2013-06-20T07:08:34-04:00 Kaye Stearman http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=kaye-stearman Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Kaye Stearman Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1656241 2012-07-07T13:26:54-04:00 2012-09-06T05:12:05-04:00

Kaye Stearman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaye-stearman/ Natural History Museum is one of London's best loved attractions. Generations of visitors have lingered before its cabinets of curiosities. Visit any week day and you will find the famous central hall filled with school parties. On weekends it is family groups. Every day tourists marvel at the old and new exhibits.

On the evening of Monday 9 July, there will be a another group of visitors thronging the central hall, nibbling canapés and quaffing cocktails beside the gigantic Diplodocus dinosaur skeleton. They won't be there because they love nature or are interested in science, evolution or the environment. They will be arms company bosses, military officers and government delegates attending a reception to celebrate the opening of the Farnborough Airshow - a showcase and marketplace for aircraft and weaponry.

They will include representatives from countries such as Bahrain, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and from arms companies such as BAE, Lockheed Martin and Finmeccanica, not to mention Rosoboronexport, the main arms supplier to the Syrian government. Business Secretary Vince Cable will make an appearance as will other government ministers whose portfolios support the arms business.

The organisers describe the reception as: "THE most important event during the Farnborough week, exclusively attended by key industry senior level figures, international delegations and exhibitors ... a must attend event and an unparalleled networking opportunity." They are very happy with their prestigious venue. But why is the Natural History Museum acting as host for an arms dealers hospitality bash?

The Museum Director Doctor Michael Dixon says that the museum needs the funds and that the reception is a purely commercial transaction, not "an expression of support for the arms industry". So far over 1,600 people have contacted him to ask him to reconsider, including leading scientists who have signed an open letter asking the museum to sever links with the arms trade.

There are many reasons why the museum should back away from this nefarious association. Here are four.

It betrays the museum's vision -The museum's vision is simple: "To advance our knowledge of the natural world, inspiring better care of our planet." The arms industry's vision is also simple, although rarely stated: to manufacture, sell and service weapons for their own profit. Far from protecting the natural world, it has aided its desecration, destroying plant and animal life and polluting the environment, without restitution or compensation.

It disregards the museum's history - One of the museum's most generous benefactors was Andrew Carnegie. He financed and donated the replica skeleton of Diplodocus carnegii - named after him - in the central hall. Carnegie donated most of his immense fortune to organisations supporting world peace, including the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He would be horrified if he knew that his Diplodocus carnegii was being used as a setting for the arms industry to socialise.

It besmirches the museum's integrity - The Museum is much more than a display of exhibits. It is a leading international research centre, holding 70 million specimens, employing 300 scientists, collaborating with UK and overseas universities and publishing high-quality scientific research. Any association with the arms industry inevitably leaves questions over the museum's integrity in these areas.

It undermines the museum's public duty and ethos - the Museum is a public institution, supported by taxpayers and through public donations, and is expected to conform to recognised public standards. Opinion polls show that the public does not like or trust the arms industry and does not want the UK to sell weapons to repressive and undemocratic regimes. By taking money from the arms industry, even for a one-off event like the Farnborough reception, the museum lends a veneer of legitimacy to the arms industry and undermines its own public status and ethos.

The Natural History Museum belongs to the public, not the arms industry. Campaign Against Arms Trade will be protesting outside the Natural Museum on 9 July and keeping up the pressure for them to end all ties with the arms trade.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1556118 2012-05-31T09:55:44-04:00 2012-07-31T05:12:17-04:00

Kaye Stearman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaye-stearman/
The ties between the royal family and the military are strong. It is common practice for male royalty to serve in the military while many royals hold honorary military commissions. The military connection has proved to be a useful "job" opportunity for minor royals. Both the Duke of Kent and the Duke of York have taken on a role promoting arms exports, with Prince Harry lined up as a likely successor.

Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, retired from the military to spend over a quarter of a century as Vice-Chairman of British Trade International, which later became UK Trade & Investment (UKTI). He made over one hundred overseas visits, some supporting arms sales.

He was succeeded in 2001 as Special Representative for Trade by the Queen's second son, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, on his retirement from the navy. He was a high profile figure, with a very public divorce, jet-setting lifestyle and dubious friendships. Like his predecessor, Prince Andrew had no formal business or diplomatic experience, but was nevertheless deemed to be the right person to represent UK business abroad.

