CAATblog

Fantasy and reality at BAE’s AGM

Symon Hill — Wed, 02 May 2012 20:49:31 +0000

The BAE AGM: far removed from reality

Symon Hill reports from the Annual General Meeting of the world’s second-largest arms company.

Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the BAE Systems Annual General Meeting. Shareholders were today welcomed into the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, to be greeted by plush carpets, free coffee and glamorous posters featuring BAE staff saying how great it is to work for one of the world’s largest arms dealers (they don’t quite put it quite like that).

Afterwards, the AGM itself was underway, with presentations and displays about “total performance” and “a culture of responsible behaviour”. A brief film attempted to demonstrate the diversity of BAE’s staff (not reflected on the board of directors), with gender, age and ethnicity very varied. None of them mentioned what BAE really does. The worker on the film with a visible mobility impairment did not mention how much cheaper mobility equipment would be if those who produce it were to receive the same subsidies that go to arms companies.

After the AGM is over, a free lunch was provided, including a vegetarian option (for all those vegetarian arms dealers).

I attended the AGM today, as I do every year, as a BAE shareholder. Before you get worried about my buying shares in arms companies, I own only one share. Like many others, I own it so that I can turn up and hold the company to account for its arms sales, its corruption and its damage to Britain’s democracy and economy.

The BAE AGM seeks to give an image of the company that has nothing in common with reality. It is far removed from the streets of Bahrain, where peaceful demonstrators have been killed by a regime armed by BAE. It is very distant from Tanzania, where corruption led the government to buy BAE weapons they didn’t need, reducing funding to tackle poverty and provide healthcare. And it’s also several hundred miles south of Brough, where around 900 of BAE’s workers are facing redundancy as the company continues to find it more convenient to employ people overseas.

Dick Olver: lost control

At least, it would be removed from all those things if the BAE bosses had their way. I have never seen BAE chair Dick Olver more flustered than he was today. He essentially lost control of the meeting, which broke down into heckling as he patronised workers from Brough, said he was “proud” to sell jets to Bahrain and refused to rule out arming the Saudi regime even if they used BAE’s weapons to suppress a peaceful uprising. He would not even make an apology to the Tanzanian people.

When it was suggested that arms dealers might have difficulty sleeping, he insisted “all members of BAE’s board sleep very well”.

What’s the point, I sometimes think? What’s the point of going along like this, year after year? It’s not as if we’re likely to change his mind. But there are two good practical reasons for doing so. Firstly, our questions often get reported in the media, which makes more people aware of the nature of BAE. Secondly, board members often say things that can be quoted in future debates and campaigns by those of us seeking to draw attention to the reality of their business.

Today, there was another good reason. The AGM was full of workers from Brough, facing redundancy. Dick Olver made some attempt to set the anti-arms activists and the Brough workers against each other. He suggested that Brough might have remained open had the company received more orders from Saudi Arabia – after the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) had attacked sales to the Saudi regime.

But this strategy didn’t work. The Brough workers and the anti-arms activists were soon cheering and applauding each other’s comments, particularly those about diversifying to work on renewable energy to move away from arms and keep jobs at Brough. Today, we were able to tell the workers at Brough that we’re on their side. Serious government investment in renewable energy – a far more stable prospect for the future than arms – would make use of engineering skills in Britain and could save lives in Bahrain.

This is the one day in the year when some of the most powerful arms dealers in the world have to listen to the voices of anyone who wants to challenge them. On the other 364 days, they can hide behind their bank accounts, security staff and PR departments. Not today. Today, they were confronted with reality.

© Symon Hill is associate director of Ekklesia and a member of the Steering Committee of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).

This article first posted on Symon Hill’s blog on Ekklesia. CAAT thanks Symon and Ekklesia for allowing CAAT to reproduce it here. For a detailed report on the AGM, see Ekklesia’s report BAE ‘proud’ to sell arms to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. See the CAAT website for more on BAE Systems.

London candidates challenged on the arms fair

Jessie Normaschild — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:37:53 +0000

Every two years London hosts one of the largest arms fairs in the world. Two mayoral candidates have spoken out against the fair, and hundreds of emails were sent to others. Here, London CAAT member Jessie describes putting questions about the arms fair at a hustings.

