ARTICLE BY GABRIELLE RIFKIND
Gabrielle Rifkind is the Director of Oxford Process, an organisation that works to resolve conflict. She is a mediator, a group analyst, and a specialist in conflict resolution.
Britain needs a different kind of security that looks at the root causes of violence. The need for jobs mustn’t be used to perpetuate the powerful lobby that is the defence industry.
The Department for International Trade proudly announces on its website that on a rolling 10-year basis, the UK remains the world’s second largest exporter of arms, with a 9% share of the global defence export market in 2016. Government pride is based upon jobs, balance of payments, and maintaining an independent defence-manufacturing base. The defence sector makes up 10% of the British manufacturing base and those defence exports sustain 55,000 jobs.
Dr Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, mounted an unashamed defence of Britain’s arms sales at the opening of the world’s biggest weapons trade exhibition in London this autumn. Fox said, “Britain is a global leader in defence and that should be celebrated… we must work to defend and promote the established defence industry.”
These words reflected little thought as to the use of these weapons and their consequences. Military equipment worth at least £3.6 billion has been agreed for sale by the UK to Saudi Arabia since the devastating conflict in Yemen began in 2015. This has included Typhoon fighter jets, and precision-guided bombs. Claims have been made that UK-made arms are being used in indiscriminate bombing raids on civilian targets by the Saudi-led coalition fighting Shia rebels in neighbouring Yemen. These sales contribute to thousands of engineering jobs in the UK, and have provided billions of pounds of revenue for the British arms trade.
These words reflected little thought as to the use of these weapons and their consequences.
Economics and job security trump political morality. When it was announced recently that BAE systems was to axe nearly 2,000 jobs, there was no reporting on how these weapons might be used and the moral questions about the consequences of UK sale of weapons. The news concentrated entirely on job losses.The Unite assistant general secretary, Steve Turner, said: “these planned job cuts will not only undermine Britain’s sovereign defence capability, but devastate communities across the UK who rely on these skilled jobs and the hope of a decent future they give to future generations.” There was talk of ghost towns.
Particular communities are currently heavily reliant upon the defense sector for employment. So if there were to be any change of policy by governments, there would need to be managed intervention which prepared for a transition away from defence jobs to alternative forms of employment. As yet there is no real discussion as to whether those working in the defence industry could be retrained to use their skills in more socially responsible industries.
There would need to be a feasibility study that would examine the investment in technologies and skills that would redirect people from the arms industry to more socially responsible and desirable industries. This could include renewable energy, offshore wind, wave power and civil engineering and electronics. A more effective use of public resources could be explored that directly supported civil research and development that would enhance the country’s manufacturing base.
Dr Steve Scofield, who has written extensivley about arms conversion, proposes the need to examine what job conversion would look like, and how it would benefit a small group of arms-dependent communities such as Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow, Preston, Aldermaston and Plymouth. Opposition from the trade unions is inevitable as these leaders see their responsibility as the protection of their members’ jobs and frequently join forces with lobby groups representing the arms industry. So, says Scofield, for such an endeavour to succeed, trade union and community participation would be essential and he suggests the development of a partnership between government, trade unions and local communities.
Any change of policy will require a fundamental review of our security policy and where we put our resources. Those in government are sensitive to these issues, because of the loss of jobs and the significant tax revenues from the arms manufacturing sector. At present there is no serious political opposition to the current defence policy and little appetite in the main political parties for discussion that does not hinge on protecting members’ constituency jobs and industries. The Secretary of State for Defence (until recently) Michael Fallon has asked for increased military spending. It is difficult for Labour to engage in these issues due to pressure from unions surrounding jobs, as well as being seen as unpatriotic and currently going against the political tide. The question of patriotism needs to be reframed in order to address our real security challenges.
A more systemic approach to security is required – one where we do not decide on defence and security in isolation from humanitarian concerns and diplomatic efforts.
The current Western security paradigm means that huge resources are being put into armaments, military intelligence, targeting, logistics, force protection and allied coordination. What is now required is a more systemic approach to security, where we do not decide defence and security in isolation from humanitarian concerns and diplomatic efforts. A different kind of security that looks at the root causes of violence, and why people are angry and alienated. This is not about typhoons, nor the use of strike fighters, hunter-killer submarines and fleets of drones, but is about addressing the underlying causes of conflict.
But who is making the decisions to go to war, and are the ‘bigger picture’ questions being asked about the power and influence of the military–industrial complex? It The resistance from this powerful lobby cannot be overestimated. It will argue that it represents an economic threat to manufacturing and the capacity of the UK to defend itself – so how to incentivize them to engage in such a programme will involve maximum creativity and a firm government hand.
But the lesser challenge and with proper preparation is to address the anxieties about future job insecurity if jobs in the arms industry are lost. The challenges whilst serious are manageable – the numbers of jobs involved in this transition are a small fraction of those involved in similar transitions away from mining, or even the defense diversification in the 1990s with the end of the Cold War.