Business as usual for David Cameron and merchants of death

[spindrift]

Cameron did the same last year:

 

David Cameron's recent trade delegation to India contained six senior British Cabinet members and 50 business leaders, including top arms company bosses from BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.

 

The signing of a £700 million Hawk jet contract was heralded as a great success by the British media. Apparently it is good for "the country" because privately owned BAE will receive around £500m and privately owned Rolls Royce up to £200m.

 

The deal came just a week after it was revealed that India has more poor people than sub-Saharan Africa. So just how will the headline-grabbing Hawk deal benefit the ordinary people of India, the majority of whom require food security, drinking water and basic health care rather than hugely expensive weapons? And how will it benefit ordinary people in Britain?

 

The simple answer to these questions is "not a great deal." Arms sales in Britain are always portrayed by government and media as good for business, good for Britain and good for jobs. This line is used to help mask or legitimise the not-so-nice practice of selling products for killing. But is it really so good for Britain?

 

The arms sector's contribution to the British economy is minimal, but the industry constitutes a very powerful and effective lobby. BAE receives considerable support from taxpayers. It is in effect a subsidised industry.

 

In 2006, using a report from BASIC, the Oxford Research Group and Saferworld, and updated government figures, it was calculated that the arms trade received about £852m a year in subsidies. Much of this money goes to BAE, a company with a track record of bribery, espionage and arms deals with oppressive regimes, among other dodgy deeds.

Instead of subsidising the arms industry, perhaps the British government could have intervened elsewhere in the economy, for instance by investing in jobs in the renewable energy market. Although every country needs to subsidise industry or upgrade its military hardware, just which sector money goes to and how much becomes a question of priorities.

 

As for India, it has increased its arms spending steadily over the past decade and has been identified as a "priority market" by the British government's arms sales unit. India is also classified by BAE as one of seven "home markets."

 

However, according to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, the new Hawk deal is controversial because India is part of the so-called "arc of conflict" ranging from Iran through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the borders of India. India is also involved in several internal conflicts, and any arms procured could be used on its own people.

 

CAAT warns that such deals merely crank up regional tensions and the potential for internal oppression, while individuals in the arms trade bag huge profits.

 

At the moment, India has the 10th largest defence budget in the world, 40 per cent of what China spends annually. However, according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, India is the world's largest importer of arms and its imports have grown by around 240 per cent since 2000. Over the past year, New Delhi's defence spending increased by 34 per cent.

 

In return for contracts Britain offers support to India's attempt to propel itself towards superpower status. Yet despite the wheeling and dealing of high commerce and the needs and wants of the rich, powerful Indian elites, around 800 million Indians live on less than two dollars a day and undernourishment is twice as high as in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

In Britain, politicians and media alike never tire of highlighting India's rapid economic growth, its potential superpower standing and the country's huge middle class. Predictably, the British government has stated that it is considering cutting aid to the country's poverty-stricken millions, despite the fact that eight Indian states had more poor people than the 26 poorest African countries.

 

People are continually fed the message that eye-catching business deals, whether armaments or otherwise, are good for "the country," implying that trickle-down economic policy works. It's part of the neoliberal agenda. Around 70 per cent of Indians might argue otherwise, as would many in Britain and the US, given that during the years of economic growth real wages actually fell in those countries.

 

"The country" is the ordinary men and women in the street. Business deals that are sold to the public as being good for "the country" aren't necessarily good for the country. While some in India regard the future in terms of space programmes, prestigious sports events or lucrative transactions that benefit India's developing military-industrial complex, it's the quality of life for the masses that really counts, not headline-hogging deals and projects that benefit the relative few.

[Noob]

Cameron did the same last year:

 

David Cameron's recent trade delegation to India contained six senior British Cabinet members and 50 business leaders, including top arms company bosses from BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.

 

The signing of a £700 million Hawk jet contract was heralded as a great success by the British media. Apparently it is good for "the country" because privately owned BAE will receive around £500m and privately owned Rolls Royce up to £200m.

 

The deal came just a week after it was revealed that India has more poor people than sub-Saharan Africa. So just how will the headline-grabbing Hawk deal benefit the ordinary people of India, the majority of whom require food security, drinking water and basic health care rather than hugely expensive weapons? And how will it benefit ordinary people in Britain?

 

The simple answer to these questions is "not a great deal." Arms sales in Britain are always portrayed by government and media as good for business, good for Britain and good for jobs. This line is used to help mask or legitimise the not-so-nice practice of selling products for killing. But is it really so good for Britain?