The hustings I attended on Thursday 26th April had almost more organisers than members of the public, so it was easy to raise my question about what the candidates can do to end the arms fair in London. In fact the candidates seemed to be grateful to have something not scripted to talk about!

The panel consisted of three GLA candidates who also spoke for their parties’ mayoral candidate, plus Steven Norris, whose support for Boris consisted of an after dinner speech which he began with ‘I won’t bother telling you Boris’ policies…’!

Anyway Lab, Lib & Green all agreed the arms fair has no place in London, they knew Newham doesn’t want it, and that Green jobs would be a better use of the money. Norris came out with the tired old argument that ‘if we don’t sell arms, then others will’, which I refuted most forcefully!

None of the candidates specified what powers they would have, once elected, to challenge the arms fair, or what they would do. However, the issue got a good airing and they heard once again that the arms fair is not wanted, and we have expectations of them!

Interrupting Vince Cable – a morning at the arms sellers’ symposium

Sam Walton — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:13:22 +0000

UKTI DSO: flogging arms with your taxes

On 26 April, Sam Walton took the stage to disrupt Vince Cable’s speech at a government arms sales conference.

We didn’t think we’d get in. The UKTI DSO Symposium is the biggest event of the year for Britain’s exporters of “defence & security” gear – so you’d think they’d have better security.

We wandered into the hotel past the police and made our way towards the entrance to the Symposium. Not having the faintest idea where anything was, we were helpfully directed to the ground floor where registration and the first networking and mingling of the day was taking place. Amazing how far a nice suit can get you.

UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) is a government department that promotes all of Britain’s exports, and DSO is the part of UKTI that promotes arms sales. Arms make up only 1.2% of UK exports, but more than half the staff in UKTI belong to DSO, so the arms trade is getting hugely disproportionate support from the government at the expense of every other industry.

DSO is one of the key ways in which the government subsidise the arms industry, but it gets worse: they promote arms sales to just about anyone. They currently promote arms sales to Bahrain & the Saudis, and Libya was even a “key market” until spring last year(!). DSO needs to stop wasting our money, stop promoting arms sales indiscriminately and shut down now.

Inside

Everyone who is anyone in the British arms industry was at the symposium. They invite all of Britain’s big weapons firms and pat each other on the back and talk about how wonderful they are for selling arms all around the world. Four government ministers were down to talk, and there were even some foreign dignitaries thrown in.

Vince Cable: lobbied by his constituents too

So we got in and I sat down at a table and I am absolutely bricking it. I just hadn’t thought what I’d do if we actually got this far. I had a look at the programme and Vince Cable was on second. Now Vince used to support the closure of DSO, but power (or perhaps proximity to power in the Lib Dem case) changed all that. He is now the Head of the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, which UKTI is part of. Vince seems to have lost any notion that the arms trade might be bad, and now merrily hawks British weaponry to all comers.

So I decide I am going to interrupt Vince.

But first I had to go through the trial of listening the spectacularly dull Radio4-style voice that is the head of UKTI DSO talking about how the “sector has been performing robustly” despite there “not being a major platform order in the past year.” I was disturbed at how he talked about the arms trade as if it were selling spanners, not deadly weapons. No thought to how by encouraging arms sales money is diverted from development or how the arms trade fuels conflicts across the globe. No mention of how British arms are used by repressive regimes to torture and oppress. Just exports and economics.

But it got worse: he boasted about how impressed everyone in the Middle East was when he travelled out there with “many people here in this room” and David Cameron – referring to how this government seem to think trips abroad are principally about flogging weapons. He went on talk about his recent trip to Libya, where there were so many “opportunities”, without even a hint of sarcasm. How anyone can be so blind to the results of their actions I do not know.

Eventually he stopped and Vince is given what can only be described as an arse-licking of an introduction by a vice admiral. Then Vince stands up, says about two words, and I run across and take the stage.

