Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Do we have self-licking ice-cream in Britain?
Hats off to the Economist which features a piece by the author of a new book on the International Arms Trade.
Andrew Feinstein comments:
In 2010 84% of retiring generals in the Pentagon went into employment with the big defence contractors. Lawmakers seldom vote against any of these gargantuan projects. They get a lot of campaign contributions from the large defence contractors, and the contractors ensure that there are jobs on these contracts in every single congressional district, even if it’s just a couple of people sitting around a table surfing the internet.
This means that anyone who votes against these projects is accused by the lobby of voting against jobs in their own constituency.
A Pentagon whistleblower I interviewed, Chuck Spinney, describes the system as a self-licking ice cream.Feinstein in the Economist’s online More Intelligent Life ‘Quick Study’ feature.
Odd questions that come to my mind. What is the situation in the UK? Do we have self-licking ice-cream relationships with former military and civil service personnel taking up roles with the arms industry after retirement? (1)
Should MPs with significant defence establishments in their constituencies be banned from sitting on defence committees?
And should LibDems be using our presence in government to prise out more information about all this so public debates are better informed? If this is not happening, why not?
Feinstein says:
This is a matter of political will. The imperatives of national security and commercial confidentiality legitimately conceal some aspects of these deals, but they’re also used to hide the malfeasance that takes place. There needs to be greater transparency, particularly around the use of middlemen.Feinstein was a South African MP who resigned in protest over failures to investigate a $5 billion arms deal and now heads Corruption Watch in London.
Secondly, we need far stronger regulation of an industry that quite literally counts its costs in human lives and is highly under-regulated. There are negotiations in the UN at the moment for an international arms-trade treaty, but it will have to be tough with meaningful enforcement methods.
I would also suggest that no weapons manufacturer should be allowed to make any political contributions.
See Quick Study, a new series on The Economist's Prospero blog that offers a crash course in a particular subject, delivered by an expert in the field, with some suggestions for further reading and for more useful links.
(1) is a rhetorical question really…see Lewis Pages book 'Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs' for some thoughts...
Feinstein, A (2011) “The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade”. Hamish Hamilton.
Labels: arms trade, corruption, defence procurement
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Helicopters, heat and Afghanistan
Some good references on all this on a blog called 'Defence of the Realm' which I've just found.
We reported in detail on the unhappy experiences of the Lynx in April 2007, when we had discovered that, not only were the baseline costs per hour of operating Lynx Mk7s a staggering £23,000 but, because of its inherent fragility, additional costs were being incurred. These were, "as a result of the operational use and particular climatic conditions experienced in theatre." We wrote at that time:These costs cover additional wear and tear, additional spares and additional equipment and are paid for by the Conflict Prevention Fund. A total of £11 million has been claimed against the fund in financial year 2006-07 for additional operating and capital costs for Lynx Mk7s operating in Iraq, of which six are believed to be in service.
At that time, we also discovered that, in order to deal with the "hot and high" conditions for its deployments in Belize and Brunei, the Army had leased Bell 412s, aircraft based on the Vietnam-era Huey. The type had been selected specifically because its "unique abilities include flying in hot and often humid conditions whilst also being able to carry considerable loads." That includes the ability to lift up to 13 troops.
However the blog also analyses the claim that the recent casualties are the result of inadequate suppy of helicopters and challenges the argument being put forwards by opposition MPs. Not necessarily so....
The Conservatives' line is to accuse Brown of attempting to cover up the fact that British troops do not have enough helicopters, which has forced them to travel by road and left them vulnerable to the Taleban's IEDs. Twelve of the 15 British soldiers killed in Afghanistan this month, and three-quarters of those killed over the past two years, were killed by IEDs.
Far be it for us to disagree with the premise that more helicopters are needed in theatre, but Dr Fox is on somewhat shaky ground if he is asserting – as he appears to be doing – that the bulk of the recent deaths arose from the lack of helicopters.
And they go on to make a detailed argument challenging this, accusing the Tories of grandstanding and hot air production in their own right.
I trust our MPs such as Lynne Featherstone are being kept informed of this line of analysis.
The Lynx by the way is built at Westlands, which is in a LibDem held constituency.
Anyone got a line on who is running the 'Defence of the Realm' blog by the way?
Labels: Afghanistan, defence policy, defence procurement, helicopters
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Hooray - But Trident costs only start of urgent debate that we need
I support the slightly qualified pleasure Lindy blogs to this news. Yes we MUST have a full debate at the next Federal Conference. Our present voted-on policy is not a fudge, it is an acid drop.
‘Trident’ (the missile system) is only a minor part of the problem we face and we need to look at these wider issues if we as a party are to regain full coherence on this issue. Pushing Trident as the issue is in a way a smokescreen hiding the real problems.
On the question of costs we must demand a proper financial statement of the overall ‘nuclear weapons’ policy. The Armed Forces insist that huge chunks of the current Nuclear Weapons costs never appear in the Defence Estimates, but are scattered over several other budgets. Claims that this extra expenditure amounts to several thousand million pounds over the last decade need to be investigated. If substantiated, the sums should be publicly admitted and placed before the public as evidence in debates on the cost of the deterrent. As costs which might be cut if certain decisions are made. Just scrapping the Trident missile will not bring is real savings, if hard choice cost savings are the driving impulse for a review.
