The Government's Green Paper on Defence Diversification was published in early March and they are seeking responses, to be received by 8 May. This briefing identifies the main thrust of the gorvernment's proposals and suggests areas which Friends may wish to raise with the Government and/or with their own MPs.
Presenting the document "Defence Diversification: Getting the most out of defence technology", George Robertson (Secretary of State for Defence) said: "Spreading the technological processes and skills developed for defence into new markets can strengthen the industrial base of this country and contribute to improving Britain's economic performance. This will be good for Britain's defence and good for Britain's defence industry. ... We are not in the business of running down defence production facilities and converting them to civilian use." The paper envisages a Defence Diversification Agency (DDA), based within the MOD's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). It would have a threefold approach.
1) Provision of information (on a confidential basis) to civil oriented companies on defence technology so that this can be more widely exploited.
2) Provision of information about future military equipment "needs", technological trends and advice and assistance on "relative market assessments", so that industry would "be able to exploit potential new opportunities for their products and technologies in the UK and overseas military and civil markets."
3) Provision of information to civil industry to encourage the transfer of civil technology into military programmes (referred to as "spin-ins" as opposed to "spin offs".) The Green paper acknowledges that the proposals are an extension of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence and that "a wider remit for defence diversification per se would not be compatible with the MOD's responsibilities for the defence of the realm [sic] and would involve the department in a role in which it has no expertise or experience - unlike the other government Departments and agencies with a current role in industrial and regional regeneration."
The Glasgow-based Arms Conversion Project produced some detailed proposals for a DDA prior to the general election. And whilst there are some aspects of these proposals in common with the Green Paper, the ACP envisaged that the DDA "would be established by the MoD on a trans-departmental basis with the Department of Trade and Industry ... [and] would work with a number of government departments including the Department for the Environment and the the Department of Employment and Education and Employment Services." In so doing it places greater emphasis on the wider issues which the Green Paper specifically excludes. It states that "the DDA will need to consider not only future technologies and products but also how the UK can improve the whole wealth creation process from science and invention to successful sale and well satisfied customers."
In its 1996 report 'Killing Jobs' Campaign Against Arms Trade estimated that the total UK government subsidy for arms exports was in excess of £1 billion per year - a subsidy of around £12,500 per job. "What is needed is an industrial policy to aid structural adjustment, reallocate resources, retrain skilled workers, and re-orientate science and technology away from the military." It goes on to state: "A national conversion strategy could ... provide benefits, not just in terms of employment and an improvement in the balance of trade. It could also provide other benefits to the economy, such as improved environmental standards and better transport provision."
Our hope is that the resources currently committed to military-related research would be allocated to helping industry move from military to non-military production. That is to say, conversion rather than diversification, but a positive alternative to just shutting down defence industry regardless of the consequences for jobs and the economy. As an ideal then, we would like to see the words "the most" taken out of the Green Paper's title. The government could benefit from being reminded of our moral objection to the arms industry.
There is an opportunity to respond to the Green paper, and responses are to be received no later than the 8 May. (see address below) You might also wish to take this opportunity to contact your MP or to raise the issue with other bodies or group with which you are involved and might wish to make their views known. The green paper is available from HMSO at the cost of £3.85. (Also available on the internet at: http://www.mod.uk/green_pa.htm.)
Some points you may wish to take up.
1) The Green paper presents figures which they interpret as suggesting "that the UK defence industry may [our emphasis] already have absorbed most of the impact of the 'peace dividend' following the end of the Cold War." From this they conclude that the arms industry is unlikely to face any further significant decline. But this is rather vague, and would seem insufficient evidence on which to base a policy. The wider remit of diversification (which the MOD fully acknowledges its own lack of expertise in dealing with) seems absolutely crucial to be developing at such a stage of uncertainty, addressing issues of employment, retraining and genuine sustainability. Closer and more extensive involvement of other government departments would put the proposals onto a footing more likely to meet the needs of a wider range of interested parties.
2) The defence industrial base is strong because of the high level of government support which it has received over the years, both at the level of Research and Development but also through promoting exports and guaranteeing a market. If it needs so much support we might conclude that it is not sustainable on its own, and certainly not really that strong.
3) The promotion of a vigorous arms trade which the government envisages runs counter to the spirit of an ethical Foreign Policy. A strategy of encouraging the transfer of civil technology to military production only serves to reinforce this trend towards promoting rearmamanet around the world.
4) Regional regeneration is obviously necessary in many parts of our country, but it would seem more farsighted to have assistance offered in a balanced way to all industry and overseen by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office for Science and Technology rather than stemming from the interests of the military. The EU KONVER programme is a good model for addressing these broader issues in a constructive way, but this again operates through the DTI rather than the MOD.
5) If the UK were to commit resources, skills and expertise into researching and promoting technologies which are genuinely beneficial to life on this planet it would be leaving a legacy of which we might all be proud. For true security in the 21st century we are going to need to find ways of living in a way which is environmentally and economically sustainable. Can the government embrace this opportunity? __________________________________________________________________________________ This briefing produced by Northern Friends Peace Board, Victoria Hall, Knowsley Street, Bolton BL1 2AS Tel: 01204 382330
email: 
nfpb@gn.apc.org April 1998