I wanted to say I was here for everyone in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Palestine and everywhere else who had had British made weapons used on them. For everyone in Tanzania, India, Pakistan, South Africa and everywhere else whose governments were so swayed by the arms industry that they spent more money on arms than on health and schools. I wanted to say that I was here for everyone in Britain who thinks the arms trade is morally abhorrent and wrong, and that everyone there should get down the job centre and do something useful with their lives.

What came out was slightly different, partly because of nerves and partly because I was swiftly grabbed by two burly fellows who dragged me out . It turns out they were both senior DSO staff: Keith Venables, Business Development Director & Dominic McNeice, Head of Events Planning. They led me out to the street, where I walked off promptly.

Afterwards

I’d been gone for a few minutes when I thought that they had probably called the police and that I should be accountable for my actions. I would love a day in court justifying why it was OK to interrupt a bunch of people talking about how to sell more weapons. The arms trade is such a force of evil in the world I know what I did is not wrong, irrespective of what the law says. For me, taking responsibility for your actions is important as well, although I respect and work with those who would disagree.

So I turned around and walked back into the hotel. I walked up to some police officers, who said “Can I help you?” and I explained who I was and that I was here in case they wanted to talk to me. It turned out they did want to talk to me, and we had a little chat and I was searched – nothing worse than what happens to many black or Muslim men my age fairly regularly.

I was then introduced to a manager from the hotel, who explained that I was banned from all Park Plaza Hotels. I explained that the hotel should not associate itself with the arms trade and that next year the protests would certainly be bigger and might damage their reputation, so they should not host the symposium again. I was then taken out onto the street and that was that.

In case any of you were wondering how I will cope with being banned from the Park Plaza Hotel, I have since been assured that the train noise is terrible and very few rooms actually have a river view, so I am not too distraught.

If you want to get involved in taking action against the arms trade, come to a London CAAT meeting – every third Tuesday of every month 6:30 – 8:00 pm in Central Station pub near Kings Cross. Also check out Stop The Arms Fair.

Should the London Mayor support the arms fair?

Jessie Normaschild — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:28:11 +0000

What does Boris think about London's arms fair?

CAAT activist Jessie has been focusing on the London Mayoral & GLA elections, May 3rd 2012.

With Mayoral & GLA elections coming, we need to know what the candidates think about hosting a major, bi-annual arms fair in London. The arms trade does not appear in their manifestos, so we had to contact them directly to get their views. Between the London CAAT group, the central CAAT office, and with me collating information, we have contacted all four major mayoral candidates.

We have heard back from three already, so the pressure is on! Two have come out against it, one has said the organisers should at least cover policing costs, not the taxpayer. This is a good start!

We have also put information on the CAAT website for anyone to write to their candidates, as well as tips for questions if you are going to a husting. I have found the hustings are rather elusive: few have been advertised so far. There may be a flurry of activity near the date, so keep your eyes peeled in your area.

Armed with the confidence-building tips on the CAAT website, let’s hope we can get candidates’ attention focused on the issue.

Wrangling arms data for CAAT

Ian Mackinnon — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:19:39 +0000

The arms export licence app brought over 10,000 new visitors to the CAAT website.

Ian Mackinnon quit his job to create a ground-breaking web app that allows anyone to browse the licences granted by the UK government for exporting arms. Here he talks about why this work was so necessary.

I first came across the UK Government’s Export Controls web page out of curiosity. Among protesters organising against the DSEi arms fair there is often speculation about what arms deals might be done in private between British companies and representatives of repressive governments, but I wanted more concrete information.

I’d heard that the official export data had been made publicly available, so I thought I’d take a quick look and find out what was actually leaving the country, who our biggest buyers were, and what types of weapons unsavoury regimes were most interested in. I thought it would take a few clicks, but every step of the way there were barriers.

The data wasn’t visible on-line; it could only be downloaded bundled in large text documents. These in turn were not simply available, but had to be individually requested and “processed” for about 5 minutes each before a link would appear. To include a specific country in your search took three clicks, so to include all the countries it took about 750! Finally, you would receive a giant document of several hundred pages, which you could start scouring for relevant figures buried among jargon and undefined acronyms. All this for data from one short time period, and there were thousands of periods available. This was not the realm of open government data I was hoping for.