Prince Andrew's role was unpaid; however he didn't come cheap, flying first class or on chartered aircraft and staying at five-star hotels. In 2011, the Telegraph reported that over a decade the Prince's UKTI role had cost taxpayers almost £15 million, over £4 million in direct expenses and over £10 million in security support.

There are many aspects of Prince Andrew's conduct which have raised media and parliamentary attention, including his propensity to mix public duties and private pleasures. But it is his role as cheerleader-in-chief for the arms industry which should create most concern.

In April 2008, government support for arms sales was moved from the Ministry of Defence into the new UKTI Defence & Security Organisation (DSO). DSO is extremely well resourced, employing more staff at UKTI's London headquarters than other industry sectors combined, although the arms industry provides less than 1.2% of UK exports.

DSO aggressively mines old and new export markets. The largest and fastest growing markets are in Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa. It is this latter region that Prince Andrew, with his royal connections and military background, best fits the DSO agenda.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman explains: "Middle East potentates like meeting princes. He comes in as the son of the Queen and that opens doors that otherwise would remain closed. He can raise problems with a crown prince and four or five weeks later we discover that the difficulties have been overcome and the contract can be signed. He brings immeasurable value in smoothing the path for British companies."

Andrew's presence also opens doors to quasi-royals. He was friendly with Saif Gaddafi, son of Colonial Gaddafi, and hosted a lunch at Buckingham Palace for Sakher el Materi, son-in-law of Tunisian dictator, Ben Ali, despite being warned of his corrupt activities by the British Embassy in Tunis. Both dynasties have thankfully now fallen.

Andrew is close to the families of Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev and the Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. These states are not buyers of UK weaponry (as yet) but it was visiting
Kyrgyzstan in his UKTI role that Prince Andrew showed his true feelings, as revealed by WikiLeaks..

Speaking to an audience of British business people, he blasted the Serious Fraud Office for investigating arms giant BAE Systems' alleged corrupt practices around the Al-Yamamah arms deal between the UK and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, he condemned "[expletive] journalists" who "poked their noses everywhere", making it hard for business people to do deals.

In July 2011 it was announced that "Airmiles Andy" would step down from the UKTI role. Not that you'd notice. He continues to travel at taxpayer's expense, managing 17 trade trips between July and January 2012, to such salubrious destinations as China, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

Supposedly other members of the royal family will share the trade role. Prince Harry's recent trip to Belize and Brazil focused on dancing girls and barbeques but will there be a shift to aircraft and armoured cars?

Unfortunately UK governments, whatever party is in power, are in thrall to the special pleading of the arms industry, despite its unethical nature. The government supports and promotes arms exports, including trade support through UKTI DSO. It's time to break the links and get rid of the financial, political and moral support - and that includes royal patronage. That would be a real Jubilee bonus.

A longer version of this article appears in the Scottish Left Review, May-June 2012]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1396473 2012-04-03T19:00:00-04:00 2012-06-03T05:12:01-04:00

Kaye Stearman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaye-stearman/ National Gallery to watch artist Ben Johnson at work. What drew the crowds was not just the thrill of seeing his giant painting emerge from an elaborate graphic but the subject. Johnson had chosen to depict the vista from the roof of the National Gallery, including Trafalgar Square devoid of people.

The panorama emphasised that, with its perfect setting and magnificent collection, the National Gallery is one of Britain's most iconic public institutions. So what a huge pity that the National Gallery is also supporting the arms trade, by accepting sponsorship from Italian arms giant Finmeccanica.

Finmeccanica and AgustaWestland

Finmeccanica is not a household name in the UK yet it is one of the world's largest arms companies. Previously state-owned, it is now largely in private hands, although the Italian government retains a 30% share. Finmeccanica has sold weapons to Algeria, Libya, Oman, Pakistan and Turkey and has recently hit the headlines with investigations alleging corruption.

Finmeccanica UK owns what used to be Westland Helicopters, now part of the AgustaWestland brand. It has embedded itself in the UK political and military establishment. Remember Geoff Hoon, former Labour Defence Secretary? In office he awarded AgustaWestland a billion pound order without competition. In May 2011 he was appointed Senior Vice President of International Business for AgustaWestland.

