CAATnewsCampaign Against Arms Trade magazine Apr il–May 2004/Issue 183 £1.00

tel 020 7281 0297email enquiries@caat.demon.co.uk

web www.caat.org.uk

Dick hands on the batonSir Dick Evans steps down as Chairman of BAE Systems

Do I have to giveback the keys to

Number 10 as well?

In the news 3UK gives green light for Indonesian war crimes

Arms trade shorts 4–5

Clean Investment Campaign 2004 6

Facts & Figures 7Weapons and equipment costs

BAE Systems AGM 8

Government-industry links 9Exploring the role of ‘advisory bodies’ in the arms trade

Protest news 10

Parliamentary 12

Small arms, shattered lives 13The ‘Control Arms’ campaign

PlusFundraising 14Get active 15Campaigns diary 16

CAATnewsIssue 183

Edited by CAAT StaffProduction Richie AndrewContributors Chr is Cole, K athryn Busby,Ann Feltham, Dan L ewer, Kev Mullen, IanPrichard, Glen Reynolds, Chris Wrigley

Thank you also to our dedicated team ofCAAT News stuffers

Cover photo Peter Morgan/Reuters

Printed by Russell Press Limited onrecycled paper

Copy deadline for the next issue is 17May 2004. We shall be posting it theweek beginning 31 May 2004.

If you would like to receive this issue ofCAAT News in audio format or in largeprint, please call the CAAT office on020 7281 0297.

Contributors to CAAT News express theirown opinions and do not necessarilyreflect those of CAAT as an organisation.Contributors retain copyright of all workused.

CAAT was set up in 1974 and is a broadcoalition of groups and individualsworking for the reduction and ultimateabolition of the international arms trade,together with progressivedemilitarisation within arms-producingcountries.

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT )11 Goodwin Street, London N4 3HQtel: 020 7281 0297; fax: 020 7281 4369email: enquiries@caat.demon.co.ukweb: www.caat.org.uk

Treat If y ou use Charities Aid Foundationcheques and would like to help TREAT(Trust for Research and Education onArms Trade), please send CAF cheques,payable to TREAT, to the office. U nlikeCAAT, TREAT is a r egistered char ity(No.328694) and will be able to use yourdonation for education and research.

CAAT New s is part of INK, theIndependent News Collective.www.ink.uk.com

Contents

BAE Systems AGM – see page 8

Ou

tsid

e th

e B

AE

AG

M in

20

01

Ph

oto

: Ric

hie

An

dre

w

The Government says “our position onhuman rights is clear and unequivocal”,and that it “does not want to see British-built military equipment contribute tohuman rights abuses or fuel conflictoverseas”. Our investigations can nowexpose how vacuous such statements are.

Prior to August 2002, the IndonesianGovernment agreed not to use UK-supplied equipment in the Indonesianprovince of Aceh, and to inform the UKin advance if it planned to do so. Theseconditions were set down because of thewar in Aceh, and the appalling humanrights situation there, largely broughtabout by Indonesian Army (TNI) violence.

We recently discovered that after theIndonesians in August 2002 told theFCO they would use UK-made APCs inAceh for casualty removal, the FCO usedthis opportunity to agree to TNI usingany UK equipment without any advancenotification. Jack Straw wrote to theQuadripartite Committee to tell themabout the vehicles for casualty removal butnot the changed conditions (discoveredafter questioning by Jeremy Corbyn inParliament 10 months later).

The context is crucial. The level ofviolence in Aceh in 2002 had increased toa horrific level from that seen in 2000 and2001. In the FCO’s own words (AnnualHuman Rights Report 2002 – coveringJuly 2001 to July 2002) it says (page 32)“In Aceh there was a rise in the level ofviolence following the expiry of theHumanitarian Pause in January 2001...the majority of casualties have beencivilians”. Reporting from TAPOLcorroborates the conclusion. For example,in April/May 2002 TAPOL reported thatthe daily death toll in 2001 was 10 perday, mostly non-combatants, calling 2001“a very bleak year”. In September 2002TAPOL reported that in 2002 the deathtoll, mostly civilians, was around 15 a day.In December TAPOL said that thenumber of internally displaced persons(IDPs) had increased 50% in 2002 from2001, strongly suggesting the level ofviolence increased in 2002.

To give you an idea what life in Aceh islike under TNI, the latest Human RightsWatch Report Aceh Under Martial Law on

page 24 gives a typical (not sexed-up)example: “He was a small child, a boy... hewent to the market to buy fish for hismother. The TNI stopped him, checkinghim because he was buying fish. A soldiersaid to him ‘Where did you get this fishfrom?’ The boy replied, ‘No, I am going togive it to my mother. I want to go home.’The TNI were accusing him andthreatening him. He was threatened witha gun. The soldier said, ‘You surely wantto give this fish to GAM [the separatists].’After that the boy was really frightened.His answers were not so clear, he was reallypanicked. So the soldiers took him andthrew him into the military truck. Theseven soldiers, the others stayed in themarket. The seven soldiers were wearing

TNI camouflage uniforms... After that hisbody turned up on the side of the road. Isaw the body. There was a bullet woundin his forehead. Just one. The back of hishead was all destroyed, and his body wasfull of red marks, red torture marks.”

The FCO decision to relax theconditions on the use of UK equipment inAceh in August 2002, while human rightsabuses were rampant and escalating gave agreen light for war crimes to TNI. At thesame time during 2002 the Governmenttripled the number of licences issued forarms to Indonesia (182 from 54 in 2001)as well as increasing the value by twenty-fold (£41 million from £2 million in 2001).

The TNI got the message!Subsequently, Scorpion tanks, Hawkaircraft and Saracen armoured personnelcarriers joined the war in Aceh in 2003. InJanuary this year the Guardian reportedthat “local television has shown heavymachine guns mounted on Scorpionsfiring at alleged separatist positions onseveral occasions since they were deployed

to the restive north Sumatran province inJune.”