I was frustrated, both at not being able to find answers to my own simple questions after a whole afternoon’s work, and at the thought that researchers and campaigners with far more use for the data than me might also be wasting their valuable time on so many unnecessary obstacles. Luckily for me, I am a computer programmer, and I saw this as something of a challenge.

I began writing a program to automate downloading of every document available, and as soon as I was able to leave it running by itself I called the Campaign Against Arms Trade office and asked if I could meet with someone to discuss what I hoped would be a worthwhile project.

Missiles on display at the DSEi 2009 arms fair

The staff were enthusiastic, and told me about their ongoing negotiations with the Export Control Organisation to provide better and more accessible data. It sounded like a slow process, but I was confident that we could go a long way towards improving the situation by ourselves. Over the following weeks I received from CAAT all the help and explanations needed to start building software that could prise the figures out of the mountain of documents I had accumulated and put them into some kind of logical order.

I was getting somewhere, but the amount and complexity of the data was vast. As uprisings and retaliatory repression were escalating throughout the Middle East, and British ministers were still busy promoting weapons sales in the region, the export information seemed more important than ever, so in December I decided to quit my job to pursue the project full time. By then we had the clear goal: to build our own web application which would make the data available to anyone, quickly and clearly.

We had a list of specifications, each one a failing of the Government site that we wanted to resolve:

No registration required – anyone can see the data without having to supply any personal details
Show the biggest recipient countries and the most common exports at a glance
Quick searches by country, item or type of licence
Every search must be addressable so it can be shared or bookmarked
Make the figures more digestible with graphs
Explain all terminology with roll-over descriptions.
Conform to accessibility standards for users with visual or physical impairments
Provide a full dump of the raw data in machine readable format for other researchers
Speed – users must be able to find what they’re looking for in seconds, not weeks!

At the beginning of March we launched our application, which was enthusiastically received and widely visited – no small thanks to an outing in the Guardian datablog. It was especially rewarding to see campaign groups for specific conflict-stricken regions pick up the relevant figures almost immediately, and share their findings across the web. I also personally learned a valuable lesson that it’s worth trying to fix things that aren’t working even if they initially seem outside of one’s control.

CAAT is still continuing negotiations with the Export Control Organisation, but I hope that we’ve shown them there’s no excuse for not providing clear and accessible data about arms exports to everyone. I believe we’re all responsible for our Government’s actions, and transparency is absolutely necessary if we’re to do our part guiding them in the right direction.

When Ian’s app was launched, the CAAT website received the most traffic it has ever had – over 41000 page views in one day.

An exciting year ahead for London CAAT

London CAAT — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:26:11 +0000

The London CAAT group looks ahead to a busy year of protesting.

Who we are

London CAAT is a friendly group, made up of both new and more seasoned campaigners, who are committed to making a difference in London, the global hub of the arms trade. We’re an active bunch and there’s plenty to get involved with!

Coming up

Global Day of Action on Military Spending – 17 April

In April, London CAAT will be gearing up to take part in the second annual Global Day of Action on Military Spending.

In 2010 alone, global military spending was roughly $1.6 trillion. In 2010, the UK was the third biggest spender globally, after only the USA and China. The Global Day of Action on Military Spending has been organised to coincide with the release of new figures on military expenditure by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

London CAAT will join groups across the world in bringing attention to the need for a drastic rethink on spending priorities. As we see poverty and climate change devastate lives across the globe, and slashed public services here in the UK, we will be asking how such military spending can possibly be justified.

If you think that $1.6 trillion could be better spent, then join us and take action!

Spirit of Summer Fair – May

Every two years, the DSEi (Defence and Security Equipment International) arms fair comes to the ExCel centre in London Docklands. DSEi is the world’s largest arms fair. A company called Clarion runs the fair and London CAAT has a long history of protesting at events run by Clarion. Clarion has seen London CAAT members dress up as babies at the Baby Show, elves at the Christmas show and Jeremy Clarkson at Top Gear. In May is Clarion’s Spirit of Summer Fair. Join us at the Summer Fair to tell its customers about the other side of the Clarion business.

