Surely arms exports are a useful tool of foreign policy — we can have some control over other nations if they rely on us for weaponry and spare parts. Doesn that make £760m well spent?
A relatively recent example again shows that the reality is a little different. The UK has been one of the most outspoken critics of Robert Mugabe’s government in Zimbabwe. Criticism has focused on Zimbabwe’s involvement in the awful war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and also the almost casual abuses of human rights in Zimbabwe itself. When Zimbabwe wanted to buy spare parts for its Hawk aircraft — which have been used in the DRC conflict — it seemed a perfect opportunity to show our displeasure and to use this foreign policy ‘tool’ by refusing to export the spares. However, in the teeth of opposition from human rights campaigners and even some members of the Cabinet, the licences were granted in order to protect the reputation of the arms companies as reliable suppliers. In other words rather than being a foreign policy ‘tool’, arms exports are given such priority that other policy objectives, such as the infamous ‘ethical’ foreign policy, come a distant second.
Related Questions
- Surely arms exports are a useful tool of foreign policy -- we can have some control over other nations if they rely on us for weaponry and spare parts. Doesn that make £760m well spent?
- What does the Directive-Type Memorandum 09-019, "Policy Guidance for Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI)" mean for Industry?
- What is foreign policy control?