The FCO say none of this mattersbecause they have assurances from TNIthat the weapons will not be used“offensively” or “in breach of humanrights”. Human Rights Watch says“known human rights abusers have playedsignificant roles in the preparation andconduct of the war in Aceh”. SjafieSjamsoeddin, described by UNinvestigator James Dunn as “implicated asone of the key military officers responsiblefor the development of the TNI strategythat led to serious crimes against humanityin East Timor, “commanded a unit thatused Scorpions against protesters in 1998.Last May he said he had no problem inbreaching the assurances "For us, we havealready paid so there is no problem. Weuse fighters [Hawks] to defend oursovereignty”. The FCO's assurances comefrom an institution that committed crimeagainst humanity just five years ago, andhas deployed some of those criminals toAceh. One commander has used UKequipment to abuse human rightspreviously.

CAAT and TAPOL recently challengedthe Government to explain its actions.The explanation given for relaxing theassurances is to “bring practice in line”with the EU criteria. It was unnecessary –operative paragraph 2 of the criteriaexplicitly state member states can havemore restrictive national policies if theywant to.

At the Quadripartite Committeerecently Straw defended arms to Indonesiaby saying “the security forces have alegitimate right to adequate protectionwhilst carrying out their duties, as long asthey operate in accordance withinternational human rights standards andhumanitarian law.” As Human RightsWatch have documented for the past fewyears, that is precisely the opposite of whatTNI do in Aceh. Straw also said “we arenot turning a blind eye to anything”. Butconveniently TNI have closed Aceh to theworld, meaning their operations can beconducted without oversight,guaranteeing the FCO can maintain its“see no evil, hear no evil” line. In anothersense the Government is not turning ablind eye. It knows full well what it isdoing – as the evidence shows, the FCO’s“position on human rights is clear andunequivocal”.

Nicholas Gilby & Richie Andrew

in

th

e

ne

ws

..

.

in

th

e

ne

ws

..

.

in

th

e

ne

ws

..

.

in

th

e

ne

ws

..

.

in

th

e

ne

ws

..

.

in

th

e

ne

ws

..

.

in

th

e

ne

ws

..

.

in

th

e

ne

ws

..

.

3

in the news

UK gives green light forIndonesian war crimes

Jack Straw: the priority is arms sales, nothuman rights

important to Britain”. See article oppositefor latest developments(Private Eye, 18 Feb 2004).

Our Russian partnersOn the subject of Hawks, BAE isplanning to collaborate with the Russianarms company Irkut on the developmentof a successor to those ageing planes. TheIrkut company describes Mike Turner,chief executive of BAE, as “a very wiseman”. BAE makes it clear that it hopes tobreak into the Russian arms market byestablishing links with the “indigenousindustry”. (Daily Telegraph, 1/3 Mar 2004)

... and our LibyanonesThere is also good news from Libya. Nowthat Gadaffi has been rehabilitated the

Peace in South Asia –and arms sales?The prospects for peaceful relationsbetween India and Pakistan are now sogood that an Indian cricket team is aboutto tour Pakistan for the first time since1989. Good news for everyone – exceptperhaps the UK arms industry. TheIndian Government’s £800m order forBAE Hawks has still not been signed.(Apparently, it now has to be renegotiateddue to an “accounting oversight” whichcould increase the cost “by several millionpounds per aircraft.” Times Online, 11Mar 2004). Lord Bach, the minister forarms procurement visited the recent armsfair in Delhi. Jack Straw did not, but hedid say that the interests of companiessuch as Rolls Royce and BAE Systemswere among the reasons why “India is so

UK is eager to help arm his forces and ispressing the EU to end its embargo.Amnesty continues to receive reports oftorture in his jails. (FT, 11 Feb 2004)

An accolade for BAEA study by Oxford Economic Forecastinghighlights the value of BAE to the UKeconomy. BAE commissioned thisindependent report, for which it paid£80,000. OEF insists on itsindependence, stating that it talked “notjust to BAE but to their suppliers,government and the National AuditOffice” – but not, of course, to CAAT.(Guardian, Telegraph, 11 Feb 2004)

But which way is itgoing?BAE, not for the first time, has beensending out contradictory signals. On theone hand it claims that its shareholderswould be happy to see it walk away fromthe UK market altogether, which yieldspoor returns and sometimes actual losses,so that it can concentrate on becoming aglobal company (Telegraph, 24 Feb 2004).On the other hand it denies having madeany great effort to link up with big UScompanies (which showed no enthusiasmanyway) and will now be focussing onsorting out its UK problems (Independent,27 Feb 2004). In this connection, theretirement of Sir Robert Walmsley, head ofprocurement at the MOD, is of someinterest. Sir Robert has not been thecompany’s favourite person, as he hasinsisted on opening up UK defence ordersto competition. In a few months he will bejoining the board of one of BAE’s chiefcompetitors, General Dynamics, fourthbiggest US arms company and asubstantial player in the UK.(Observer, 22 Feb 2004)

And will Alvis slipfrom its grasp?After snubbing BAE following mergertalks last year and then recruiting aninfluential MoD insider, GeneralDynamics has delivered a further blow toBAE by launching a bid for Alvis, the UKtank and armoured vehicle producer. TheAlvis board is recommending the bid buta counter bid from BAE is anticipated.BAE already owns 29% of Alvis – a stakeacquired partly to try and keep GeneralDynamics out. (FT, 12 Mar 2004)

arms trade shorts

4developments in the global arms trade

Stop press!As CAAT News was about to go to pressseveral news agencies reported thatafter nearly seven years of trying BAESystems has finally secured a contractto supply 66 Hawk jets to India. Since2001 a succession of cabinet ministers,including the Prime Minister, havebeen dispatched to India to lobby onbehalf of BAES, turning the Embassy