And London CAAT isn’t the only group campaigning against Clarion and the DSEi arms fair.

Sparkles not Shrapnel held a demonstration at Clarion’s Destinations Holiday and Travel Show last month. A group from Sparkles Not Shrapnel decided to let visitors to the Destinations Travel Show know that their ticket money was going to support Clarion and the arms trade. They dressed in exotic travel costumes – sailor outfits, bikinis, snorkling gear – and greeted visitors warmly, while handing out leaflets about the DSEi arms fair. A number of visitors came over to thank the team for their efforts, in some cases explaining that they came from areas where conflict is fuelled by imported weapons.

East London Against Arms Fairs is holding a musical protest outside the ExCel centre, where the DSEi arms fair is held, on Saturday 21 April from 1 – 4 pm.

To find out about the coalition working to stop the DSEi arms fair – visit the Stop the Arms Fair website.

Get involved

To receive updates on our activities and contribute to discussions please join our Yahoo! Group or email us on londoncaat(at)riseup·net.

Come along to one of our meetings! We meet each month at the Central Station pub, near King’s Cross. The next meeting is Tuesday 17 April, 6:30 – 8:00 pm. Check our website for more details.

Find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Find pictures of our recent actions on our Flickr page.

After a year of repression the UK still sells arms to Bahrain

Kaye Stearman — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:21:12 +0000

CAAT protests continuing arms sales to Bahrain.

CAAT protesters outside BIS

Since the New Year, at least ten people have been killed by security forces in Bahrain. Three were killed in custody. Others suffocated on tear gas, which has been fired into people’s homes where they can’t escape.

We have known of Bahrain’s horrific human rights abuses since a year ago when the crackdown on protest began, but the UK continues to arm the kingdom regardless. In Vince Cable’s words last week: “We do business with repressive governments and there’s no denying that.”

Victoria Street, one of the most soulless thoroughfares in London, is home to Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS). BIS grants licences to export military equipment to Bahrain and houses the government’s arms promotion unit. This was a fitting setting for CAAT’s demonstration against UK arms exports to Bahrain on 14 February – the first anniversary of the Bahrain uprising.

The scroll with the names of Bahraini civilians killed in the crackdown.

Protesters, dressed in black and displaying bloodied hands, held placards condemning UK arms sales. Along the pavement in front of BIS we unrolled a list of names of those known to have been killed in the crackdown. The cold grey day reflected our sombre mood as we handed out leaflets to passers-by and to people entering BIS.

We went on to join Bahraini opposition activists demonstrating outside Downing Street, and met a young man who had lost an eye in the protests in Bahrain. We were told police had ordered surgeons not to operate, so it could not be saved. They welcomed us and were happy to hold our placards in support of an end to UK arms sales, not just to Bahrain but to all repressive regimes.

Background

14 February 2011 was the day the Arab Spring bloomed in Bahrain. On that day activists, inspired by democracy movements in Tunisia and Egypt, occupied a roundabout in the capital Manama and demanded political and economic reforms. They met with brutal repression – guns, tear gas, arrests, imprisonment, torture. In March, Saudi Arabia sent troops and armoured vehicles in support of the Bahrain government.

CAAT with Bahrain protesters at Downing Street

The routine use of firearms and tear gas resulted in at least 35 deaths between February and June and others since. Many people have been arrested, imprisoned and subject to unfair trials.

The UK has long-standing political and military ties to the kingdom but rather than support democratic change it has assisted the government repression. In 2010, equipment licensed for export by the UK government included tear gas and crowd control ammunition, assault rifles, shotguns, sniper rifles and sub-machine guns. In February 2011, the UK revoked 44 arms licences to Bahrain but by June it was back to business as usual. The latest statistics available covering the third quarter (July-September) of 2011, saw the UK license military exports worth £1.3 million, including gun silencers, weapon sights, rifles, naval guns and technology for artillery and naval guns.

Power and Counterpower

Tim Gee — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:09:58 +0000

Tim Gee writes on the strength within protest – our Counterpower

Anti-arms protesters outside parliament on DSEI Day of Action - 13 September 2011 (credit CAAT)

I started my life as a campaigner because I was horrified at the arms trade. As a teenager I joined the minibuses to London to join the DSEI protests. At university I helped organise against BAE Systems on campus and even got rid of them, for a year at least.

