Warwick Solidarity Sit-in

January 22, 2009

Since 12.30 yesterday the lecture theatre SO.21 has been reclaimed for discussion, talks, films and expressing solidarity with the victims of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the light of the recent violence in Gaza. The students occupying are approaching the issue from a pro-peace direction and are demanding that the university stop its support for arms companies who profit out of this conflict. Therefore Weapons out of Warwick would like to express its solidarity with the action of these brave students and are going to provide support in what ways they can. Please see the website for the sit-in at www.warwicksolidaritysitin.wordpress.com


Unethical Careers Service

January 20, 2009

By Barnaby Pace

First Published Warwick Boar 20/1/09

There is a group in the world that facilitates murder, evades the legal system, spies on its enemies and is implicated in war crimes, terrorism and genocide, and no I am not talking about the Bush administration right now. I am in fact referring to the global arms industry. It is alone in its reckless pursuit of profit through selling products designed to kill to whoever they can. Arms dealers can take many forms, from the seedy gun runners who transport weapons violating UN embargoes to Liberia, Somalia or North Korea, but more often those in the arms trade appear more like the average businessman or worker. However these two extremes of appearance cannot be separated, it is the big companies of this world that produce the weapons that end up all over the world, you cannot talk about Victor Bout (portrayed in the film Lord of War) without talking about companies such as BAE Systems or Lockheed Martin who make the weaponry in the first place.

In a capitalist based world the arms trade’s primary motive is profit, through selling weapons to whoever can pay, unsurprisingly those who pay often intend to use the weapons, this often conflicts with the legality and morality of the rest of society. As an arms company gets larger, it can pay for better political connections and better public relations, but the conflict between its activities and what it would like to admit is always there. The topic has become much more obvious over the last few years with the discoveries, investigations and court cases surrounding the Al-Yamamah arms deal to Saudi Arabia, in which BAE systems was the primary supplier of weaponry. It is alleged that BAE paid over £1 billion in bribes to members of the Saudi Regime. This case is not unique; BAE alone is currently being investigated for six other bribery cases around the world. Arms companies are not willing to disclose their customers, this may be common practice among many businesses. Most businesses however do not need to hide that they sold fighter jets to Robert Mugabe (as BAE and Rolls Royce have), torture equipment for Guantanamo Bay (BAE subsidiary Hiatts), or gave £1 million in bribes to General Pinochet (BAE again). This is merely a taste of what has been uncovered about the arms industry.

Arms companies frequently attempt to defend their activities, claiming that they are essential for employment, despite the huge subsidy they receive amounting to an estimated £13,153.23 per arms trade job. They claim to be essential for national security yet sell to anyone they can and skew our own military’s equipment purchases. They claim that “If we didn’t do, someone else would”, a defence heroin dealers would love if it worked in court.  Arms companies must be forced to account for their actions and therefore what is needed is not PR but an examination of the facts.

I feel that everyone should know these facts about arms companies. I especially feel that students who might think about applying for jobs with arms companies should know these facts. Yet our own university inform students at all. Instead every few weeks an arms company will come and recruit on campus, spreading their own propaganda about their company, promoted and legitimised by the Careers Service. You might see some protestors outside the building handing out leaflets, asking arms industry representatives searching questions at their stalls, or unveiling t-shirts detailing facts about arms companies in the fair before being escorted out by security, believing that T-shirts with facts about arms companies are too disruptive. The Careers Service should be assisting students to learn the full facts about potential employers, instead the careers service advertises for companies, no matter their quality, and does not allow the negative side of the company to be seen. It is left to the handful of anti-arms trade campaigners to attempt to inform students about these companies’ dirty dealings that they will not include in their recruitment pitch. I am proud to be a part of the Weapons out of Warwick campaign, who oppose these merchants of death whose profits come at the unacceptable cost of causing the deaths of millions and untold suffering around the world.

BAE protest at Warwick University

January 20, 2009

Account of our disruptive protest against a BAE recruitment event

Last Thursday, a group of Warwick university students, in opposition to the arms trade and in solidarity with Gaza, protested a recruitment event run by BAE and Warwick Careers Service. BAE is the third largest arms manufacturer in the world and the inclusion of Israel in its (very colourful) list of customers made action particularly important at this time for us. On their way in, attendees were leafleted with our BAE alternative careers guide (available at https://weaponsoutofwarwick.wordpress.com/ ) At the start of the talk a group of students stood up, with one giving an excellent and emotive speech about the darker side of a career with BAE. During the talk itself a second group stood up to disrupt the presentation by reading a second speech, heroically ignoring the pleas of the Careers Service to be quiet. At the end of the BAE presentation the sheer number of students asking questions about the unethical nature of the company led to the group question session being abandoned. It is strengthening to be part of a broader campaign across universities against companies such as BAE and after our action we had much excited chatter about activism over a pint or two.