5

developments in the global arms trade

into a virtual timeshare appartmentblock for the arms industry. An IndianGovernment statement said: ”Amemorandum of understanding(MoU) between the government ofIndia and the government of theUnited Kingdom was concluded forthe effective and uninterruptedimplementation of the contractsregarding acquisition of 66 Advanced

Jet Trainers from British AerospaceSystems and other equipmentmanufacturers of United Kingdom.”The deal is valued at $1.63 billion.In recent weeks there had beenspeculation that the deal was in somejeopardy because of problems overthe cost of the contract. However AFPreported Indian Defence Ministryofficials as saying “those details havebeen ironed out”. The problem was putdown to “an oversight” by HindustanAeronautics who had failed to accountfor the cost to the government oftooling its factory for Hawk Assembly.The Hawk has been purchasedprimarily as a training aircraft but theycan be configured for a combat role.The British ambassador to India, HighCommissioner Michael Arthur alsoannounced that the UK would trainthe first 75 Indian pilots for the Hawks.India saw a requirement for a trainingjet as its pilots were graduating toMiG 21s with no experience of fastjets, this lead to a series of airaccidents and the aircraft beingdubbed “flying coffins”.

(AFP, 19 March 2004)

A scent of corruptionThe OECD (i.e. the principal richcountries) has a convention requiring itsmembers to criminalise the bribery offoreigners. The US has long maintainedstrict anti-corruption laws – but the UKuntil recently had no such legislation.Anti-bribery clauses were inserted into theAnti-Terrorism Act of 2002, but that act,having been damned by a committee ofprivy councillors, may now lapse, and theanti-bribery clauses with it. In any casethere have been no prosecutions, and theForeign Office has indicated that it wouldwink at small payments made inaccordance with local custom (FT, 19/25Feb 2004). However, the paymentsrumoured to have secured the massivearms sales to Saudi Arabia in the 1980’s

and 1990’s were not small. So there isspecial interest in the Guardian’s report (8Mar 2004) alleging that in 1997 BAEmoved “filing cabinets full of evidence ofcorrupt payments to foreign politicians toa vault in Switzerland”, using a subsidiaryregistered in the Virgin Islands. Invited toinstitute an inquiry, the DTI said that itcould not comment “as we do not confirmor deny the start or existence ofinvestigations”. (Guardian, 9 Mar 2004)

The cost of the newimperialismThe UK is preparing to build two massivenew aircraft carriers, the main contractbeing shared between BAE Systems andthe French (or rather Anglo-French)company Thales. The cost, originally saidto be £2.9bn, is likely to rise to £4bn

(Times, 25 Feb, 10 Mar 2004); and whenthe US strike planes to be carried on theships are added in, it will be much morethan that. In addition, air tanker planes areto be purchased by means of a PFIcontract that will cost us £13bn spreadover 27 years – £0.5bn a year for ageneration. Altogether we shall bespending well over £20bn on equipmentthat cannot be said to be related to“defence” in any proper sense of the term.The projects make sense only if thegovernment envisages a long series ofmilitary adventures in distant places.

Government clinches IndiaHawk deal for BAE Systems

that they have an ethicalinvestment policy eventhough they do not restrict, toany extent, their holdings inarms companies. This is part ofa wider trend amongstinstitutional investors that hold

arms company shareholdings, a trendthat CAAT sees as a public relationsploy (see previous CAAT News, page 7,‘Engagement’).

The Clean Investment Campaignpack and new shareholding figures will beavailable on the CAAT website fromWednesday 7th April (www.caat.org.uk).If you do not have access to the web,please call the office and ask for a pack.There is also a new ‘Update’ newsletterspecifically aimed at local CleanInvestment campaigners – if you areinterested in this and haven’t alreadyreceived a copy, please ask.

6

campaigns

As CAAT News heads for the printers, weare finalising the shareholding figures andbackground information for this year’sClean Investment Campaign launch.

There is plenty of good news:� UNISON now has an ethically

managed staff pension fund thatexcludes major arms and tobaccocompanies as well as a number of othercompanies felt by the trustees not to fitinto their policy on sustainability.

� The Co-operative Insurance Society(CIS) is organising a survey of allcustomers to find out their views onSocially Responsible Investment. Peoplecan register at www.cis.co.uk wherethey can also let the CIS know of anyissues that are of particular concern tothem prior to the survey.

� Hope Valley Peace Group has beenvery active in questioning Derbyshire

County Council overtheir investments.Some livelycorrespondence in alocal paper, fuelledby a hostile LabourMP, has led to aninvitation to readers to vote on themotion “Should councils such asDerbyshire have a policy of notinvesting in the arms trade?” As of 15thMarch, the vote stood at 97% for ‘Yes’!

There remains, however, lessencouraging news:� Many charities and organisations

committed to public welfare and healthcontinue to hold shares in armscompanies that sell weapons across theworld. These include Cancer ResearchUK, the Nurses’ Pension Fund and theRoyal National Lifeboat Institution.

� Many Local Authorities appear tobelieve, or are at least willing to state,

Clean Investment Campaign 2004New shareholding figures outon 7th April 2004

Quaker Peace and Social Witness –Peaceworker wantedDevelop your skills in campaigning, organising andcommunication

We are seeking to appoint three enthusiastic people in sympathy with the values of the Society of Friends who wish todevelop their strong interest in peace and justice through secondment to a national peace group in Britain. These recentlyhave included Peaceworkers UK, Leap Confronting Conflict and the Campaign Against Arms Trade. The aim is to match theinterests and skills of the worker with the receiving organisation. The work will be varied but sometimes routine and shouldinclude involvement in a specific project. Main qualifications are: commitment to peace and social justice, adaptability, patienceand self-discipline.

QPSW will pay a remuneration of £14,908 for the 12-month placement plus preparation period. Other employee benefits willalso be provided. Membership of a pension scheme is available.

The successful applicant is expected to complete a medical questionnaire.

