I wrote this when Blair was of swanning aroundin South Asia doing his peacemaker bit. However the fact that Britain is so heavily supporting human rights abuses and the escalation of the conflict in the region is still something which passes with too little comment, not only in the corporate media, but also among British activists... well thats what I think anyway (and what do I know?)

BLAIR THE PEACEMAKER

Again India and Pakistan face-off over the disputed region of Kashmir with the terrifying prospect of nuclear war a very real prospect. But we needn’t worry, Tory Blair has gone to the region to shake a few hands, have his photo taken and make another of his “I am the New (Labour) Messiah follow me to the Promised Land”-type speeches. This trip was plastered all over the front pages of the papers for a day or two, but Britain’s other, and far less positive, contribution has gone unmentioned in the corporate media.

This contribution? Since January 1999, we have licensed the sale of £122m and £18m of arms to India and Pakistan respectively.

Following the coup which brought General Musharraff to power in Pakistan, in October 1999, the government suspended arms sales to the country. However by June 2000, not even a year later and well before any announcements about democratic elections, this ban had already been “partially lifted”. According to a BBC report, this meant that, “Non-contentious exports such as naval equipment - including planes and helicopters - will be allowed. But the UK will not sell small arms or ammunition to Pakistan for fear of them being used in Kashmir”. What exactly is stopping them from using these “Non-contentious exports” in the area is not fully explained, nor even mentioned. The export of other military equipment to the country will be, we are reassured, reviewed on a “case-by-case” basis.

Blair’s government went even further to help our arms-manufacturers sell their merchandise in India, targeting the country as “a defence export market” – describing it as “one of the UK’s best kept secrets”. On learning of this in November 2000, Rachel Harford of Campaign Against the Arms Trade was appalled “that at a time when India is under embargo by the US, the UK is not only failing to implement an embargo but is actually seeking to sell more weapons.” The embargo she refered to was put in place on both India and Pakistan after they tested nuclear weapons and apparently all but ignored by the British government.

She continued, “The international community is on constant red alert as the border dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir constantly threatens to erupt into full scale war. The UK government maintains that it is deeply concerned about the situation. Such sentiments are hypocritical. When will this Government start to match its rhetoric with actions and when will it wake up to the fact that by allowing UK companies to arm the countries involved in hot spots like Kashmir, it is guilty of fuelling the very conflicts and repression it condemns. ‘Opportunity India’ serves to further expose the real relationship between this government and arms companies and the shocking influence that arms companies wield over this government.”

The likely effect of this trade on the Kashmir conflict is clear, but there are many wider effects. Aaj Kay Naam (In the Name of Today), a London-based group campaigning for social justice, peace and human rights in Pakistan described the resumption of arms exports to the country and its military leadership as “a grievous blow to peace, human rights and prodemocracy movements in Pakistan and South Asia” and alleged that it would “play in the hand of a military dictator in the way of defacto recognition of his illegal and increasingly Talibanised regime.” It should also be remembered that until recently links between the Pakistani Government and their Taliban neighbors were far from hostile and the risk of British weapons getting into their hands, or even those of their Saudi guest, was surely a considerable one.

In contrast with its neighbour, India is a democratic country, but nonetheless its human rights record is far from impeccable, particularly in Indian occupied Kashmir. A US Department of State report in 1995 found India responsible for torture, kidnapping, extrajudicial killing, rape and use of excessive force against the population of the region., The report also noted that Indian paramilitary forces have committed significant human rights abuses, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. This is supported by the findings of Amnesty International who criticised Indian soldiers in the region for using torture and for carrying out other human rights abuses.

Both countries are blighted by poverty and could surely spend money on something more useful than weaponry. But clearly development along with human rights, democracy, peace, social justice and the threat of global terrorism are all far less important than making sure our arms manufacturers make a quick buck. So much for an “Ethical Foreign Policy”.

Link to website of Campaign Against the Arms Trade: