10 November 2002

UK arms-for-agriculture deal as GM debate sham exposed
............................................................................

New Labour's fondness for GM technology is regarded by many as being a
reflection of its enthusiasm for big business
(http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/index.html )
rather than of a proper understanding of the scientific, environmental,
social and moral issues
concerned.

After all the largest donor to the labour party (£9 million at the last
count) is former supermarket tycoon Lord Sainsbury, now a minister at the
Department of Trade and Industry and Britain's third richest man. He also
happens to be a personal investor in agricultural biotechnology as well as
being a major force in the Cabinet biotechnology committee which plays a key
role in determining UK GM policy
(http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/LordSainsbury.htm ).

But how fair is this perception? Given a choice between favouring a handful
of high turnover businesses or thousands of small businesses, who is going
to win out with New Labour (especially when the party is itself heavily in
debt and in serious need of some big cheques as grass root membership
declines http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2357617.stm)?

The brief article below from the Bangkok Post (discovered by the UK's 'Small
and Family Farms Alliance' - http://www.ruralfutures.org/about.htm ;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3982038,00.html) would seem
to indicate whom is being given priority.

In this case it is the arms trade in the form of British Aerospace (one of
country's larger companies, now known as BAE Systems) which it appears is
now being given special assistance to the potential competitive disadvantage
of British farmers.

In essence, the UK government has agreed to promote
sales of Thai agricultural produce in return for British Aerospace arms
sales in Thailand
(Britain is the world's largest arms exporter after the US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/video/_1939250_self3_vi.ram ).

Whilst non-temperate products are unlikely to be a major issue with British
farmers,
some Thai farm products are capable of being produced in the UK and are
already a
significant 'competitive' challenge for British producers in both domestic
and overseas markets
(http://www.quickfrozenfoods.com/news/readnews_test.cfm?article=578 ).

A particular concern is likely to be that whilst British farmers are being
told by the Prime Minister to give up subsidies and compete on the
international stage, the British government will end up promoting Thai
agricultural products that do not comply with all the social, environmental
and animal welfare standards that UK producers are required to meet at home
irrespective of which national or international markets they are supplying
(earlier this year EU inspectors found traces of cancer causing chemicals in
Thai poultry imports
http://www.foodmarketexchange.com/datacenter/news/dc_ns_index_detail.php3?ne
wsid=12713. The majority of Thai poultry production is by large corporate
producers, including multinationals
http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/agap/frg/feedback/war/W6437t/w6437t02.htm ).

That such a situation arises from a desire to give preferential
treatment to British arms sales abroad is an extraordinary
development, especially at a time when thousands of UK farmers are being
forced to leave their industry because they are no longer 'competitive'.

The UK government wants to remove subsidies from British agriculture, but at
the same time appears willing to provide questionable economic assistance to
potential overseas competitors in order to support the British arms industry
- an industry, unlike farming, it shows every sign of wishing to continue to
subsidise
(the British arms industry currently receives about £420 million per annnum
in direct
subsidies from the UK government. Indirect subsidies are estimated at £570
million http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/1programmes-armstrade-reportou
tline.htm).

The Thai-British Aerospace deal indicates that the UK
government's efforts to persuade British farmers to live or die by
'competitive' market forces is based on a double standard.

Ironically, in this context, it was  Labour's independent commission on
'competitiveness' which was supported by former British
Aerospace executive, Lord Simpson
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1329000/1329419.stm ) who,
like Lord Sainsbury, was given his peerage after New Labour's election
victory in 1997.

The latest news from Thailand comes at a time when the Blair government has
been attacked for allowing British companies to supply defence equipment and
weapons to both India and Pakistan, two countries that have been in a
protracted face-off in one of the world's major trouble spots
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/video/_1939250_blair1_vi.ram ).

Most recently Blair used his October meeting with India's Prime Minister at
Chequers to push for a deal on the sale of BAE systems Hawk jets
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2345127.stm ).

Meanwhile Lord Paul of Marylebone, chairman of engineering company Caparo
since 1978, is the most influential Labour peer from India who personally,
and through his company, has donated at least £328,000 to the Party since
1996 (http://www.punch.co.uk/newarticles.html ). Caparo also provided one of
its directors for the Labour government's 'Competitiveness UK Best
Practice Working Party'
(http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo98
0902/text/80902w02.htm).

A subsidiary of Caparo (CMT Dynamics - http://www.cmt-engineering.co.uk/) is
reported to have displayed their military products at a recent arms
exhibition in India at the same time as British government ministers were
visiting the country to promote British trade generally. According to
'Punch' the CMT web site states that it 'leads the way as one of the UK's
primary manufacturers of fully compliant mounting systems to meet naval,
fighting vehicle and aerospace applications'.