In September 2011 the National Gallery hosted an evening reception to celebrate the opening of DSEi, the world's largest arms fair. Hoon was there together with arms dealers, military bigwigs and assorted hangers-on who turned up to eat and drink beside priceless masterpieces. Art lovers? Probably not - but it is surely an exquisite setting to impress associates and potential customers.

So how much does Finmeccanica pay for this luxurious venue? The answer is just £30,000 a year. For that sum it has the opportunity to host two dinners or evening receptions a year, alongside other benefits. Finmeccanica must be delighted. The National Gallery doesn't do so well. The £30,000 is just 1.6% of the gallery's total sponsorships and under 0.1% of its generated funds.

Ethics and the arms trade

So why does the National Gallery accept funds from such a dubious source? When Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) asked whether such an arrangement was appropriate or ethical, the gallery sent us a copy of their "'ethical fundraising policy". However, this says nothing about what might be considered ethical or unethical.

Rather it is about reputational damage. Sponsorship must not harm the gallery and that harm must not be "disproportionate to the benefit derived". Harm includes the gallery incurring a "level of criticism from the public, press or other relevant community of professionals."

CAAT believes that by accepting Finmeccanica's sponsorship, small though it is, the National Gallery is harming its reputation in the art world and with the public. National Gallery staff members have told us that they are disturbed by the sponsorship and dislike seeing arms dealers being feted by the gallery. Public opinion polls have shown that people are deeply wary of the arms trade, especially when weapons are sold to undemocratic and authoritarian regimes. They do not expect an iconic public institution, like the National Gallery, to accept funds from arms dealers.

End Finmeccanica sponsorship

Would the gallery take sponsorship from a cigarette manufacturer or a better known arms company, like the notorious BAE Systems? It is easy to hide behind the Finmeccanica name but the fact remains that this is a major arms company. Finmeccanica funding means that the gallery is giving practical support and a veneer of legitimacy to an industry based on death and destruction.

This July, the Farnborough Airshow will bring authoritarian regimes and weapons manufacturers from around the world to the UK. In past years the gallery has staged a reception to mark the event. The National Gallery has announced that it will not hold a similar reception in 2012. Public criticism can make the gallery reconsider its links to the arms trade. That's why Campaign Against Arms Trade is asking art lovers to write to Nicholas Penny, National Gallery Director, asking him to end Finmeccanica sponsorship and pledge not to take further funding from the arms industry. ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1353470 2012-03-18T19:00:00-04:00 2012-05-18T05:12:01-04:00

Kaye Stearman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaye-stearman/
This is one of the problems facing Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), which focuses on the UK's role in the international arms trade. Now, thanks to some brilliant technical expertise, we have been able to uncover the facts and stats buried in official government data.

The current system
First some background. Like many governments, the UK government is required to licence (approve) so called "strategic exports", whether the equipment is intended specifically for military use or is for dual-use (i.e. can be used for military or civilian purposes). Licensing is carried out by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) with input from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.

Arms export licence data is collected by the Export Control Organisation (ECO) in BIS and quietly released on a quarterly basis. While the level of data has improved since 2008, when the current system was introduced, it is presented in a highly aggregated format and accessed via an online database that is almost impenetrable. Users must trawl through a 400-plus page PDF or register with the database to do online searches. Both are time-consuming and take knowledge and skill to analyse the results. The system baffles researchers and is a barrier to media reporting on arms trade issues.

CAAT's web app
CAAT's new web app went live on CAAT website on 8 March. The web app provides details of licence approvals according to destination country, type of licence, type of equipment and value from January 2008 to the last data set available (currently this is the third quarter of 2011).

Unlike the BIS data, there is no need to register and users can make and refine searches in real time. A graph plots the value of arms exports by the month, explanations of terms are available throughout, and individual pages/searches can be linked to directly. The app also includes an RSS feed which people can use to be notified whenever new data is made available. What's more, the application conforms to accessibility standards and provides the data for use by other programmers.

Unfortunately, there are still limitations. Some information cannot be completely disaggregated. Also, critically, the government data provides no information on companies making the licence applications.

