New report from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade reveals extent of this activity

November 2024

[ADDED: 16 December] If you want to see ministers squirm in front of a select committee when discussing arms sales to Israel (via USA) watch this YouTube video. Usual claims of ignorance and unable to answer basic questions. Even though the RAF is regularly flying over Gaza, it seems they are unaware of the destruction as the purpose they say is to look for hostages.

The question of arms sales has risen up the political agenda partly because of the question of whether we should continue to sell weapons to Israel. It also cropped up with the decision recently to award a GCVO to the King of Bahrain presented by King Charles. It was also an issue during the war in Yemen where British weapons and personnel were involved in helping Saudi in their ferocious bombing campaign in that country. All these and other examples revealed an industry with considerable political influence. They result in a distortion of our political process and an almost complete disregard for the effects of the arms on people at the end of them. The destruction being carried on in Gaza is facilitated by the continuing sale of F-35 aircraft elements of which are made in the UK. An ‘ethical dimension’ to our policy seems to be a thing of the past. There is little sign that arms sales are restricted to states which ignore human rights or International Humanitarian Law.

Not so much a revolving door as an ‘open plan office’

Campaign Against the Arms Trade CAAT has campaigned on these issues for many years and their current magazine, Issue 270, Autumn 2024 contains a number of articles on the topic of arms. One concerns what has been known as the ‘revolving door’. In an article ‘Government and Arms Industry Joined at the Hip’, they explore the deeply compromising nature of this relationship. They have published a report From Revolving Door to Open Plan Office: the Ever Closer Union Between the UK Government and the Arms Industry. They argue that the arms industry has become so deeply embedded in the government that the boundary has almost disappeared. It is now not so much a revolving door as an ‘open plan office’. 40% of top military staff and civilian personnel leaving the MOD hold positions in the arms and security industries. Transparency International research shows that one company, BAE, had more meetings with ministers and with Prime Ministers than any other company.

Private Eye carried out an extensive survey in 2016. This went into great detail and named names.

Why does it matter?

It matters for three main reasons:

• Firstly, arms cause great misery for millions of people. The harrowing images on news programmes of property destruction, dead bodies, lines of people on the move or rows of tents housing displaced people are the result of the activities of this trade,
• The lobbying power is such that government ministers seem to fall into line almost as soon as they assume power. Grand statements by Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy for example are quickly forgotten as the next trade deal is signed. The arms trade seems to wield enormous power and influence over government policy,
• Thirdly, the ‘open plan office’ means senior staff in the Civil Service and in the MOD and armed services are keeping an eye on prospects as they approach retirement. Lucrative board appointments and ‘consultancy’ contracts await them. Are they going to ask uncomfortable questions or raise difficulties with an arms contract and jeopardise these prospects?

As CAAT put it:

‘When these ‘revolvers’ leave public service for the arms trade, they take with them extensive contacts and privileged access. As current government decision-makers are willing to meet and listen to former Defence Ministers and ex-Generals, particularly if they used to work with them, this increases the arms trade’s already excessive influence over our government’s actions.

‘On top of this, there is the risk that government decision-makers will be reluctant to displease arms companies as this could ruin their chances of landing a lucrative arms industry job in the future. Beyond individual decisions, the traffic from government to the private sector, and vice versa, is part of a process where the public interest becoming conflated with corporate interest, so that it becomes normal to unquestioningly meet, collaborate and decide policy with the arms industry, then take work with it.’