Companies Profiles for the Warwick Internships Fair 15/1/09

January 14, 2009

The University careers service recommends that you find out as much about the companies attending the fair today as you can, we feel that this is a very reasonable suggestion. We feel that some of the companies attending today, are unlikely to give a full account of their activities and therefore this leaflet is intended to help you know the facts that the companies attending probably will not include in their recruitment pitch. Although the members of the Weapons out of Warwick campaign have strong opinions about the negative impact of these companies in the world, we acknowledge that not every student agrees with us, we feel that students whatever they’re opinion should be aware of the issues surrounding the arms trade, the environment, corporate ethics and any potential employers who visit our campus.

Rolls Royce

17th Largest Arms Manufacturer in the world[1]. 2nd Largest UK Arms Company. Approximately $14.2 Billion of Military Sales making up 25% of total sales[2]. Rolls Royce is the 2nd Largest Manufacturer of Aerospace Engines powering approximately 25% of the world’s military aircraft and has its equipment installed on over 2,200 warships including all of the UK’s nuclear submarines.

Rolls Royce Produces engines for Military aircraft made by other arms companies such as BAE systems, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, they manufacture the engines for the Eurofighter, Jaguar, Harrier, Tornado, Hawk Jet, Apache and Tiger attack helicopters. Rolls Royce also deals in ship design, electronics for naval forces and submarine equipment. Rolls Royce’s Subsidiary Rolls Royce Raynesway manufacturers parts for nuclear reactors including control rods, valves and other components and its plant at Raynesway has numerous safety concerns about the control and techniques for nuclear waste disposal[3].

Military customers include Israel, Indonesia (Hawk jets sold during the East Timor conflict and allegedly used against civilians in the Aceh province), Turkey, US, UK, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Brunei, Malaysia, South Korea, Kenya and Zimbabwe. Rolls Royce also sells the jet engines used in the Myanmar national airline which is a nationalised operation which helps finance the Burmese Junta.


Detica is owned by BAE systems (92% controlling stake. Detica provides consultancy, customized technology, and knowledge management services to government and corporate clients in the defence, homeland security, counterterrorism, intelligence, and Federal markets sectors. BAE believes the UK ‘homeland security and resilience market’ will double to more than £3bn by 2011 and looks to cash in on this[4].


The Warwick Student’s Union supports the Baby Milk Action’s boycott of Nestlé[5]. Nestlé employs approximately 253,000 people in some 511 factories worldwide. Nestlé is the world’s largest food company[6]. With products like Perrier and Nescafé, it is the market leader worldwide in coffee and mineral water[7], the largest manufacturer of pet food, and is fast increasing its share of the ice cream market.

Needless to say, however, this version doesn’t give a very full explanation of the scandals which have plagued the company. The most obvious damage to Nestlé’s reputation has been its unethical marketing of artificial baby milk, particularly in the global south. This started to become a major issue in the 1970s when War on Want published a report called “The Baby Killer”, which was translated into German by the Berne Third World Action Group who were subsequently sued for libel, having named their version “Nestlé Kills Babies”.[8] In 1977 a boycott was launched, which continued until 1984, when Nestlé agreed to abide by the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. However, the fact did not match up to the promises and the boycott was re-launched in 1988, continuing vigorously today.

There is, of course, much more to Nestlé than the baby milk issue. The company has attracted criticism for its use of genetically modified ingredients, and for its cocoa and coffee-buying policies, including purchasing cocoa from Ivory Coast, which has recently received heavy press coverage due to the existence of child slavery on cocoa plantations. The company has also been implicated in lobbying against vaccination of livestock during the British Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001. From environmental destruction in Brazil to the intimidation of trade unionists in Colombia, from demanding millions in compensation from hunger-stricken Ethiopia to bolstering its image through proposing donations to breast cancer charities – Nestlé is one of the world’s most campaigned against companies. [9]

Royal Bank of Scotland

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is a hugely significant private funder of oil and gas extraction and exploration. Between 2001 and 2006, RBS provided over $10 billion in loans to oil and gas projects. The embedded carbon emissions resulting from these projects in 2006 were greater than the carbon emissions for the whole of Scotland. RBS has positioned itself as ‘the oil and gas bank’. With dedicated oil and gas offices, RBS has significant experience and expertise in the sector, and provides crucial services to oil and gas companies. Working as a hands-on partner to the industry, RBS structured the loan agreements and acted as financial adviser on over $30 billion of projects between 2001 and 2006. Other banks describe RBS as the most competitive in the sector, prepared to undercut other banks and offer cheaper loans and finance the projects no other British bank will.