Since then I’ve spent every moment I can campaigning against climate change and cuts, for human rights in Burma, with travellers at Dale Farm and so on. But a couple of years ago I decided to take a bit of time out to read up on the campaigns that constitute our heritage to try and get closer to understanding why some campaigns seem to be so successful while others go awry.

Lessons from the past

My first stop was the Working Class Movement Library in Salford a monument to campaigns gone by, stuffed with banners and badges and handwritten minutes, and biographies and pamphlets and so on collectively telling a rather different version of history to that which is fed to us through Hollywood films and school textbooks. I then compared this testimony to the ample literature on power and social change to try and analyse the reasons for the success or otherwise of the stories I was looking at.

One set of explanations that seemed to resonate drew on the work of Gene Sharp , a one-time staffer at Peace News, whose writings on non-violent social change have been used by movements across the world, including Burma, Serbia and most recently Egypt. In his most famous pamphlet From Dictatorship to Democracy he advises movements to seek to identify the Achilles Heel of the system it is challenging. By choosing violent means, he argues, we choose the one arena in which states almost always have superiority.

So what are the central pillars that any regime needs in order to maintain its rule? The power theorists are surprisingly consistent on this. Power can be exerted through ideas, through economics, or through physical force.

The meaning of Counterpower

But power from below – Counterpower – is different from the power of regimes. To paraphrase a famous Gandhian maxim, even the most powerful cannot rule without the co-operation of the ruled. We have the power to resist the ideas of elites and to propose other ones. We have the power to resist the flow of capital to elites. And we have the power to refuse to follow the dictates of the coercive arms of the state.

So how can this apply to the war machine? In a way, it is the arms trade. Oppressive regimes would not be able to maintain their Physical Power so easily without the easy flow of tanks and guns. But what is the Achilles Heel of the arms trade itself?

This is exactly the question I posed at the CAAT’s National Gathering in October 2011, provoking a swathe of creative responses. Arms manufacturers exert their Idea Power with their adverts, the way they play to “national interests” and the way they persuade us that the industry is necessary to protect jobs. This links to their Economic Power their constant threat to government to make workers redundant if their special interests arent adhered to.

And of course theres the Physical Power exerted by the companies. Anyone who has ever sought to protest on or near-to a weapons site will be familiar with the way that private security and police are used to protect the interests of the war-profiteers.

But for every aspect of power wielded by arms companies, we, theoretically have more. We can use our Idea Counterpower to rebut their propaganda, reveal their murky practices to the media, subvertise their adverts and occasionally take them to court. We have the Physical Counterpower to blockade their factories and arms fairs and physically stop them from doing their deals. These tactics are the bread-and-butter of the arms trade movement.

But what of Economic Counterpower? Certainly renewed efforts to stem the flow of bright graduates into the companies is a form of Economic Counterpower. Workers are after all a form of capital. Similarly the efforts to remove BAE systems from pension funds is a form of Economic Counterpower.

Workers’ resistance

Perhaps the most powerful form of resistance however would come from the workers themselves. There is precedent in Australia for workers to refuse to build on certain patches of green land. Directly related to the arms trade there is precedent for shipping workers to refuse to deliver arms to Zimbabwe. And of course in the UK there is the famous precedent of the Lucas Plan, when workers put forward a proposal to transform their factory from the production of weapons to more socially useful things.

Of course alongside this we need to maintain our petitions and lobbies and demonstrations and so-on. But policy making isnt some process whereby wise politicians and civil servants choose the most utilitarian option from an objective list. Political decisions of their essence reflect the balance of power in society.

But from the examples above we can see that on every front the arms trade movement has tactics at its disposal which could disarm the worlds most deadly industry. But there are few examples of transformational change happening without hard work over years and decades. History shows us that by keeping chipping away at the pillars that maintain the power of unjust rulers, we can force them to give concessions in order to stop the whole edifice from crumbling to the ground.