 

The arms sector's contribution to the British economy is minimal, but the industry constitutes a very powerful and effective lobby. BAE receives considerable support from taxpayers. It is in effect a subsidised industry.

 

In 2006, using a report from BASIC, the Oxford Research Group and Saferworld, and updated government figures, it was calculated that the arms trade received about £852m a year in subsidies. Much of this money goes to BAE, a company with a track record of bribery, espionage and arms deals with oppressive regimes, among other dodgy deeds.

Instead of subsidising the arms industry, perhaps the British government could have intervened elsewhere in the economy, for instance by investing in jobs in the renewable energy market. Although every country needs to subsidise industry or upgrade its military hardware, just which sector money goes to and how much becomes a question of priorities.

 

As for India, it has increased its arms spending steadily over the past decade and has been identified as a "priority market" by the British government's arms sales unit. India is also classified by BAE as one of seven "home markets."

 

However, according to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, the new Hawk deal is controversial because India is part of the so-called "arc of conflict" ranging from Iran through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the borders of India. India is also involved in several internal conflicts, and any arms procured could be used on its own people.

 

CAAT warns that such deals merely crank up regional tensions and the potential for internal oppression, while individuals in the arms trade bag huge profits.

 

At the moment, India has the 10th largest defence budget in the world, 40 per cent of what China spends annually. However, according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, India is the world's largest importer of arms and its imports have grown by around 240 per cent since 2000. Over the past year, New Delhi's defence spending increased by 34 per cent.

 

In return for contracts Britain offers support to India's attempt to propel itself towards superpower status. Yet despite the wheeling and dealing of high commerce and the needs and wants of the rich, powerful Indian elites, around 800 million Indians live on less than two dollars a day and undernourishment is twice as high as in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

In Britain, politicians and media alike never tire of highlighting India's rapid economic growth, its potential superpower standing and the country's huge middle class. Predictably, the British government has stated that it is considering cutting aid to the country's poverty-stricken millions, despite the fact that eight Indian states had more poor people than the 26 poorest African countries.

 

People are continually fed the message that eye-catching business deals, whether armaments or otherwise, are good for "the country," implying that trickle-down economic policy works. It's part of the neoliberal agenda. Around 70 per cent of Indians might argue otherwise, as would many in Britain and the US, given that during the years of economic growth real wages actually fell in those countries.

 

"The country" is the ordinary men and women in the street. Business deals that are sold to the public as being good for "the country" aren't necessarily good for the country. While some in India regard the future in terms of space programmes, prestigious sports events or lucrative transactions that benefit India's developing military-industrial complex, it's the quality of life for the masses that really counts, not headline-hogging deals and projects that benefit the relative few.

 

Keep it short. Who is that bothered to read all that?

[donkey]

I suppose china and russia don't sell arms to them because of there strict human rights policies

 

Yes they do. maybe we should introduce arbitrary arrests, killing jpurnalists who don't toe the line and labour camps for dissidents if we are going to take our lead from them.

[alchresearch]

I just don't understand why people are up in arms (excuse the pun) so much.

 

There's criticism when we don't manufacture enough, yet there's criticism when we do manufacture and export.

 

Perhaps you'd like it if we didn't export anything which could be misused, and we continue our decline to become nothing more than a service industry country of shopworkers?

 

Why should the UK and personally Cameron be to blame for how the equipment is used?

 

Are gun manufacturers in the US subject to so much abuse for the handguns and other guns which kill so many people? Are Ford and GM liable for abuse when their equipment is misused?

[mj.scuba]

Keep it short. Who is that bothered to read all that?

 

And a load of leftist tripe at that! Save your eye muscles people.

[Bassman62]

I suppose china and russia don't sell arms to them because of there strict human rights policies

Have you seen anything British or American about any of Munitions/armaments in Lybia or are they saving them for the big push?

[alchresearch]

Interesting article on US arms exports:

 

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/167726.html

 

Persian Gulf Arab states are the fastest-growing markets for U.S. defense contractors.

 

 

And Bush didn't waste any time - selling $32 BILLION of arms to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Rupert_Baehr]

'U.S. arms sales could surge by nearly one-third to $50 billion in 2011. Reuters'

 

That won't do much to balance the $1.7 Trillion deficit budget Obama's trying to pass, but I suppose every little helps.

[Harleyman]

Can Britain afford to lose the revenue from arms sales? Some of that revenue might be paying for your gyros or your new set of dentures.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I think I'll wait until I'm back in the US to get false teeth.

 

Maybe I can get a set like George Washington had?

 

Mahogany would be OK. - or Ironwood.