So the big guns are really booming. Today, one of the world's largest arms fairs, DSEI, opens in London's Excel centre. On 1 September, chief executives of five of the UK's largest arms firms held a press conference in Westminster, demanding that the government continue to spend billions on arms. They use several rationales – patriotic, economic and political – to argue their corner. But neither their rationales nor their arguments are defensible.
The patriotic rationale maintains that the arms industry benefits the UK. However, like other large companies, arms manufacturers will move wherever they can gain markets and profits for shareholders – and that is often outside the UK. BAE Systems is a case in point. While its recent advertising campaign plays on its British roots with union flags galore, its biggest markets and factories are in the US, while it builds "home markets" in Saudi Arabia, India, South Africa and Australia. BAE gives priority to British needs only as long as these coincide with profits.
The economics rationale resounds with many people because it reinforces the patriotic angle. However, a close look at the statistics reveals that it is both misleading and opportunistic. Take the jobs argument, which appeals strongly to both politicians and trade unions. The Defence Industries Council (DIC) maintains that arms spending supports a thriving export sector. Yet only 55,000 jobs (0.2% of the workforce) are directly dependent on exports, and these comprise only 1.5% of total exports.
Nor are arms exports necessary for the UK to maintain an industrial base. The DIC claims that every £100m invested in the military sector creates 1,885 jobs. A study from the University of Massachusetts' Political Economy Research Institute found government spending on education and public transport created twice the number of jobs than the same amount spent on the military sector – and average education salaries were higher, too.
What the arms industry does not reveal is that arms exports are already highly subsidised – not by the ever-so-patriotic companies but by UK taxpayers, whether through generous procurement policies, government-sponsored research and development, and government-backed insurance – to the tune of between £500m and £1bn a year.
In addition, the government department that promotes exports, United Kingdom Trade & Investment (UKTI), devotes as many staff to its Defence and Security Organisation as to all the other industry sectors put together. Such subsidies could be spent more wisely, for instance, supporting jobs in green industries to help combat climate change.
The DIC report argues that investment in the arms industry will help kickstart a recovery from recession. However, defence minister Quentin Davies MP stated last December that it is labour-intensive industries that stimulate the economy, adding "this is not the case with defence: defence is capital intensive rather than labour-intensive".
The political rationale goes that without military power (or "big stick", as it is so charmingly worded) the UK would lose its "place at the top table" in world affairs. However, Japan and Germany, with limited armed forces and industries, continue to command respect and status in world forums while smaller nations like Norway and Costa Rica have established their credentials as peace brokers, surely a better reputation to aim for in the 21st century.
At their press conference the five arms industry bosses called for more "honesty" from politicians. Apart from the platitudes, omissions and selective statistics, it is rich coming from a sector that has been noted for secrecy and bad business practices, including corruption. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) calls for a real debate and real honesty.