For more details and application pack contact: www.quaker.org.uk

HR Section, Friends House, Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ. Telephone: 020 7663 1151 Email: viviens@quaker.org.uk

Please quote ref. QPSW 18

Closing date for completed applications: 26 April 2004

Week of interviews: week beginning 10th May 2004

7

In the last edition of CAAT News we kicked off our new ‘Facts andFigures’ section with a ‘Beginners Guide’ to the world’s leadingarms suppliers and recipients, the total value of the arms trade andthe top arms companies. This time we are focussing on thefinancial cost of weapons and equipment, in particular some of thearms we hear about most frequently. The topics covered in future‘Facts and Figures’ pages are not set in stone so if there isinformation you think would help your campaigning, please dolet us know (email ian@caat.demon.co.uk or ring the office).

The cost of military equipment depends on many factors suchas the version of the equipment, who is buying, the size of thedeal, the level of servicing and support, and where it will bemanufactured. We have attempted to identify a normal,representative cost for each piece of weaponry and have tried toavoid complex deals and ambiguous information. Sources for thefigures are available on the CAAT website (www.caat.org.uk/

facts and figures

information/publications/other/faf-weapon-costs-0303.php), orcan be obtained from the office. Ian Prichard

Equipment on display at the Farnborough ‘air show’

Weapons and equipment costs

Note: the currency used depends on the equipment manufacturer’s nationality and the availability of a suitable source.

On Wednesday 5th May, BAE Systems is holding its AnnualGeneral Meeting. But it isn’t just any AGM – it is Sir Dick Evans’final one as Chairman. There has been no announcement of hissuccessor, but the papers are reporting that it will be Dick Olver,deputy group chief executive of BP.

To ensure we have a strong presence, CAAT will be hosting amorning of activities outside the event, as well as participatinginside, and we need your help in getting the message across.

The companyBAE Systems is Europe’s largest arms company, selling around£9.4 billion worth of arms each year. It sells weaponsindiscriminately and has the substantial sales support of the UKGovernment, including Tony Blair. It has also long been thesubject of corruption allegations – most recently involving dealswith Saudi Arabia, India and South Africa.

Much of BAE’s weaponry is destined for the United States foruse in its ‘war on terror’. However, this has not deterred thecompany from positioning itself to move into the arms market ofIran, one of the countries in Bush’s ‘axis of evil’.

At a time when armed conflicts are raging around the globe,BAE Systems continues to sell arms to oppressive regimes, intoconflict regions and to countries desperately in need of increasedspending on development. It is not hard to see the link betweenthe money made by BAE and the death and suffering of others.With widespread public discontent and resentment over recentaggressive US and UK military policies, this is the ideal time tohighlight the indisputable role that BAE Systems plays in thiscycle of death and destruction.

The AGMThe company AGM is a significant occasion as it brings togetherBAE Systems’ shareholders and key players under one roof. This

provides CAAT with the excellent opportunity of making ourviews known both inside and outside the meeting.

CAAT’s activities outside the meeting will be centred aroundthe Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre in Westminster, wherethe AGM is being held. Suggestions to liven up the day have sofar included street theatre performances and a samba band. We arecurrently on the lookout for innovative ideas to make this outsideaspect of the day effective and thought provoking.

As many of you will be aware, the CAAT Action Network hasset up an email group in order to involve as many people aspossible in the planning and co-ordinating of the event. So getyour thinking caps on and email action@caat.demon.co.uk to takepart in this exciting event.

As usual, we will also be making our presence known inside theAGM by utilising our BAE Systems shares. The shares, which wecan transfer to supporters, enable us to gain entry to the meetingand ask the company board why they continue to pursue theirdestructive military agenda. If you are interested in attending theAGM as a shareholder, please email ann@caat.demon.co.uk.

The BAE Systems AGM is an important event in the CAATcalendar, so whatever role you wish to play, get in touch via e-mail,or call the office on 020 7281 0297. Kat Barton

cover story

8

This is the ideal time to highlightthe indisputable role that

BAE Systems plays in this cycle ofdeath and destruction

Eurosatory arms fairEurosatory, the big French arms exhibition, takes placeoutside Paris every two years. This year it is taking placefrom Monday 14th to Friday 18th June.

In recent years, French peace groups have cometogether in a coalition to organise protests againstEurosatory. CAAT supporters and others from aroundEurope have joined these. This year the French groups aremaking their peace festival, a couple of weeks earlier, thepriority. In consequence, there is no anti-Eurosatorycoalition arranging protests for CAAT to support.

A few French Quakers do intend to hold a vigil or markEurosatory in some other way at some point during theweek . Please contact Ann on 020 7281 0297 orann@caat.demon.co.uk if you would like to join them andwant contact details.

Wednesday 5th May 2004 – Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre,Westminster, London. Email action@caat.demon.co.uk about theoutside protest and ann@caat.demon.co.uk about participatinginside the AGM, or phone the office on 020 7281 0297

What are advisory bodies?Advisory bodies come in a bewildering array of formats and labels,but their main function is to provide politicians and civil servantswith direction from non-governmental actors such as firms oracademics. They vary in membership, legal status andpermanence. Some are given official titles such as ‘Non-Departmental Public Body’, while many others have no formalstatus and are apparently brought into being on an ad-hoc basisaccording to the government’s current needs.

It might be expected that an advisory body’s name wouldprovide clarity its purpose, but it turns out that titles, such as‘agency’, ‘board’, ‘committee’, ‘council’, ‘group’, ‘panel’, ‘task force’and ‘team’, tell us little. An MoD civil servant, replying to a queryregarding the government’s own understanding of these groups,revealed that there was no official classification system. There is anextensive and growing structure of bodies contributing to militarypolicy, and it seems odd that such a vast sprawl could come intoexistence with no apparent planning.

