Click ont the address link, then lok under country.
Many countries are listed, other less desirables aren't.
Turkey, Colombia, Algeria, Angola, India (but not Pakistan), QATAR... Roll up you lucky invitees.

Oh and why not register (subject to getting Top Secret security clearance!)

Wearing padding and organise in advance. If you protect your body you have less to fear from their batons. If enough demonstrators are padded and up for it, they will not be able to hold us in their kettles. You do not have to be a Womble to wear protection - it is a sensible precaution to take if you think that the State may unleash its forces of violence on you. For information on how to make padding, see the Wombles website.

Check: www.disarm-trade.org and www.caat.org.uk

Good background info from CAAT

Making a Killing

DSEi 2001: Putting aside differences for a week of retail therapy

DSEi is on its way to London’s Docklands with its entourage of military dictators and global arms dealers, lubricious salesmen and the Labour cronies who love this awful industry. DSEi is where arms deals are born. It is a brazen show of contempt for those who value peace and justice and a self-congratulatory orgy for arms dealers and warmongers. There are more than enough reasons to be outraged at DSEi, but among the most sickening is the fact that it helps fuel war by promoting arms sales to rival countries. Many of the delegations in 1999 were from countries engaged in open hostilities, on the verge of conflict or in regions of extreme tension. There is no reason to expect any change in the invite lists for 2001.

Of course, this policy goes beyond DSEi, but the arms fair is one of the hi-tech, luxury sleaze pits where these deals are forged. There are plenty of examples of this cynical tactic in practice:


"... arms companies within the UK are thriving upon deliberately supplying opposing warring states"
In August 1997, an Observer investigation uncovered an arms deal between British company Alvis and the Lebanese internal security forces. The deal, which took place in 1994, involved the exchange of 3,500 self-loading 7.62mm rifles for £300,000. The rifles had been sold to Alvis by the Ministry of Defence as surplus and for a bargain price of £195,000.
At first this may appear to be just another unscrupulous arms deal between a private company and a foreign government. But there were more sinister implications. Initially the British Government had agreed to set up an aid programme to help stabilise conditions in Syrian-run Lebanon. The package consisted of 60 Land Rovers. The Lebanese declined the vehicles, choosing instead to buy the rifles. The Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) is the department within the MoD, which is responsible for promoting UK arms sales. When the Lebanese showed interest in buying the rifles, DESO, in an internal memo, suggested sweetening the deal with “some sort of financial concession”. 500 weapons were given over free of charge. The concession helped to pave the way for further arms trading between the two countries – like an inter-governmental form of the supermarket loyalty card.

During these negotiations, Israel – who at the time were occupying large parts of Lebanon – were also buying weaponry from UK firms. In 1996 Lord Chesham said: “Israel and the UK have a range of defence contracts appropriate to the relationship between two friendly countries.” Clearly this friendship is entrenched enough to allow for the sale of weapons to their enemies. UK companies were effectively arming both sides of a very volatile situation. The Middle East is not the only place where this double-dealing has taken place. Recent years have seen a dangerous deterioration in the relationship between India and Pakistan, resulting in open warfare over Kashmir and a terrifying nuclear arms race.

First let’s look at India: Between May 1997 (the first export licence Annual Report) and the most recently published figures (for 1999) there have been 1,656 Standard Individual Export Licenses (SIELs) and 160 Open Licenses (OIELs) granted to India. In 1997 the value of deliveries of weapons according to Customs and Excise tariff records (which do not cover all transfers) – all in the small arms and other weapons category – was £3.5million and included 1,169 items. In 1998 the value increased to £6.11million. In 1999 it was £8.32million. The spread of licenses follows this trend also. In 1997 it was 329 SIELs, but by 1999 it had leapt to 694; valued at £57.5million by the government. Worryingly the increasing trend is also towards granting Open Licenses, which are less accountable. Remember these are just the licensed deals and do not include government to government transfers. In 1998 for example the Indian Air Force took delivery of 24 Streak Shadow microlight aircraft from CFM Aircraft of the UK in a deal worth £500,000.

Meanwhile Pakistan has had similarly vigorous sales attention, despite a brief embargo over the small matter of a military coup (the military dictatorship is now a legitimate customer again – they must be nice dictators). In the period from May 1997 to (and including) 1999, the number of SIELs granted was 256 and of OIELs was 77. The value of deliveries according to Customs and Excise was

£8.41million (again this figure omits many transfers). The value of licences granted in 1999 was estimated at £1.5million. Despite the embargo the trend here has also been towards increasing licences, increasing transfers and more open licenses.

As tensions in Kashmir increase and India and Pakistan’s militarism and the hostilities between them rise, the UK, disgracefully, has stepped up arms sales to both sides.

In a letter to Edward Garnier MP (10th August 1999) foreign minister Peter Hain wrote that the exporting of armaments to India “would be considered strictly against the national criteria and EU Code of Conduct,” due to the hostilities with Pakistan at that time. And yet Vickers Defence Systems were granted export licences to sell India tank spares valued at £45,000. In another letter to Mr Garnier, Hain wrote: “While there is a theoretical risk that India might use tanks offensively in the future, the Criteria make clear that this is not sufficient grounds to refuse an application.” Unsurprisingly, the tanks were duly lined up along the border with Pakistan.

In public, the foreign office has called for calm and peaceful negotiation. In reality the DTI are licensing exports to both countries that are producing the opposite effect.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo one of Africa’s bloodiest civil war continues to rage. Many neighbouring countries are embroiled in the fighting. In April 2000, it was reported that the UK was involved in the training of Zimbabwean soldiers who made up two-thirds of the Congo’s military force. At the same time, the UK was selling weapons and military hardware to Uganda, Angola, Rwanda and Burundi – all of whom were involved in the fighting. The International Institute for Security Studies expressed it in no uncertain terms: “Britain is inflaming the situation by arming both sides.” We were in fact arming all sides.

In each of these arenas, as soon as fighting broke out, the UN imposed arms embargoes. However, as is usually the case, these counted for little as most of the arms procurement had taken place in the years leading up to the hostilities. The UK had already sold the arms – now they were going to be used. There are plenty more examples, not least arming both China and Taiwan or Greece and Turkey. These immoral sales strategies go well beyond the recklessness of the companies involved and ineptitude of government. They suggest instead that arms companies within the UK are thriving upon deliberately supplying opposing warring states. Not only are they allowed to do this, but, as events like DSEi show, the UK government is actively involved in promoting the opportunity to do it. The government routinely secures arms contracts with both sides of a confrontation through subsidies, promotions, arms exhibitions and ministerial visits. The list below shows which of the warring states mentioned above were invited to DSEi 1999 by the UK government. We await the list of invitees to DSEi 2001, but there is no doubt that all these countries and more will be welcomed. Never has profit cost so many lives. Simon Kearns and Robin Oakley

Defence Systems & Equipment International (DSEi)
EXCEL Exhibition Centre, London
11th-14th September 2001

is that robin oakley from the beeb? great to see him passing comnment on something more relevant than the westminster charade...

what is 'more effective action' when you are attacked by the police. We have to recognise, particularly in the light of Genoa and Gothenburg that the state is going to come down harder and harder on anti-capitalist demo's and actions. Yes we need to be imaginative etc but we also need to be ready and organised to defend ourselves from police attack, which they will do no matter how non-violent your intentions maybe e.g. pink/silver in Genoa.