The sale of weapons to foreign countries arouses strong emotions. Some people feel a sense of outrage that British manufactured arms are sold to regimes which then use them to crush their own people or to threaten others. But other people argue that thousands of British jobs depend on the arms trade, and that if we do not sell arms, our competitors – such as France or the USA – will eagerly fill the gap.

Economic impact
According to a report by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAC)(1), arms exports account for two per cent of British exports.(2) A total of 45,000 British jobs are directly dependent on military exports, and a further 45,000 indirectly dependent. This amounts to 0.3 per cent of all British jobs. This industry is heavily subsidised, receiving an estimated £760 million a year from the Government. Britain is the second largest arms exporter in the world after the United States, exporting over £27 billion of military equipment in the past five years alone(3). The worldwide trade in arms is worth about £35 billion per year.

However, whatever the short-term economic benefits of our current arms trade, it cannot be in Britain’s long-term interests to sell weapons to people who may use them in acts of aggression, in oppressing their own people, and ultimately even against Britain and her allies. To fail to understand that economic goals must be balanced against broader political goals is inexcusable; and to underrate the value of lives and peace is abominable. That is why, in this pamphlet, we argue that a future Conservative government should adopt a clear policy restricting the sale of arms solely to Britain’s allies. Any country that is not an ally should not be a recipient of British arms. And these arms should be sold only on a contract which guarantees end-user accountability, including the provision that they will not be re-sold.  To facilitate this and greater transparency, Britain should co-operate fully with the UN register for arms transfers.

Who are our allies?
A future Conservative government should draw up a clear set of criteria for countries to fulfil before we sell them arms. History shows that countries which are free do not begin wars and they do not attack other countries which are free.  Therefore we can safely sell arms to any country which possesses:

This definition of “allies” will result in some difficult decisions.  Countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Turkey, and traditional allies like Brunei, do not fit the definition.  However, rather than seek an immediate ban on future deals, which would cause very negative political fallout, Britain should make it clear to its trade partners that in future deals will depend upon our partners goodwill in making progress towards these freedoms. This goodwill should be measured against a clearly mapped out set of criteria and cases, and any country which proved intransigent should then find that arms deals with Britain quickly dry up.

Build the best, sell to allies
And this makes sense militarily. Competitive advantage is maximised not only by securing the best equipment for ourselves, but also by denying it to those who may become our opponents.

Thus our arms industry should concentrate on developing and producing the best possible equipment for ourselves, and such equipment that our allies – the United States, members of the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – will be attracted to. There is still a significant market among free countries if we produce quality products. According to SIPRI, between 1997 and 2001 the top five countries importing British arms were:

According to these figures, we would lose about 60 per cent of our export arms trade by restricting our sales to free countries.  This would mean heavy job losses and that political reality must be faced.  When a change in government policy results in severe job cuts, then the government has a responsibility to alleviate the worst effects.  The government should be willing to explore ways in which the people employed in the arms industry could be productively employed in other fields, especially where their scientific, design and manufacturing expertise would be valuable.

Middle East
For decades a pillar of British foreign policy in the Middle East has been to try to maintain a balance of power between Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran.  This was done regardless of the nature of those powers, and in disdain for the rights and sentiments of the peoples who have had to live under those powers.  The deep ignorance of this policy is now resulting in the greatest threats to global stability since World War II.

And even if we have finally recognised the folly of selling arms to Iraq and Iran, many would argue that it remains very much in our national interest to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. Virtually all our sales to Saudi Arabia are fighter planes, and supposedly these deter external aggressors and thus maintain the peace.  It is argued that the planes are very unlikely to be used for internal oppression.  Furthermore, the technology of the Tornados we sell is 20 years old, hardly cutting edge.  Yet this is not true of the very modern missiles and radar systems with which the planes are now fitted.  And the whole approach overlooks the reality of growing instability in the country, and the grave danger that arms and training supplied by Britain could end up being used by very hostile hands. We surely need to acknowledge the full consequences of the closed and oppressive nature of Saudi society under the current system. More than any other country, Saudi Arabia was the source of money, personnel and ideology behind the September 11^th terrorist attacks. Continuing to arm a repressive Saudi Arabia will continue to fuel the rise of militant Islamist terrorism.

Long-term security versus short-term money?
In October 2002, the Special Operations Forces Exhibition (Sofex) was held in Jordan. Britain’s Ministry of Defence sent a delegation and ten British arms companies were represented. The British publicly funded arms export agency, the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), part of the Ministry of Defence, had a stand in the exhibition, as did the British Defence Manufacturers Association. The companies represented produce a variety of weapons, including anti-tank missiles, fighter jets, long-range land-attack cruise missiles and tanks.

Official delegations from 46 countries attended, and these included five of the seven state sponsors of terrorism listed by the United States State Department in Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001: Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.(4)

Was it wise for Britain to be present at such an exhibition?

In this increasingly unstable world in which international terrorism is growing, it is essential to ensure that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. If Britain sets the example, it will gain enormous kudos around the world with millions upon millions of people.  That is excellent politics.

Furthermore, a principled stand will also appeal to many people within the UK, especially perhaps to younger voters, whose sense of idealism seeks a foreign policy with genuine respect for human rights.

(2) CAAC

(3) A Call To Conversion, Background Briefing, Pax Christi

(4) CAAC FAO Newsdesks 15 October 2002 – see Press Releases on www.caac.org.uk