Advisory bodies in the military arenaMilitary advisory bodies can help shape decisions about both thesale of weapon systems abroad and how public funds are spent onUK military equipment. Central to the military advisory networkare the ‘National Defence and Aerospace Systems Panel’, whichadvises both the DTI and the MoD on scientific matters, and the‘National Defence Industries Council’, which is a long-standingforum for ministers to meet high-profile figures from armscompanies and trade associations. Surrounding these two bodies,neither of which has clear status regarding its constitutionalpurpose in the UK government, is a sprawl of sub-groups andfurther bodies whose remits appear to overlap. The administrationof these bodies is usually handled by industry associations likeIntellect and the Society of British Aerospace Companies.

Senior government ministers are present at many militaryadvisory bodies’ meetings, particularly the eminent bodies thatconsider general policy strategy. The National Defence IndustriesCouncil, for example, gives nine members from the private sectorprivileged contact with ten government officials, including GeoffHoon (Defence Secretary), Adam Ingram (Minister of State for theArmed Forces) and Sir Kevin Tebbitt (Permanent Under Secretaryfor Defence).

9

government-industry links

Are military advisory bodies different?A comparison between the advisory bodies for military policy andthose in other policy sectors is one indication of whether the armscompanies have disproportionate access to politics. While such anevaluation is complicated by the dissimilarity in form andfunction of the bodies relating to different areas of policy, there aresome features of the military network that are quite singular. Mostobviously, there are considerably more bodies giving thegovernment military advice than in any other policy area. Allgovernment departments sponsor some advisory bodies. The DTI,for example, has specialist bodies to formulate national businessstrategies for each economic sector it identifies. None of thesenetworks, however, form a system so comprehensive as that underthe MoD and the DTI Aerospace and Defence Unit.

A second difference is the level of access that representativesfrom the private sector have to ministers. In policy areas such astransport, education, or economic sectors other than militaryindustry, advisory bodies tend to provide expert advice to theirparent ministries, via a secretariat hosted in the private sector,rather than coming to decisions in collaboration with ministers.

ConclusionThe network of bodies that advises the government on militarypolicy is certainly extensive, and it also seems to be growing.Perhaps the most astonishing feature of this strange web is that itsown sponsors, the ministries and government agencies receivingdirection, do not have any overall plan of what these groups arefor or how they work. It is clear that the interests of armsmanufacturers are exerted through advisory bodies with greatereffect than those of other industries.

Contributing?Consulting?

Colluding?Dan Lewer has spent some time at CAATexamining one specific, but complex, element ofthe relationship between Government andindustry – ‘advisory bodies.’ Here he provides anoverview of his initial findings

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon enjoying the first UK productionEurofighter at Farnborough 2002 Ian Waldie/Reuters

10

protest news

renewing their lease, which did not expirefor another 8 years.

The police respected that it was apeaceful protest and although they arrivedwith bolt cutters no attempt was made toremove neither the lock nor the protestors.At 2.00pm we removed the lock ourselvesand stood in a circle in silence for twominutes to remember the victims of thearms trade. Lyn Bliss

On Monday 2nd February, the maindoors of Lockheed Martin’s offices werelocked with a bicycle chain for 6 hoursfrom 8.00am–2.00pm by TridentPloughshares activists.

Lockheed Martin produce ‘bunkerbuster’ munitions and cluster bombs.They make components for Trident andare most likely involved with the newgeneration of weapons being developed atAldermaston.

Lockheed Martin’s offices are hiddenaway in an unmarked building in CarlislePlace, a residential street near Victoriastation. Four of us from the Muriel Lesteraffinity group locked the door and sat infront of it holding a banner saying‘Lockheed Lockout WMD maker’. Wewanted to draw attention to the fact thatthe largest arms manufacturer andexporter in the world was hiding away.

Lockheed rent two floors of the eightstorey building. Although access could begained by a back entrance, their work wasstill disrupted for several hours. We felt itwas OK to disrupt the work of others inthe building, as we wanted them toquestion the desirability of havingLockheed as neighbours.

Other Trident Ploughshares activistshanded out leaflets to passers by which

included many local residents and thosecoming to the building to work, formeetings or for delivery. Many of theother tenants were unaware that Lockheedwere their neighbours, and most of thelocal residents were shocked by the news.

Lockheed Martin refused to speak withus but the managers of the building didcome and talk with us. They said theywould consider the issues we raised before

Lockheed Martin lock-out!

Trident Ploughshare activists outside Lockheed Martin’s London office near Victoria

Hello StanA big welcome toStan, born on19th February.He is the firstchild of CAAT’sResearchCo-ordinator,Ian Prichard,and Sarah Green The Movement for the Abolition of

War's new War No More video hascontributions from, amongst others,Martin Bell, Bruce Kent, John Snowand Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Itcomes with photocopier-friendlyprinted discussion outlines and isavailable priced £8.00, includingpostage, from 11 Venetia Road,London N4 1EJ. Please make chequespayable to MAW.

for conversion of arms industries),development organisations (producing abooklet and a widely used “miniexhibition” linking third world povertywith the arms trade – a radical concept atthe time), human rights organisations(producing a booklet called The RepressionTrade), churches and religiousorganisations (producing large amounts ofmaterial for use in worship and studygroups), and MPs (producing briefingsand getting the arms trade onto thegovernment agenda). We developed afiling/information system that was widelyconsulted by journalists and researchers.We produced a slide show on the arms

11

To CAAT News,In the CAAT steering committee

election manifestos, one candidate saidCAAT should “continue in the traditionwith which it started... as a campaigning,action-led organisation”. While CAAT wasalways campaigning in the sense of takingaction to get things done, it was neveraction-led if by this is meant direct action.

I was not there for the first ninemonths but from 1975–80 while I wascoordinator we did vast amounts of workwith schools (producing a pack for use byteachers), trade unions (including vastamounts of work to publicise the Lucasshop stewards’ plan and other proposals

trade and a booklet listing all known UKmanufacturers of military equipment. Wedid some initial work on disinvestment,especially in relation to Marconi and EMI.We set up a network of CAAT contacts incommunities and universities around thecountry to raise local awareness.

