and 'combating international terrorism', ignoring the substantial role that conventional weapons play in killing civilians the majority supplied by companies based in G8 countries. Arms proliferation controls have focused on programmes for weapons of mass destruction in a few 'rogue states', ignoring both the substantial weapon-building programmes of many G8 countries and the death and destruction caused by smaller scale weaponry. For example, in 2002 the G8 allocated $20 billion to a programme to prevent 'terrorists' acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons while there were still no global regulations on the small arms trade. The US has in fact increased military 'aid' to many countries since September 2001, including some its own State Department classifies as having a 'poor' human rights record or worse.4 In 2004 the US set aside $4.7 billion for counter terrorism, including military assistance to 25 'frontline states' who support its current anti-terror policies. These include Afghanistan, the Philippines and Yemen. In the same period $2 billion was spent on anti-poverty programmes. The UK has similarly increased its trade with the human-rights abusing Indonesian government since the start of the 'War on Terror'.5
In the 2003 G8 Summit, Brazilian president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva made a proposal for a global hunger fund 'that would not only give food to those in need but would also create the conditions necessary to strike at the structural roots of hunger. There are many ways of gaining financial resources for such a fund. Taxes could be levied on the international arms trade: this would prove advantageous from both an economic and an ethical standpoint.' With the global value of weapons sales in 2001 standing at $21.3bn and set to rise, a 1% tax would have raised hundreds of millions for aid programmes and reduced poor countries' spending on weapons, as well as being a heavier tax on the rich, as most arms deals are between rich countries. None of the G8 leaders responded to his proposal and few journalists covered it.6 Leaders of poorer countries can attend the G8 summit, but they are spectators without an equal voice.
The official G8 website states that 'Over the past few years, the G8 has been actively involved in leading international efforts to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction'7 - ironic considering the weapon-building programmes of many of its member states.8
It continues:
The attacks of September 11 demonstrated that terrorists are prepared to use any means to cause terror and inflict appalling casualties on innocent people. We commit ourselves to prevent terrorists, or those that harbour them, from acquiring or developing nuclear, chemical, radiological and biological weapons; missiles; and related materials, equipment and technology. We call on all countries to join us in adopting the set of non-proliferation principles we have announced today.9
The promotion of long term stability and prosperity in the Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) remains a priority for the leaders of the G8 countries and an important objective of next years UK presidency.10
It is hard to take this claim seriously given that US- supplied F16 fighter jets, with parts made in Britain and Canada, are used by the Israeli army to kill Palestinian civilians.11
Links between government and arms companies.
It is hard to expect the G8 to make reasonable decisions on curbing the arms trade when the relevant governments and the companies who profit from the trade are so deeply interlinked.
In the UK, 600 civil servants work for the arms trade, paid for by the government, through the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), a sector of the MoD whose objective is to help the arms industry sell overseas. According to Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT):
[DESO] co-ordinates the direct government support for arms exports, providing marketing assistance and advice on negotiation and financing arrangements, as well as organising exhibitions and promotional tours. Heads of DESO are seconded from the UK arms industry giving the companies a direct voice into the heart of government.12
The current head of DESO, Alan Garwood, is seconded from BAe Systems. In an article describing the 'intermeshing of arms companies and the civil service' CAAT campaigners estimate that 'each year arms exports cost the public purse about £888 million in subsidies' partly in the form of civil servants being paid by the government to work as sales representatives for arms companies, and travel grants for foreign buyers to attend arms fairs. This happens in very few market sectors. Nearly half the work of civil servants in the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD) is related to arms exports.
A 'secondment' is when someone goes temporarily from their usual employment to somewhere else. Since 2000, BAe Systems has provided 45% of all secondees to the MoD. Others have come from Qinetiq and corporate accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young. There have also been cases of senior MoD staff being seconded to arms companies.13
Some sectors of the MoD are now privatised (e.g. DERA is now QinetiQ) further blurring the borders between government and arms companies. See sections on companies below.
Every two years, Britain is host to DSEi, Europe's largest arms fair.14
Conclusion
Tony Blair claims to be prioritising Africa's problems and climate change at this G8 summit. It is hard to see how he can do this without addressing the significant links in many African countries between the demand for natural resources such as oil and gas and the supply of weapons. Nearly all G8 countries are guilty of supplying weapons, small arms or torture equipment to the African countries they depend on for supplies of fossil fuels and other raw materials.15 For example, Britain and Russia are both accused of supplying weaponry and technology for oil extraction to Sudan during the recent war. In 1998 the former president of French oil giant Elf admitted that his company had supplied weapons to both main parties in the conflict in the Congo.
It is impossible for the governments of the world's richest countries to effectively deal with the world's problems with their current lack of transparency and lack of acknowledgement that they, along with the companies they support, are partly to blame for those problems. Until problem-solving is separated from the drive to make profits it is hard to see any far-reaching change being achieved.
References
1. Transparency International press release 'Transparency International releases new Bribe Payers Index (BPI) 2002' 14/5/02 www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2002/2002.05.14.bpi.en.html , viewed 28.2.05
2. Control Arms website 'The human cost of arms abuse' www.controlarms.org/the_issues/human_cost.htm viewed 7.3.05
3. 'Shattered Lives: the case for tougher international arms control' report by Control Arms 2003 www.controlarms.org/documents/arms_report_full.pdf , last viewed 8.3.05
4. Ibid. Afghanistan, Azerbijan, Colombia, Georgia, India, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey and Yemen have all received increased military aid. In some of these cases sanctions have had to be lifted.
5. See note 3
6. For one who did, see www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,988816,00.html Gideon Burrows 'Arms and the Taxman', The Guardian, 1/7/03
7. www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097073665785 has links to non proliferation agreements from previous summits, nearly all talking about 'international terrorism' as the major threat to peace.
8. For examples in the UK, look at www.aldermaston.net/, about the government's plans to develop facilities to build the 'next generation' of nuclear weapons at Aldermaston in Berkshire and www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/index.htm for missile defence ('Star Wars').
9. 'Statement by G8 Leaders: The G8 Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction', from the summit at Kananaskis, 2002. www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097073665785
10. 'Policy issues 2005: supporting reform in the Middle East' www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1097073730729
11. Amnesty International report 'A Catalogue of Failures: G8 arms exports and human rights violations', 2003. http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ENG-IOR300032003 , viewed 8.3.05
12. 'Time the Whitehall gunrunners were fired', Andrew Wood and Ian Pritchard, The Guardian, 16.8.04. See also CAAT report, 'The political influence of arms companies', April 2003. www.caat.org.uk/information/publications/other/political-influence-0403.pdf
13. Ibid.
14. The next DSEI will be in September 2005 in London. 15. www.dsei.org/
15. See note 12