Back in July 2008 some of our MPs signed an open letter on nuclear warhead replacement. I have blogged at boring length on all this over the years, but to summarise many of my comments from my posting on that initiative:
We should for example:
1 Look at the way the debates on this are put into ‘defining frames’ that shut out important questions and make sure we bring in some neglected frames and themes. Please, no more tribal ‘unilateralist or not’ hot-button posturing.
2 Insist that the whole question of expenditures on AWRE Aldermaston is put in the public domain, at least to equal the public accountability enforced on equivalent establishments in the USA.
3 Insist on a complete review of the way all our weapons procurement policies are managed especially on whether purchasing decision are made to subsidise industries rather than to meet vital defence needs.
4 Make clear the connections between the procurement mess and the corruption allegations about the dealings of BAe and certain foreign customers.
5 Examine the evolution of new non-nuclear high-destruction weapons that may make nuclear devices an expensive obsolescence in the next couple of decades.
6 Above all, insist on a clear strategy for armed forces evolution and for equipping our forces actually to do the jobs we say they must.
Nick Harvey’s February 2007 blog from before the last Federal Conference debate has some points on the issue that I raised, but were not as far as I can see answered. Also some points on a Nick Harvey led discussion in LibDem Voice (February 26th 2007). Looking back at these official party positions now makes it clearer than ever that we need a full debate at upcoming Federal Conference 2009
(Just to remind ourselves that the Non-Proliferation Treaty comes up for re-negotiation in 2010. Almost certainly now an election year in the UK. So nuclear stances could be live political themes for once…)
I put this forwards as a policy line in the February 2007 discussions:
If we are to go into NPT negotiations in good faith and with the intention of actually getting results, we need to be able to show the world:
1 What the UK nuclear weapons system actually means in terms of financial costs and defence opportunity costs.
2 Give an awful warning to other states – ‘if you go down the nuclear road this is the kind of burden you will take up’.
3 Show other states that we know that disarmament measures would mean for us, have thought them through, and are politically capable of taking on the vested interests in the status quo (industrial and military and Freudian) should international agreements require us to do so.
This party has rightly taken a strong line on Civil Nuclear Power issues, and in particular on the disgraceful attempts of the current Government to ‘fake’ consultation processes. We need to take an equally strong line on the current attempt to ‘fake’ a debate on the nuclear future of the UK.
Now that Nick Clegg has shifted his position, we need to move urgently to tackle these themes. Yes we should have done this a few years ago… but better late than never
Just so I can keep track of previous posts, some links:
The Nuclear Weapons dance goes on (July 2008)
Nukes: Chris has it (nearly) magnificently right (Nov 2007) (this has a slightly polemic content now outdated but some core stuff I hold to)
Like it or not, defence policy must be debated again (Oct 2007)
Astute: the ongoing nuclear navy issue (and the BAe row) (June 2007)
Getting at the real costs of so-called Trident (February 2007)
Is ‘Trident’ a deliberate diversion from the real nuclear debate? (January 2007)
Trident, new weapons, and intelligence (December 2006)
Vanguard: the complexity or framing debate on ‘Trident’ (December 2006)
Nuclear independence and realities (December 2006)
Labels: defence policy, defence procurement, defence strategy, Nick Clegg, non-prolifertaion treaty, nuclear weapons, Trident, vanguard
Friday, May 08, 2009
Defending the UK or spreading job subsidies?
Just to be a bit contrary though, should the priority really be on spending that generates civilian jobs? The point of a military, if we have one, is to deploy people in dangerous situations with the best equipment we can find for the jobs we give them. So defence procurement should be aligned to getting the best equipment at an affordable cost. The decision on whether the Navy should have new aircraft carriers should be taken on the basis of the military deployments envisaged within a military defence plan, and not whether it reduces unemployment in (say) Fife.
Is the purpose of military procurement to get efficient armed forces with modern equipment that can be deployed now and the immediate future; or is it to provide massively subsidised civilian jobs in a select range of industries in key parliamentary seats?
As an example, the current mess we are in over Chinook helicopters is directly attributable to UK insistence on buying customised versions to generated UK civilian jobs, a policy that led to the cost per aircraft being far higher than necessary, with the UK being able to afford fewer than it needs and with a number of these aircraft actually being unusable where at present needed most – in Afghanistan for example.
And remember the BAe bribery story we were so hot on a few months back? Centred on the Tornado fighters that have cost the UK hundreds of millions in excess costs over the years, an aircraft commissioned basically to prop up UK jobs despite being inferior to kit otherwise available .
Maybe – a subversive thought - MPs with substantial defence establishments in their constituencies should be barred from sitting on defence committees? An uncomfortable suggestion I am sure for many of our leading Parliamentary lights.
Labels: defence policy, defence procurement, jobs
thanks for your comment on my blog.
I am not sure what you mean by imprint & address. I'd be happy to do it if you enlighten me.
sorry to do this through a comment on your blog - you can email me @ eli_kling@hotmail.com