Last year the UK government licensed £122 million worth of arms to India,
often for spare parts and related equipment for military aircraft, notably
for the British Aerospace's Hawk aircraft. Caparo is a British Aerospace
approved supplier (http://www.caparo-engineering.co.uk/introduc.htm ).

So what's the relevance of this to GMOs given that the UK government is
launching a national debate where the initial scoping documentation has
already been heavily criticised for bias towards the biotechnology industry?

Well put simply, don't expect the interests of 'little' people - farmers and
consumers - to be at the forefront of government thinking. Not if what the
Bangkok Post reports is anything to go by, that is.

Indeed, the UK government's approach to both the arms industry and the
biotechnology sector
appears to be part of a wider management style that one recent BBC
documentary on the
arms trade referred to as a new form of joined-up-government
intended 'to frustrate legitimate public interest in a matter of immediate
and paramount importance'.
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/video/_1939250_self_vi.ram ).

Or as one anonymous government minister quoted in the Financial Times 8 July
put it
when commenting on the national GM debate being launched by the government:
"They’re calling it a consultation, but don’t be in any doubt, the decision
is already taken.”
(http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/090702a.htm ).

Perhaps we should ask Lord Sainsbury what his role was in influencing that
decision?

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@btinternet.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex

[Footnote: since preparing this piece we see the Observer has also run
reports today on both the arm-for-agriculture item as well as the GM
debate.  The Observer confirms that even the government's own Central Office
of Information (which is charged with managing the debate) has accused the
government of operating a sham.

According to an internal report from one of the government's own advisers
"This inevitably looks like an attempt to curtail the influence of this
'public debate' on the Government's freedom to do what it has always
appeared to want to do, namely to accept commercialisation.".

Observer report on arms-for-agriculture:
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,837136,00.html
Observer report on GM debate sham:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,837288,00.html ]

============================================================
http://search.bangkokpost.co.th/bkkpost/2002/oct2002/bp20021019/news/19oct20
02_news14.html

Bangkok Post on 19th October, 2002
Britain signs arms-for-agriculture accord

By Wassana Nanuam

Britain has signed a counter trade agreement under which it will promote
sales of Thai agricultural produce in return for supplying weapons to the
military.
The deal was signed yesterday by British ambassador Lloyd Smith and Gen
Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, deputy Prime Mminister overseeing security matters.

Under the pact, the British government would seek to increase imports of
local farm produce,
as well as find new markets for Thai goods. In return, the military would
procure arms from BAE Systems Co, formerly
known as British Aerospace. Also present at the signing ceremony
were Defence Minister Gen Thammarak Isarangkura na Ayudhaya and Defence
deputy permanent secretary Gen Uthai Shinawatra.

(For Observer reporting on this see:
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,837136,00.html )
============================================================

Addicted to arms - Tony's secret vice

Independent, 26 April 2002 (based on a documentary shown on BBC 2
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=288959