The intimate relationship that RBS has with the fossil fuel industry extends to new areas of expansion. As traditional oil extraction begins to peak, unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil sands and coal bed methane, are becoming a reality. Previously inaccessible, this ‘dirty’ oil requires far more energy to convert into usable forms than traditional crude oil, resulting in much higher carbon emissions. RBS has called the development of oil sands an “energy-financing growth area”, and identified the need for “drilling dollars” for coal bed methane development. [10]

The NUS and Warwick Students Union is committed to putting pressure on RBS due to RBS’s poor environmental record. The NUS National Treasurer has written twice to the RBS Chairman, threatening to stop banning with them and “…seek alternative, more ethical banking options” by their AGM in 2009, should RBS not significantly change this support and conduct a full and published investigation into their entire, embedded carbon footprint.[11]

For more information see weaponsoutofwarwick.wordpress.com

Or the Facebook group Weapons out of Warwick

Please recycle this leaflet

[1] CAAT Publications – Rolls Royce, http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/companies/rolls-royce2003.php , Accessed 7/10/07

[2] Rolls Royce Annual Report 2006, http://www.rolls-royce.com/investors/reports/2006/pdfs/rrar_2006.pdf , accessed 7/10/07

[3] “A basic summary of what we know about Rolls Royce Raynesway (RRR) and Rolls Royce (RR) as a company” handout.

[4] Financial Times 29/7/08

[5] Warwick Students Union Policy 506 “Nestle”

[7] Hoovers Database, Nestle – Company overview www.hoovers.com/co/capsule/5/0,2163,41815,00.html

[9] Corporate Watch, Nestle Overview http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=237

[10] People and Planet, “The Oil Bank of Scotland, RBS Campaign Summary” http://peopleandplanet.org/ditchdirtydevelopment/privatefunding

[11] Warwick Students Union Policy 684 “Putting pressure on Natwest/RBS”

BAE Systems The alternative recruitment guide

January 14, 2009

BAE Systems

The Alternative

Recruitment Guide


The University careers service recommends that you find out as much about companies recruiting as you can. We feel that this is a very reasonable suggestion therefore to help out below you will find information that BAE systems probably will not include in their recruitment pitch.


3rd Largest Arms Manufacturer in the World. Largest UK arms Company. £13.7 billion sales, £11.8 billion military sales, 83% military[1]. Less than 20% of BAE’s sales are to the UK[2].


Products include: Assault rifles , Combat Aircraft, Unmanned Aircraft, Nuclear Submarines, Warships, Nuclear weapons (via its subsidiary MBDA), Missiles, Torpedoes, Tanks, Artillery Guns, Munitions, Armoured Vehicles, Radar Systems, handcuffs and shackles used in Guantanamo Bay and Saudi Arabia (from their subsidiary Hiatts[3]).


BAE claims to sell to customers in more than 100 countries[4]. Military customers of note include the UK, US, Israel, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia (Hawk Jets sold during the violent repression of East Timor), India, Pakistan, Tanzania, Lebanon, Poland, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Romania, Chile, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Columbia, Egypt, Ghana, Afghanistan, Brazil, Columbia, Qatar, Algeria (via Qatar)[5], Malaysia, Kenya, Czech Republic, Sweden, Morocco (including attempting to secure a deal in the conflict area of Western Sahara), Greece, Germany, Italy, Austria, Australia, Finland, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Nepal, Uruguay and Vietnam,


There has been considerable concern at the supply by BAE Systems of ‘Head up Displays’ (HUD) for F-16 fighter aircraft destined for Israel. The first of Israel’s new order arrived in 2005 and the first 25 will F16s were fitted with BAE Systems HUDs. The remaining 77 were be fitted with Elbit HUDs. BAE systems are also supplying part of the ‘navigation suite’ and elements of the ‘self protection suite’ (including a BAE Systems/Rokar flare) for all Israel’s F16 jets. BAE also maintains a permanent office in Jerusalem.[6]

It has been rumoured that BAE’s “Suter” airborne network attack system was used by Israel in its bombing of Syria in 2007. “Suter” is developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.

The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.[7]

Its is timely to remind readers that arms contracts typically last many years with support, upgrades and staged deliveries being provided many years after the original deal was signed.

Corruption and other scandals

BAE systems is currently being investigated over deals in Chile, Czech Republic, Qatar, Romania, South Africa and Tanzania. A serious fraud office investigation into the Al Yamamah arms deal to Saudi Arabia was shut down in 2006 over suspect reasons of national security.

