Company Influence¹

The UK government is giving its full support to DSEi, it dedicates the 600 staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) to helping companies export arms, it provides financial support for arms exports, its ministers and the prime minister use overseas visits to push arms deals, and government controls on arms export (not to say domestic procurement rules) appear flexible in the extreme.

Such enthusiasm implies that there must be a very good reason for exporting arms, but what is it?

The usual justifications revolve around the financial benefits (implicitly 'jobs'), foreign policy, and protecting the UK's military industrial base. However, each of these is flawed. The subsidies provided for arms exports and the few jobs involved undermine the presumed financial arguments; the willingness to export to almost anyone, including both sides of a conflict, undermines any strategic argument; and the existence of an independent military industrial base must be a thing of the past if a French company, Thales, is the UK's second biggest arms supplier and more than 80% of BAE Systems sales are outside the UK.

So what does that leave in the way of possible reasons? Is the answer simply a combination of the desire of our leaders to strut the world stage as military players and the massive influence of the arms companies? Possible elements of the latter are discussed below.

Influencing the government

Companies can try to affect government thinking by employing lobbying companies, directly approaching politicians, mobilising unions and making donations or sponsoring party events or government projects. For big deals, they can use media pressure and threats of job losses, as BAE Systems blatantly and successfully did to win the trainer aircraft contract in July 2003.

Advisory bodies: There are also a plethora of government advisory bodies that can be used - ways in which favoured individuals, organisations or companies can feed into government thinking. Bodies such as the National Defence Industries Council, the National Defence and Aerospace Systems Panel and the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team are primarily made up of arms company representatives together with a sizeable contingent of ministers and/or civil servants and the occasional academic or union official. It would be surprising if such bodies did not make recommendations based on the needs and desires of the arms companies (though of course we do not know as their discussions and, usually, their conclusions are private).

The advisory body system is also useful in Europe. The STAR 21 group was set up to analyse the state of the European aerospace industry and assess its long-term policy needs. It consisted of representatives of seven European arms companies, two MEPs, the EU High Representative and, astonishingly, five European Commissioners! Unsurprisingly it called for more money. A similar body exists for naval manufacturers. The existence of these high-powered bodies appears to have coincided with a move from member states towards unprecedented central European Union funding for military Research & Development spending.

DESO: Heads of DESO are seconded from arms companies, giving the industry a direct voice into the very heart of government. They are tasked with co-ordinating government support for arms exports. The current incumbent, Alan Garwood, was seconded from BAE Systems.

Personal contacts: though often hard to identify, personal contacts are perhaps the most important piece of the jigsaw. The revolving door still exists and some high-profile MoD 'revolvers' include: Michael Portillo (Secretary of State for Defence, 1995-97) who became a non-executive director of BAE Systems, a company he pushed contracts for whilst in office; Roger Freeman (Minister of State for Defence Procurement, 1994-95) who became the Chairman of Thales plc; and Jonathan Aitken (Minister for Defence Procurement, 1992-94) who obviously became very confused about his role vis-à-vis arms companies. He went to prison for perjury after attempting to conceal his role in sales of weapons from UK companies to Saudi Arabia.²

Tony Blair is an enthusiastic supporter of arms exports. He has personally lent his support to BAE Systems sales drives including to India, South Africa and the Czech Republic, and has supported licence applications for highly controversial deals to Zimbabwe and Tanzania. The Observer has quoted 'an industry insider' as saying that Dick Evans (BAE Systems' Chairman) is 'one of the few businessmen who can see Blair on request.' ³

1 Primarily sourced from CAAT, 'The Political Influence of Arms Companies', April 2003
2 www.guardian.co.uk/aitken/Story/ 0,2763,208518,00.html, accessed 10.2.03
3 Observer, 18.3.01