"....The way in which your taxes are deployed was brought into sharp focus
at this 'fair', where the Defence Exports Sales Organisation (which is part
of the Ministry of Defence) had its stand tightly configured with those of
BAE Systems and the DMA [Defence Manufacturers Association].... The way the
majority of Britons have allowed themselves, thus far, to be press-ganged
into serving under George Bush in his 'war on terrorism' is one example of
our unwillingness to take control of our own destiny. But behind this lies
unquestioning acceptance of our own status as the world's second-biggest
exporter of arms..... when I began to talk to friends about the ethics of
Britain's arms trade, I found that even those who were leftier-than-thou on
all manner of foreign-policy issues became vague and unfocused. Yes, they
acknowledged, we know Britain is a huge arms exporter; yes, they acceded,
we're aware that the biggest single arms manufacturer in the world is
probably a British company, BAE Systems; and, yes, they, like me, also
understood that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, often acts as a sales
representative for them, together with sundry other high-ranking ministers
and their officials. But somehow no one could quite bear to make the
connection between guns and war. It was as if the euphemisms that so
characterise the military arena had begun to inflict collateral damage on
everyone's psyche. So everyone actually believed this was all about
'defence', while 'arms fairs' held on British soil merely featured exciting
rides and state-of-the-art coconut shies. Behind this, meanwhile, lay the
weary acknowledgement, on the part of these well-informed people, that the
whole subject zone of arms manufacture and export is liberally strewn with
anti-comprehension mines, while being submerged in an impenetrable miasma of
secrecy, lies and statistics.... Meanwhile, in the background, the noises
surrounding the £3bn arms deal with South Africa (a deal Tony Blair had
interrupted his Christmas 2000 holiday in Mauritius in order to broker),
continued to rumble on. This farrago, which includes allegations of vast
payments being made to South African political figures and trade unionists
to secure orders of British fighter aircraft, is just another stink wafting
up from the same old open sewer of British arms exports..... There is almost
a text-book character to these mega-deals: they're negotiated on behalf of
now privatised arms manufacturers by officials and ministers of Her
Majesty's Government; they involve large ex gratia payments to middlemen,
agents and the officials of the buyer regime (payments that are still
tax-deductible in Britain); and they mostly then become the subject of
allegations of kickbacks to our side of the fence. The biggest example of
this is the Al Yamamah deal with Saudi Arabia. Originally negotiated under
Margaret Thatcher, this was described (by the Financial Times) as 'the
biggest [UK] sale of anything to anyone by anyone'. The smell surrounding
the deal has been persistent, if not sufficiently noisome to penetrate the
sensitive nostrils of British liberal opinion.... It's alleged that some of
the massive sweeteners paid to Saudi middlemen ended up in the pockets of
Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida..... It is mind-boggling to think of Patricia
Hewitt (Secretary of State at the DTI), having a substantial input into the
control of arms exports, not least because she heads up a ministry whose
principal aim is actually to promote overseas trade... This disturbing lack
of openness is, of course, entirely characteristic of the hypocritical way
the arms trade is conducted, especially where that well-known peacemaker,
Britain, is involved.... So big are the sums involved, so institutionally
enshrined the logrolling practices that ensure sales go ahead – with
ministries, the armed forces and the arms manufacturers themselves mixing
and matching the same personnel – that one can only conclude that there must
be a universal delusion apparatus afflicting the entire population. The
emperor processes through the streets with a huge weapon thrusting out of
his groin, and the people cry, 'Why, look at his delicately inlaid
sceptre!'.... The argument about jobs represents the most naive take on the
economics of capitalist markets imaginable, and for this Government to
endorse it is tantamount to an admission of ignorance. .... Everyone is
aware that the Hawk production line is in the Deputy Prime Minister's
constituency, and that it will shut down unless the Indian order is
forthcoming. And so on. In truth, the fear that these jobs won't be replaced
by others in a dynamic capitalist economy is groundless..... So rooted is
this doublethink about employment in the cadres of the arms exporting party
that to reprogram them was to engage in a piece of behavioural conditioning
worthy of O'Brien, the torturer in Orwell's 1984..... During my researches,
I think I managed to build up something of a rapport with Major General Alan
Sharman, the director-general of the DMA (and formerly the Head of
Procurement for the British Army)..... I forced Sharman to acknowledge that
the central tenet of the economic argument was fallacious. This we caught on
tape, as we also caught Sharman denying that arms exports were subsidised
appreciably more than any other products or services...... However, not only
are arms exports heavily subsidised by the Government ..... but a report
commissioned by the MoD itself (then sidelined as a University of York
Research paper) proposes the hypothesis of a 50 per cent reduction in arms
exports over two years, and comes up with these conclusions. There would be
a one-off adjustment cost of between £2.1bn and £2.5bn (bear in mind that
annual defence export sales are currently £6bn); there would be a loss of
about 49,000 jobs, but this would be offset by the creation over the
following five years of 67,000 jobs (albeit at marginally lower wages);
there would be an ongoing structural cost to the MoD (due to higher
procurement costs) of between £40m and £100m; in other words, between 0.2
and 0.4 per cent of the 2000 defence budget..... For the making of this [BBC
TV documentary] programme we approached the four concerned ministries and
the Prime Minister's office. After many phone calls we got the brush-off
from them all. The DTI belatedly offered us Lord Sainsbury, an unelected
junior minister, but when we were unable to confirm our 30-minute
appointment within 24 hours, it was withdrawn.... Sir Dick Evans, [is] the
chairman of BAE Systems. It's Evans, with his abrasive style and no-nonsense
salesmanship, who is widely credited with bringing Our Tone on to the export
team. Dick got Blair to write a piece for the BAE Systems newsletter in the
run-up to the 1997 election saying: 'Winning exports is vital to the
long-term success of Britain's defence industry.' He also pledged New
Labour's support for the industry. Evans is said to enjoy the PM's ear
whenever he wants it. Ultimately, as the Tanzanian imbroglio reveals, it's
the Prime Minister who decides on arms exports. Yes, it's the quondam
Christian Socialist and sometime strummer of the Fender Strat who tools up
those masters of war.... And this is the ugly rumour that Britain's habit of
exporting large quantities of arms might be just that – an addiction – and
that further, the symptoms the British political class exhibit – denial,
grandiosity, secrecy – are those you would associate with a drug addict
protecting his supply of heroin."

(BBC documentary at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/1939250.stm
Full programme transcript at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/correspondent
/transcripts/1939250.txt)
=============================================================
The "Academic-Industrial-Military Complex" Engineering Life & Mind
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/EngineeringLifeAndMind.php