Skip to content or view screen version

Ex-Defence Chiefs paid by arms industry

R.A.McCartney | 25.11.2007 20:18 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Other Press

Corporate news media ignore fraud and corruption on UK arms contracts, and back call for even higher military spending.

Greedy arms manufacturers have been campaigning to be given even more taxpayer's money. They received a big boost this week when six former Chiefs of the Defence Staff attacked the government for not spending enough on the military. The media reported their claims without mentioning that four of them are on the arms industry payroll. That would seem to give them a personal financial interest in higher military spending. Of course corporate news organisations didn't mention this, because that might have undermined their credibility.

Misleading statistics were used to bolster the claim that Britain's defence forces are underfunded. Viewers were told that the UK spends a lower proportion of its GDP on defence than either Bulgaria or Greece; they were not told that it spends more than either Germany or Japan. Bulgaria and Greece are poor countries. Germany and Japan's economies are much closer in size to that of the UK. Therefore the latter comparison is the more valid one.

Its disgusting that the corporate media refuse to mention fraud on UK government arms contracts, while demanding even higher military spending. I've posted some of the evidence about fraud on Indymedia (see  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/382700.html). Everyone I've talked to has found this quite convincing, yet I can't even get it mentioned on phone-in programs! I was selected as a potential contributor to BBC Radio 4's Any Questions program when I phoned in this week. However, despite being told that I would be next, they ended the discussion on military spending before I was allowed to speak. They broadcast three long diatribes demanding higher military spending, but not one single opposing call.

On Friday Channel 4 News had the nerve to broadcast an interview Lord Gilbert about military spending. In my view he should be charged with aiding and abetting fraud for his written Parliamentary answer to Dafydd Wigley dated 23 June 1997 (D/Min(DP)/JWG/MP/2046/97/M). Gilbert deliberately gave the false impression that the cost of developing BATES had not increased since 1985, and that the 1985 contract price was £187 million. In fact the 1985 price was £100 million. The price of £187 million was secretly agreed in 1988. He claimed the increase beyond this was due to inflation, although of course MCCS were contractually bound to pay for some other company to complete the work, and there was therefore absolutely no excuse for giving them even more taxpayers' money. He said the final price was £300m, but this was in addition to other items, the value of which he did not reveal.

On Wednesday this week (21st November) former French President Chirac was placed under formal investigation for corruption. One often hears British politicians and media commentators saying that “there's remarkably little corruption in this country”. They sneer at countries like France for being corrupt. But the fact that senior politicians can be tried for corruption in other European countries does not mean that they are more corrupt than Britain. Quite the contrary. On Tuesday 20th November the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International (UK) held its AGM. The Chairman said that there was a growing feeling in international institutions that the reason why there were no corruptions cases in the UK was not because there was no corruption, but because the system is so corrupt that its impossible to prosecute anyone for corruption. He also told us the government had torpedoed the new corruption law TI(UK) had been promoting, This was designed to bring Britain's corruption laws up to international standards. He said that TI was losing faith in the government's promises that it was serious about tackling corruption. None of this was reported in the corporate media.

Ends

The following information, about paid positions held by the four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, is easily turned up by a Google search.

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank
Non-executive Director, Sciens Capital
“Sciens Capital Management has made investments in companies in defense and security”

Lord Boyce
Non-executive Director, VT Group plc
“VT Group plc is a leading defence and civil contractor focusing on technical and other related support services, shipbuilding and marine products”

Lord Inge
Adviser, ICX Technologies
“ICx Technologies develops advanced technologies for effective security solutions for homeland and military security”

General Sir Mike Jackson
Chair of PA Consulting's Defence Advisory Board

R.A.McCartney

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

Change the heading; say arms trade employs the ex-army chiefs

26.11.2007 08:48

Change the heading; say arms trade employs the ex-army chiefs

siteseer


Clarification

26.11.2007 13:55

Sorry but your comparison between military spending in Germany and especially Japan is misleading.

The spending will be determined by the role taken by the military.

As Germany are not engaged in any major combat ops (i.e. Helmand) the costs and therefore spending are reduced.

The Japanese comparison is in no way relevant as their military is self classified as a defence force, the avoid engagment in all types of aggressive action.

Daisy


Reply to comment by “Daisy”

27.11.2007 16:46

My comparison is not misleading. Britain, Germany and Japan are major developed economies. They are (respectively) the fifth, third and second largest economies in the world. Bulgaria and Greece have s mall economies. Comparing Britain's military spending with theirs as a percentage of GDP is deliberately misleading.

Japan's armed forces are called “Self-Defence Forces”. However, Britain's war ministry is called the Ministry of Defence, and the money the UK spends on war is called Defence spending. Britain is not (officially) taking part in an “aggressive action” in Afghanistan; our ally was attacked and we are merely responding. Playing with words alters nothing.

Whether or not the troops are fighting makes very little difference to the cost of the armed forces. Wages, marred quarters, equipment etc all cost the same. If you disagree, please itemise the extra costs as a percentage of UK GDP, giving clear explanations of why they are necessary.

R.A.McCartney


A list of costs

12.12.2007 17:01

While they are indeed industrialized nations, their military is not set up the same (Japan) and/or are not engaged in the same actions or to the same extent.

With regards to Japan, it is not simply playing with words. After WW2 their constitution was written making it impossible for their military to engage in offensive action.

“Whether or not the troops are fighting makes very little difference to the cost of the armed forces” is a rediculous statement and here is a list of some of the additional costs incurred in mobilising your armed forces.

Pay and allowances of Service personnel who are deployed (they get a rise in their salary when they are deployed for the duration of their deployment)

Salaries of mobilised reservists.

Transport costs. All that petrol, deisel and aviation fuel cost money.

Costs of equipment consumed (ie. repairing and replacing equipment) – eg
ammunition; fuel; clothing; cruise missiles and other missiles; UAVs
(Phoenix); Sea King helicopter capability. For example, replacement for
Paveway, Maverick and CRV7 rockets totalled £40 million (all air launched
munitions).

Bear in mind that these costs are currently being incurred in 2 highly active theatres.

Daisy