Yes, CAAT organised demos –especially at arms fairs and outside thethen Defence Sales Organisation and EMI– but they were always small-scale andrespectful, in the form of vigils withoccasional small-scale street theatre, andthey were only one part of the overallcampaigning.

Sandy AdirondackCAAT coordinator 1975–80

sandy@sandy-a.co.uk

Letter

Steering CommitteestatementregardingMartin HogbinOn 28th September 2003, The SundayTimes published an article allegingthat between 1995 and (at least) 1997,British Aerospace had paid a firmdirected by Evelyn LeChene toinfiltrate CAAT and collectinformation about its workings andactivities. In an attempt to discoverwho provided LeChene with thisinformation, CAAT staff checkedsecurity and items were discoveredwhich gave rise to a suspicion thatMartin Hogbin had been passingsensitive confidential informationoutside the organisation.

On legal advice, Martin wassuspended on full pay on 3rdOctober 2003 pending aninvestigation. However he resignedon 5th October before theinvestigation could begin. A meetingof CAAT Steering Committee on 11thOctober wished nonetheless toinvestigate and charged a team offour to carry this out. Theinvestigation has now assessed allthe available evidence and has beenunable to clear Martin fromsuspicion.

CAAT accountsThe CAAT accounts for 2003 are available if you send a SAE to the CAAT office:CAAT, 11 Goodwin Street, London N4 3HQ

On Thursday 10th June you will be ableto vote for your Members of the EuropeanParliament. The election, which takes placeevery five years, is done on a regional basis.Each party compiles a list of its candidatesand seats are allocated in proportion to thevotes.

More issues concerning the arms tradeand military industry are now decided atEuropean level; most of these, admittedly,at the Council or Commission.Nonetheless, it is important that ourMEPs are aware of arms export issues anddo all they can to inject a democraticdimension to decisions about them.� You will be able to get the names of the

candidates from your local politicalparties; look in the telephone directory

or ask at your library for details. Thenwrite to at least the top candidate foreach party, asking for his or her viewson arms exports in general and toChina and Libya in particular. Therehave been moves to lift EU embargoeson these countries. In 2003, the EUdecided, for the first time, to allow itsresearch and development funds to bespent on military projects. Ask yourcandidates what they think about this.

� Watch out for local meetings where thecandidates will be speaking. Go alongand raise these issues.

� Please tell Ann at the CAAT officeabout your candidates’ responses.

Ann Feltham

12

parliamentary

the arms trade in the corridors of power

Several CAAT supporters wrote to theSerious Fraud Office (SFO) following thearticle in the December/January CAATNews about corruption allegationsregarding BAE Systems sales to SaudiArabia. The SFO replied saying therelevant legislation did not come into forceuntil 2002 and was not retrospective.

If you got one of these letters, pleaserespond both to the SFO and to theSolicitor General, Harriet Harman, 9Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6JP.

Say that:� you are not entirely satisfied with the

SFO response;� you are concerned that the SFO may

have only considered if there wassufficient evidence to pursue a criminalinvestigation on the issue of whether afraud was committed against BAESystems or the Ministry of Defence;

� you would like to know whether theSFO assessed the evidence specificallywith regard to whether the hospitality

European Parliamentelections

Stop DSEi 2005The next Defence SystemsEquipment International isscheduled to take place from 13thto 16th September 2005 at the ExCelCentre in London Docklands.

DSEi, one of the world’s biggestarms exhibitions, is sponsored bythe Ministry of Defence, but theactual organisation is undertakenby a private company, SpearheadExhibitions. Spearhead is nowowned by Reed Exhibitions, part ofthe huge Reed Elsevier group, whichis best known as a publisher oftrade magazines. (It has nothing todo with the Reed Employment.)

ExCel has bookings for DSEi inalternate years up to and including2011. Let’s try to make sure that 2003was the last actually held.� Please write to Crispin Davis,

Chief Executive, Reed ElsevirGroup plc, 1–3 The Strand,London WC2N 5JR asking him tocancel DSEi, saying thatorganising an arms fair will bringhis company into disrepute.

There is more about DSEi on CAAT’swebsite at www.caat.org.uk. If youdon’t have access to the internet theDSEi 2003 briefing is still availablefrom the CAAT office priced £3.00.

BAE Systems and theSerious Fraud Office

offered by BAE Systems to Saudi officials(which Rosalind Wright, the formerdirector of the SFO, herself suggested wasin some instances “excessive” and pointingto “extravagance”) constituted a criminaloffence of bribery of a foreign publicofficial;

� as the evidence that the SFO currently hasmay not provide “sufficient evidence of acriminal offence”, but may point to apossible offence, ask what steps the SFOhas taken to gather more evidence. Inparticular, has the SFO actually requiredBAE Systems to provide it with full copiesof its accounts, board minutes, andcorrespondence relating to the paymentsto Saudi officials, or entered BAE Systems’premises to search for this information?(Though it’s possible – see ‘Arms TradeShorts’ – that this is now in Geneva.) Ifthe SFO has not done so, why hasn’t it?

� UK corruption laws prior to the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of2001, according to the UK government’s

own interpretation of those laws, clearlymade bribery of a foreign public officialillegal if any relevant act was committedwithin the UK. It appears that thehospitality given by BAE Systems toSaudi officials took place within theUK, and would therefore beprosecutable under the UK’s oldcorruption laws. Why the does SFOthink it cannot investigate these briberyallegations under the UK’s oldcorruption legislation?

� if the SFO does not feel it is theappropriate law enforcement agency toinvestigate these particular allegations,what steps it has taken to ensure thatthe allegations were forwarded to amore appropriate law enforcementagency?

Ann Feltham

13

CAAT supporters are more aware thanmost that the arms trade is out of control.There are currently over 600 millionfirearms in the world – one for every 10people on the planet. The lack of controlsat international and national level have anunacceptable human cost.

The ‘war on terror’ should havefocused political will on restraining armssales, but instead many governments, ledby the USA, relaxed controls on exports tonew-found allies regardless of their humanrights records. This puts us all at greaterrisk, and it’s getting worse. People in thedeveloping world and in many urbancentres in the north know armed violenceis escalating. Possession and use of high-powered weaponry is becomingwidespread, and those entrusted to policesociety with guns are committing graveabuses, setting the wrong example. Livesand livelihoods are the casualties – anestimated one person every minute iskilled by armed violence.

Amnesty International, CAAT andother organisations have campaigned foryears for tougher controls on arms exportsat a national and regional level. Togetherwe have called for a ban on the transfer ofarms that could be used to seriously violateestablished standards of human rights,humanitarian law and non-aggression andcalled on exporting states to avoid the saleof weapons that could have an adverseimpact on sustainable development orregional peace and security. However,national and regional approaches to armscontrol can be piecemeal, resulting inloopholes which allow continued armssales to destinations of concern. This is aglobal problem which needs a globalsolution – when it comes to arms sales,everyone should be playing by the samerules – with respect for human rights atthe centre.

That is why Amnesty International,Oxfam and the International ActionNetwork on Small Arms (IANSA) joinedforces internationally to launch theControl Arms campaign in October 2003.Launched in 65 countries worldwide and

currently supported by activists in over150 countries through the Million Facespetition (see below), the campaignaddresses both the supply and demand/use of arms.

On the supply-side we are urginggovernments to negotiate a legally-bindinginternational Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) lawby the 2006 UN Small Arms ReviewConference to regulate arms transfersaccording to recognised standards ofhuman rights and humanitarian law. It isessential that this initiative is taken on bystates from all world regions and is notseen as a Western European attempt tocontrol access to weapons. So far, the statesof Mali, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Brazil,Finland, the Netherlands, Slovenia andMacedonia have expressed support forestablishing legally-binding internationalarms controls, and some of them are fullyon board with the ATT initiative. TheUK government has welcomed thecampaign but has yet to publicly endorsethe ATT initiative.

The full establishment of an ATT willtake many years, and there is a pressingneed to address the armed violence facedby millions today. However, communitieswhich face armed violence are not passivevictims. From Birmingham to Burundi,there are community-level initiatives byIANSA participants such as promotingcommunity policing and gun-free zones.The Control Arms campaign will call ongovernments, donor agencies and civilsociety to support these initiatives. A seriesof thematic reports looking at policing,

militarisation and women, civic educationand alternative livelihoods will bepublished over the next 18 months. Thecampaign launch report, Shattered Lives,and the first of the thematic reports, Guns& Policing: standards to prevent misuse, areavailable on the Control Arms website,www.controlarms.org.

The global campaign action – the MillionFaces petitionWe need to build a mass movement ofpeople calling for the world’s governmentsto back an international Arms Trade Treatyand to support the community-levelefforts to make people safe from armedviolence.

The popular action for the campaign –the way that people can join us – is aglobal photo-petition. People can join thevisual petition online through thecampaign website, by sending us theiraction photos or by using one of the self-portrait action cards we have produced.

So far we have gathered over 100,000signatures from over 150 differentcountries. We will use these faces fornational and regional campaigningactivities in the run up to the 2006 UNSmall Arms Review Conference wherethey will be presented to world leaders as ameasure of the global support there is forgovernments to take decisive action.

Please visit the campaign website atwww.controlarms.org or call FarshidTalaghani on 020 7417 6363 to find outmore.

Robert Parker – CampaignManager (Arms & SecurityTrade), AIUK

Small arms, shattered lives

The launch of the Control Arms campaign inTrafalger Square Marie-Anne Ventoura/AI

Afro-tribal drum & dance band, juggling,live art and many other DJ’s spinning acidhouse, breaks, trance & techno.

The entrance fee is a bargain £5 before11pm (or £8 after) and proceeds from theevent come to CAAT. I look forward toseeing you there!

Peace not War CDsOver the last year, Peace not War havebeen compiling a selection of music from anumber of different artists from the UKand abroad; including Roots Manuva,Chumbawamba, Billy Bragg, Asian DubFoundation, Ani di Franco, PublicEnemy, Midnight Oil and many more.

We have been given 25 copies of theCD to sell and CAAT benefits from theproceeds. You can get your copy bysending a cheque for £15 (which includespostage and packing) to the CAAT office.Visit the CAAT website to see the full listof tracks.

In memoryFinally, thank you to all those who havemade donations in memory of MargotRoberts, Bina Gibson and Jack Howe,three long-standing CAAT supporterswho sadly passed away recently. You canbe assured that the £1,546.30 given intheir memory will be put to good use, aswe work towards a more peaceful and justworld.

Kathryn Busby

2004 AppealMany of you will have received an appealletter from me a few weeks ago; thank youto everyone who has responded so far. As Iwrite, the appeal has raised nearly £8,000– which is a great start – but there is stillsome way to go before we reach our targetof £20,000.

If you are thinking about making adonation but haven’t yet had a chance torespond, then please get your chequebookout now and help us to build a securefinancial basis for the rest of the year. Ifyou have mislaid the letter (or did notreceive the appeal) but would like to makea contribution, please send in your chequemarked ‘2004 Appeal’ on the back, toCAAT, Freepost, LON6486, London N43BR.

Run the New York City Marathon forCAAT...I am delighted to announce that CAAThas the opportunity once again to send arunner to New York, for the world famousMarathon on November 7th 2004.

Last year Edward Bradley raised£2,675 in sponsorship for CAAT, so weknow from experience that this is anexcellent way to help the campaign. It is ofcourse also a great opportunity for a keenrunner to take part in this prestigiousevent.

A generous CAAT supporter will payfor the flight and entry fee for the

Marathon and we would like you to raiseas much money as you possibly can insponsorship.

If you would like to take part yourselfor you know of someone who would,please contact me at the CAAT office, assoon as possible, on 020 7281 0297 oremail kathryn@caat.demon.co.uk.

