Britains arms industries causing havoc and instigating wars for their armaments. Talk of double standards or two faced snakes.

Blood money: Democracy in arms way

July 29, 2014 — In the wake of the shooting down of a civilian airliner in the Ukraine, the British arms industry has once again come under fire, but as South Africans have found out previously, and the Seriti Commission enters phase 2, nothing is likely to come of it.

South Africans have been vocal in their right to know the details of the government’s controversial arms deal. (R2K campaigners opposing the Secrecy Bill outside Luthuli House in Johannesburg)

One could be forgiven for believing that the British Prime Minister’s real job is actually to go around the world pressing flesh with autocrats and selling them armaments while preaching democracy and human rights.

Arm sales are nothing new (though David Cameron appears particularly shameless), yet it is still worth remembering three low points that underscore how sleazy and hypocritical the arms business is: even late in his career, Tony Blair approved arms to Gaddafi and allowed sales to Mugabe; in 2011 as the Arab spring was in full swing, David Cameron (not long after taking office) was off on an arms sales mission to the Middle East telling the press it was “nothing to be ashamed of”; and Margaret Thatcher cut her son, Mark – he of the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea, into a Saudi deal on one if her missions to sell arms netting him apparently £12million.

The arms industry is a key element in securing Western exploitation of resource rich countries

Only last year, the UK government approved sales of chemicals to the Assad regime capable of making nerve gas, but an EU ban prevented these from reaching Syria. There are countless more distasteful examples.

And things are never straightforward in this murky world of arms deals. While Cameron was decrying France’s military sales to Moscow, his government still had over 200 licenses in force with sales of £132million to Russia including sniper rifles and small arms ammunition. It is worth noting too that the Ukraine has long been in the top ten arms exporting countries in the world and in some years sold even more armaments globally than the UK (which is usually in the top five exporters). Ukraine only halted sales to Russia earlier this year, so Ukraine may well have armed the separatists.

The UK also sells weapons to other battlegrounds around the world – Israel and Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the DRC among others. The UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation (DSO) among other things, sponsors space at exhibitions and gives support for delegations (Cameron always seems to have a few armament company bosses in his entourage on overseas visits). There are also export subsidies, trade bodies, and the diplomatic corps involved. Through a host of such channels, millions of pounds in taxpayers’ money grease the wheels.

The democratically elected governments of Western nations like the UK and the US gladly go around the world selling arms, corrupting governments and crippling developing countries while criticizing these same nations for not investigating their comrades in corruption.

But the sale of armaments does far more harm than bolster dictators, fuel civil wars, prolong conflicts and kill civilians innocently flying 10 000 meters above the ground.

As Africa bitterly knows, besides the obvious horrors of war, the arms industry also deliberately suppresses democratic governance, undermines judicial processes, corrupts states, and impoverishes whole nations. The arms industry is part of a much bigger picture; it is a key element in securing Western exploitation of resource rich countries through global finance and extractive industries.

Even nations at peace are not immune. This was the case with South Africa. The incipient democracy stepping out of the darkness of apartheid in 1994, facing no external threats and enormous social burdens, was immediately targeted for an economically crippling deal.

The actual hardware purchased is itself highly questionable. South Africans have been left long wondering what if anything did they get out of the deal – not even appropriate weaponry, much of it left languishing or already redundant. Time has proven (as with FIFA World Cup bids) that promises about how there would be economic spinoffs and jobs from the arms deal were nothing more than a ruse.

Thabo Mbeki criticized the UK’s Serious Fraud Office of double standards when it dropped charges into investigating bribery in an arms deal with South Africa involving BAE. Photo: Leon Sadiki/City Press

The arms deal has been steadily releasing its poison ever since 1999. The numerous allegations of corruption surrounding it hurt the country’s democratic institutions, some of which have not recovered. Questions over Jacob Zuma’s fitness to hold the office of president and more than one near Constitutional crisis can be traced directly back to the arms deal. Zuma’s financial advisor was imprisoned. The chairman of parliament’s defence committee was also sent to jail for taking a bribe. The most effective unit in the country for fighting organised crime was closed down because of the arms deal. Problems with the National Prosecuting Authority also have roots in the arms deal.

It is a truth that most British, Europeans and North Americans don’t want to know

The people’s faith in its democratic machinery to root out corruption has been shaken by the failure of one body after another over 15 years to credibly prove there was or was not wrongdoing.

And the saga continues. On July 18, former president Thabo Mbeki took the stand before the Commission of Inquiry into allegations of fraud, corruption, impropriety or irregularity in the Strategic Defence Procurement Packages (known as the Seriti commission). Mbeki’s appearance made a brief blip on TV news in the UK in a report that failed to mention that BAE Systems is seen as a major culprit.

Which brings one back to the truth that most British, Europeans and North Americans don’t want to know – that it is their military-industrial complex and their elected democratic governments that go around the world selling arms, corrupting governments and crippling developing countries.

The German company ThyssenKrupp, on behalf of the frigate consortium, admitted paying bribes and entered into a plea bargain fine. BAE also admitted it had paid commissions (read: bribes).

In 2009, Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) asked the Attorney General to prosecute BAE for corruption linked to numerous contracts including the South African deal. Four months later, BAE Systems admitted to two criminal charges and paid a “record fine” (but rather piffling in the context of the deals). Part of the UK fine went to charities in Tanzania.

Investigations were then closed. Campaigners and activists are convinced this was as a result of Downing Street pressure. The files were shut and ordinary South Africans, the ultimate victims of the bribery are none the wiser.

The Seriti Commission now moves into Phase 2 with many openly hostile to the arms deal to be called to give testimony. Based on how the commission has been conducted, many of us doubt it will bring any clarity.

When the British SFO dropped charges into investigating bribery in the deal, Mbeki called it a “double standard” — developing nations are criticized, even lampooned as banana republics for not investigating their comrades for corruption, and yet the culprit nations simply close the door on their own grubby deals.

The whole truth is that with rare exceptions both the corruptors and the corrupted will be protected by their governments as the arms industry continues to play its sordid role in the world of geopolitics.