So far the CAAT web app has been welcomed with enthusiasm. Journalists have told us that it will greatly aid their work. The web app was praised by the Guardian Data Blog who stated that it "finally gives us a way to navigate the official data - which we struggled to extract here for arms sales to Arab Spring countries".

We are delighted that activists are already using the web app to garner information. Often this is information that is easily overlooked. For example, who knew that in the last year the UK licensed over £1m worth of arms to Madagascar, a country ruled by a rogue President bought to to power by a military coup? Meanwhile, as Channel 4 screens its new documentary on war crimes in Sri Lanka, the app reveals that the UK licensed over £2m worth of arms sales to that country between May 2009 and September 2011.

Arms exports need transparency
The Coalition government has stated that government should be more open and transparent. David Cameron called for "new standards of transparency" early in his premiership. More recently, Business Secretary Vince Cable emphasised the importance of transparency to the export licensing system and made proposals to increase the information publicly available.

For too long the data on arms exports have been hidden from public scrutiny yet this is an area of government policy and practice desperately in need of greater transparency. We need to know the details - and CAAT's new web app target="_hplink"> will help us to find out.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1257335 2012-02-06T11:38:50-05:00 2012-04-07T05:12:01-04:00

Kaye Stearman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaye-stearman/ selected the Rafale jet fighter in preference to the Eurofighter Typhoon. The decision was reported widely, often emotionally, in UK print and broadcast media.

Mostly it was a blame game. Rafale is manufactured by France's Dassault Aviation, while Eurofighter is the product of a four-country consortium (Germany, Italy, Span and UK) in which UK arms giant BAE Systems plays a leading role. The Indians said that Rafale was better suited to their needs and was cheaper than Eurofighter.

The decision caused further strains in the British-French relationship, so close and cosy during the Libyan adventure. While President Sarkozy rejoiced, David Cameron declared his disappointment and determination to change Indian minds. Other were more outspoken. Uber-military MP Patrick Mercer declaimed: "it was an awful kick in the teeth for the Indians to give this work to the French". Others pointed the finger at the Germans for their lack of enthusiastic promotion.

Many focused on the supposed economic consequences. Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy, went ballistic. The rejection was "a serious concern not just for thousands of workers but for our armed forces and our country as we seek to rebalance our economy" (Times, 2 February). Unite's Ian Waddell stated: "The Typhoon is a superb aircraft which supports thousands of highly skilled jobs in the UK, both at BAE Systems and in the supply chain. There are other export orders to be won and it is critical that the company maintains its commitment to Typhoon despite this setback."

Some commentators saw the decision as a rejection of David Cameron's personal style, displayed in his high profile trade mission to India in July 2010. Although he spoke of visiting in a "spirit of humility" his retinue was more in keeping with a minor potentate than a humble pilgrim. The highlight was Cameron signing a £700 million contract to sell BAE Hawk jets to India.

For others, it was the aid-trade nexus that came under fire. Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell accompanied Cameron on his 2010 trade jaunt. On his visit in December 2011 he announced that the decision to gift £1.2 billion in aid to India over five years was part of a broader relationship directly linked to building trade and investment: "It's a very important relationship. It is also about selling Typhoons."

There were some challenges to Mr Mitchell's linking of aid and arms deals, notably on Newsnight on 1 February and by the World Development Movement, but little challenge to the supposed benefits had India chosen the Eurofighter rather than Rafale. So what might those benefits be?

For many people, it is jobs that come first. Yet arms industry jobs have been falling steadily over the past two decades. BAE Systems has shed thousands of jobs in the past few years. An increased export drive for Typhoon will provide limited protection for UK jobs as buyers expect contracts to include local manufacture. The 2010 Hawk jet deal secured only 200 UK jobs and that for a limited time.

What about exports? Had Eurofighter been chosen we are told the deal would be worth £7 billion. This sounds impressive but the benefits would go an international business rather than UK workers. In fact, the value of UK arms exports are tiny in relation to total trade, supplying just 1.2% of exports and employing a mere 0.2% of the total workforce. What's more, arms exports are highly subsidised by the UK taxpayer. In 2011, a study commissioned by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) estimated the annual public subsidy as £700 million.