... or the women’s 5k Flora LightChallengeIn December’s issue of CAAT News Imentioned that we hoped to put togethera team of CAAT runners for the FloraLight Challenge on 5th September. Therehas already been quite a bit of interest andrace applications open in April; so if youwould like to join the team and help raisesome much-needed money for CAAT,then please do get in touch.

Peace Revolutions on the beach!After a very successful Matrix-themedclub night for CAAT in December lastyear, the Seaside Tribe have approached usonce again with an exciting new line up ofacts and DJs. This time the theme is abeach party and we are told the night willbe more colourful and the message forpeace will be even louder.

Peace Revolutions will take place onFriday 23rd April and once again thevenue will be the Brixton Telegraph inLondon SW1. Headline acts include topLondon techno DJ Zebedee, a superb

14

Fundraising

Margot RobertsThe many people in CAAT who knew her were shocked and upset to learn of Margot’s death on 7th February. She had neverregained consciousness after an operation a couple of days earlier. When she had left the CAAT office before going in to hospital,we never dreamt we would not see her again.

Margot made an enormous contribution to CAAT’s work. From 1987 until 1995, she represented the SocialistEnvironment and Resources Association on CAAT’s Steering Committee. She quickly became one of the most

hard working people on that Committee, often volunteering herself for tasks. The CAAT staff got to knowMargot even better when SERA moved its office into the same building as CAAT’s, just upstairs – she was

handy when advice was needed.After leaving SERA, for many years until 2002, Margot ran CAAT’s stall at the Labour Party Conference. She had

been a very active Labour Party member since her youth, but had become very disillusioned, often consideringleaving the Party. By taking charge of our stall, Margot was able to meet up with old friends whilst promotingCAAT. Most recently, Margot was an office volunteer, coming in once a week to help keep CAAT’s information filesin good order.

Margot gave me great personal support during difficult times at the office. We’d go for lunch at a smallrestaurant nearby and, over large glasses of red wine, discuss the problems before talking more generallyabout her trips to the opera and mine to the theatre, holidays taken and planned, and much more. When theproblems were over, we’d just go for an agreeable lunch. I can’t believe this will never happen again. I’ve losta friend and CAAT has lost a great supporter. Ann Feltham

Pho

to: P

atri

ck D

elan

ey

Local actionIf you are able or would like to put leaflets or CAAT News out into local libraries orhealth food shops, or give them out at meetings, hold a stall at a local event andrequire materials, join a local group or become a local contact, get in touch with PhilipBarrett.

Email philip@caat.demon.co.uk tel 020 7281 0297

Letter-writingYou can never write too many letters on behalf of CAAT. Most MPs can be reached atthe House of Commons address ([Your MP], House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1A0AA). You can also make an appointment to see your MP in person at their surgery.Contact Ann Feltham if you need advice on this.

Email ann@caat.demon.co.uk tel 020 7281 0297

Demonstrate!CAAT demonstrations are peaceful, inclusive and fun. The more people who come, themore effective they are. Have a look at the campaigns diary on the back page, orcontact the office for more information.

Email enquiries@caat.demon.co.uk tel 020 7281 0297

Make a donationCAAT always needs your financial support. If you are able to make a donation, pleasesend a cheque (payable to CAAT) now, to: CAAT, Freepost, LON6486, London N4 3BR.Alternatively, you can use the form on the back page to set up a standing order, givingCAAT an urgently needed regular income.

Email kathryn@caat.demon.co.uk tel 020 7281 0297

CAAT postcardAvailable for distribution locally

Following the Iraq conflict, CAAT hasbeen very successful in highlighting thefact that the UK armed Saddam in thefirst place. Our campaign postcardoutlines six questions about the armstrade.

Thousands of these post-cards havebeen distributed at demonstrations andother events against the war, and havehelped CAAT to gain many newsupporters.

Now we’re asking CAAT supporters tohelp distribute these cards locally. Couldyou take 100 or more to hand out atrelevant local events? They’re free fromthe office, but we estimate it costsabout £4.00 in printing, postage andpacking to produce 100. If you canmake a donation, it would help us toproduce more campaign materials.

Good luck, and thanks for your helpincreasing support for the campaign.

Contact the office for more details.

get active!get active!The campaign thrives on your participation. Below is how

you can get involved and stop the arms trade with CAATMaterials CAAT publicationsavailable from the office

15

New leaflet availableContact the office for more details.

Subscribe to CAAT NewsSubscription is voluntary, but we need your support. We suggest £22 waged,£12 low income and £30 for groups. Please give more if you are able, or less if not.

Name

Address

Postcode

Tel Email

I enclose a cheque/postal order for £ Tick the following box if you do not want to receive an acknowledgment

Please give by standing order. It helps CAAT plan ahead more effectively andcosts less to administer, so more money goes directly to campaigning. Just £3 a month makes a real difference.To The Manager of Bank Bank Address

Postcode Sort code Account No.

Please pay: The Co-operative Bank Plc, 1 Islington High Street, London, N1 9TR (sort code 08 90 33) for the account of CAMPAIGN AGAINST ARMS TRADE

(account number 50503544) the sum of pounds (£ ) starting on and monthly/annually thereafter.

Signed

Fill in your name and address with the bankers order and return the whole form to CAAT, not your bank.Please make cheques payable to CAAT and send with this form to: CAAT, Freepost, LON6486, London N4 3BR.If you DO NOT wish to receive CAAT News, please tick here

CAAT use onlyPlease quote ref:

on all payments

Please separate along line

11 Goodwin Street, London N4 3HQtel 020-7281 0297 fax 020-7281 4369

email enquiries@caat.demon.co.ukweb www.caat.org.uk

Campaigns diary7 April: Clean Investment Campaign launch 5 May: BAE Systems AGM5–12 June: Stop the Arms Trade Week 6 June: Arms Trade Day of Prayer14–18 June: Eurosatory, Paris-Nord, Villepinte, France19–25 July: Farnborough arms fair