Tim Gee is the author of Counterpower: Making Change Happen, New Internationalist, £9.99

In solidarity with democracy protesters: Stop Arming Egypt

Anne-Marie O'Reilly — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:49:32 +0000

One year ago today, the revolution in Egypt began. Since then, those calling for democracy have been put through military trials, tortured and killed. Yet the UK is still arming the regime. Today, before joining the vigil outside the Egyptian Embassy, we delivered our petition of over 7,000 signatures to the Foreign Office, the department responsible for licensing weapons sales to the regime. Our message was clear:

On the anniversary of the beginning of the popular uprising in Egypt, we are calling for an end to the UK’s promotion of arms sales to repressive regimes.

The UK can choose to support democracy and human rights, or it can continue to prop up authoritarian regimes with weapons sales. It cannot do both.

The focus of government policy is clear. Successive UK governments have supported the sale of weaponry to repressive regimes and that policy continues. While this government has made great play of the fact that it cancelled some arms licences to the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, its own data shows that arms sales and promotion barely slowed.

In Egypt, hundreds of protesters have been killed in the uprisings and thousands injured. Assaults in custody have included ‘virginity tests’ for female protesters. No To Military Trials estimates 12,000 people have been referred to military courts since the overthrow of Mubarak. Essam Atta was tortured to death while imprisoned after being sentenced by a military court, just one of a number of torture in custody cases reported. In October, 28 people were killed when armoured personnel carriers were driven at protesters and live ammunition fired. More than 40 died in a violent crackdown on protests in November.

The government was well aware of the ongoing repression and human rights abuse: in November, William Hague condemned “the unacceptable violence” by the Egyptian authorities and called for an end to military trials for civilians. Yet the UK has continued to promote and approve arms sales to the military rulers responsible.

The government’s latest arms export figures show that it licensed the sale of more than £1million of military equipment to Egypt between July and September 2011. In September, the government invited Egypt’s military rulers to the DSEi arms fair in London.

Enclosed are messages from over 7,000 people who say: It’s time to end government support for the arms trade and end support for the DSEi arms fair.

Many thanks to the thousands of people who signed the petition. It’s not over yet – we’ll be taking it to all the key decision-makers throughout 2012, starting with the Business Department in February. If you haven’t already done so, please add your voice.

Taxpayers’ money wasted as DSEi-related trial adjourned till May

Ian Pocock — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:27:00 +0000

Supporters at Westminister Magistrates Court

Anti-arms trade campaigner Chris Cole arrived at Westminister Magistrates Court ahead of time to defend himself against a charge of criminal damage outside the DSEi arms fair. He was accompanied by supporters who held a small demonstration outside the court.

Fellow anti-arms trade activist Kirsten Bayes said:

“It is important to support Chris as he was trying to stop an arms fair that sells weapons to countries with dubious human rights records. Government support for the arms trade is disgusting and yet they support people trying to overthrow repressive regimes: they can’t have it both ways.”

Chris intended to plead not guilty, arguing that he was acting to prevent the unlawful activity that was taking place at the DSEi arms fair, at the ExCel centre in London’s Docklands in September 2011. He had sprayed “DSEi kills” and “Stop the Arms Trade” at the entrance to the arms fair as delegates queued to enter.

The case was scheduled just a few days after the most recent figures for UK arms exports, covering July-September 2011, were issued by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. They reveal that the UK issued licences for arms exports worth £1.3 million to Bahrain and over £1 million to Egypt, although in February 2011 the government had revoked arms export licences to both countries. Bahrain and Egypt were on the official invitation list for DSEi.

However, the trial did not take place. First, it was postponed from 10am to 2pm. Then it transpired that the court had no record of the October case management hearing where it was agreed that Chris could call an expert witness. Chris had intended to call Olly Sprague, UK arms programme director from Amnesty International UK, to tesify on his behalf on the illegal weaponry on sale at DSEi.

The case has now been adjourned until 10 May. Meanwhile, Olly Sprague has 14 days to prepare a statement, and the prosecutor has a further 14 days to reply.

All in all, a waste of time and money. Wouldn’t it be better for the court to drop the case altogether?

For further information, contact Chris Cole at chris(at)figtree·org·uk.