Rebalancing the economy to support manufacturing has wide appeal but don't look to the arms industry to do it. Both their home and traditional export markets are declining because of fiscal cutbacks which means more exports to rich, undemocratic authoritarian regimes - do we really want that?

There is another way. The UK is well placed to reap the huge potential of the renewables sector, whether using wind, wave or other energy sources. A well-resourced renewables industry could benefit our security and economy. It could create and nourish new jobs. The valuable engineering skills of arms industry workers would be easily absorbed. Renewables also have export potential in addition to a growing home market and, unlike combat jets, are an important tool in tackling climate change.

Is it not better to be supporting a renewables sector that benefits our security and economy, rather than propping up a stagnant, dangerous arms industry? This week, junior defence minister Gerald Howarth is leading yet another arms trade mission to India. Isn't it time to look at alternatives?
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1226597 2012-01-24T19:00:00-05:00 2012-03-25T05:12:01-04:00

Kaye Stearman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kaye-stearman/
By April 2011 the UK government had officially revoked over 160 military licences (i.e. for arms and weaponry) to Bahrain, Egypt and Libya. This gesture neatly hid the fact that many licences remained in place. Some of the revoked licences were for weaponry with such repressive potential - such as sniper rifles, tear gas and crowd control ammunition - that MPs questioned why such licences had been granted in the first place.

Revoking a licence is rather like a slap on the wrist. It is a way of visibly expressing displeasure, without much hurt involved. Soon, everything is back to normal. The latest figures for military licences, released in January 2012, covering the third quarter of 2011 (July-September), reveal that this is indeed the case.

Bahrain is an excellent example. In February the UK government revoked 44 military licences after troops had fired on protesters. This was in stark contrast to 2010 when export licences included tear gas and crowd control ammunition, assault rifles, shotguns, sniper rifles and sub-machine guns.

Despite continuing repression, the UK government soon reverted to form. The process started slowly with just £127,000 of military licences approved in the second quarter. By the third quarter business as usual was the watchword with military licences worth £1,348,000. These included licences for gun silencers, weapons sights, rifles and naval guns. Not one licence was refused or revoked.

Arms sales to Egypt follow a similar trajectory. In March the government announced that it had cancelled 44 licences. Yet by the second quarter, military licences worth £220,000 were approved, rising to over £1.5 million in the third quarter. This included thermal imaging equipment, components for military combat vehicles and military helicopters, and military communications equipment.

Arms sales to Libya have followed a different pattern. The UN Security Council agreed an international arms embargo in late February which was lifted in mid-September. In the intervening period NATO forces supported a 'no-fly zone' - in effect giving NATO carte blanche to use air power to support anti-Gaddafi forces. This proved a unique shop window for western arms companies to display their wares to potential buyers.

However, the UK government is eager to make up for lost time, despatching a trade mission to Libya in February. The mission is organised by UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organisation (UKTI DSO), the government's arms sales unit, which had previously categorised Libya as a "priority market". The mission is officially listed as a "civil security" one, but this, in turn, raises concerns about the equipment and services being promoted and the likely recipients in a country awash with weaponry and militias.

Other trade missions in the region are planned for Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE). In addition, British companies were represented at arms fairs in UAE (15-17 January) and Bahrain (19-21 January).

But when it comes to arms sales, no customer comes close to the Saudis, who buy more weapons than the rest of the region combined. Saudi Arabia's purchases include a fleet of Eurofighters, together with training and maintenance contracts, and the fleet of Tactica armoured personnel vehicles which entered Bahrain in March. In 2010 UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia totalled £425 million. Some of these weapons are likely to be deployed when the Arab Spring reaches Saudi shores. There have already have been reports of protests and repression in the eastern province.

On Friday 13 January prime minister David Cameron made a flying visit to Saudi Arabia. Unlike his tour of the Middle East in February 2011, he was not accompanied by a retinue of arms company executives. There was little advance notice or publicity. Nevertheless, the purpose of the visit was clear. The UK wanted to "strengthen cooperation" with the Saudis and Cameron was the man to do it. Issues of human rights or repression would not interfere with the arms trade.

For successive UK governments, selling weaponry is just another business opportunity. But the arms trade has a devastating impact on human rights and security and damages economic development. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) calls for an end to arms sales to repressive regimes and an end to all government promotion and support for the arms industry]]>