In 2008 BAE released the “Woolf Report” into ethical practice at the company, the report failed to examine any past problems at the company and did not address key problems in judging which (or indeed any) arms deals can be considered ethical. Although BAE claims the report to be independent, the author, Lord Woolf, was paid £6,000 per day for writing it.[8]


A man named Paul Mercer was exposed in 2007 as having spied on Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) after court action. He was revealed to have been paid £2,500 a month by the giant arms company’s security department for his work against CAAT. He claims he was being paid to simply monitor the group and its activities. BAE is facing a wide range of bribery allegations’. Mercer obtained a CD with details of confidential CAAT legal advice and at the end of 2006 passed it to Michael McGinty, head of BAE’s security department, BAE was successfully sued in the high court in 2007 and it was revealed that the company had been “obstructing justice” in the words of the judge. The judge decided there was “undoubtedly” evidence supporting suspicions that the firm had in the past penetrated the campaign to obtain information covertly, BAE were forced to admit their source for receiving CAAT’s legal advice.[9]

In 2003, the Sunday Times revealed that BAE had carried out a “widespread spying operation” on its critics. “Bank accounts were accessed, computer files downloaded and private correspondence with members of parliament and ministers secretly copied and passed on.” The paper said the arms company made use of a network run by a former consultant for the Ministry of Defence called Evelyn Le Chene. “Le Chene recruited at least half a dozen agents to infiltrate CAAT’s headquarters at Finsbury Park, north London, and a number of regional offices.” They provided BAE with advanced intelligence on CAAT’s campaign against the sale of its Hawk aircraft to the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia. The arms company also obtained CAAT’s membership list, its bank account details, the identity of its donors, its letters to ministers, even the contents of private diaries belonging to its staff.[10] The paid national events manager for CAAT, a man called Martin Hogbin was later found to be a mole within the CAAT organisation.


Saudi Arabia

The Guardian first disclosed in 2003 how the company operated a £20-million slush fund to “entertain” Saudi princes who might favourably influence its chances of winning the “al-Yamamah” deal to buy warships and fighter jets. “Allegations include the provision of prostitutes, sports cars, yachts, first-class plane tickets, Mercedes cars with drivers, unlimited restaurant meals, cup final tickets, club memberships, gambling trips, TV sets and sound systems.” An internal BAE security report referred to allegations of “sex and bondage with Saudi princes”. [11]

bae2Allegations have surfaced from investigations by the Guardian, BBC’s Newsnight and the Serious Fraud Office, they found that bribes totalling £1bn were paid to the Saudi Prince Bandar by BAE systems in return for the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal, in which BAE systems sold Tornado aircraft to Saudi Arabia, also implicated for corruption in parts of the deal were Rolls Royce, Thorn EMI, Mark Thatcher and Jonathan Aitkin as well as the Thatcher government.

In 2006 Tony Blair closed the SFO investigation in the arms deal after lobbying from BAE systems and threats made by the Saudi Government threatening to cancel the new BAE systems Al-Salam Eurofighter deal and ending intelligence sharing. CAAT and The Corner House challenged the closure of the investigation in the High Court and won. The High Court quashed the SFO decision to terminate the investigation. In a strongly worded judgment, the Court described how BAE and the Saudi regime had lobbied Tony Blair and his ministers to have the investigation dropped. The judges went so far as to describe the Saudi threat as a “successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom”[12]. The decision has since been appealed against in the house of lords by the government and BAE, the Lords decided that the investigation could legally be stopped for reasons of national security but Lady Hale said that ”I confess I would have liked to be able to uphold the decision … of the divisional court. It is extremely distasteful that an independent public official should feel himself obliged to give way to threats of any sort[13].

The case is still being investigated by the US Department of Justice, FBI and the UK government was recently condemned by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for their failure to tackle bribery looking specifically at the failure to investigate BAE systems.[14]

South Africa

More than £100m was secretly paid by the arms company BAE to sell warplanes to South Africa, according to allegations in a detailed police dossier. The leaked evidence from South African police and the British Serious Fraud Office quotes a BAE agent recommending “financially incentivising” politicians. In the arms deal, the new ANC government in South Africa agreed to spend a controversial £1.6bn buying fleets of Hawk and Gripen warplanes. Critics said the country, beset by unemployment and HIV/Aids, could not afford it. The Hawks, rejected by the military, cost twice as much as Italian equivalents. It is alleged that BAE systems funnelled corrupt payments to Joe Modise, the Defence minister at the time and numerous aides.[15] BAE is accused in the reports of corrupt relationships with an arms tycoon, John Bredenkamp, recently blacklisted in the US for his links with Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. BAE’s former marketing director for southern Africa, Allan McDonald, has been speaking to police, the leaked files say. He allegedly told them Bredenkamp “gave progress reports directly to Mike Turner”. Turner, who has been interviewed under caution by the SFO, stepped down last year as BAE’s chief executive. Bredenkamp-linked companies were paid £40m by BAE to promote the arms deal. [16]


In September 2005 The Guardian reported that BAE had secretly paid £1 million to General Pinochet in return for help over arms deals. The payments were said to have appeared in US banking records, unearthed by a Chilean judge pursuing Pinochet for tax evasion. They were made between 1997 and 2004. A Serious Fraud Office team is reported to have met the judge in Santiago.[17]


In 2001, Tony Blair overruled Clare Short and Gordon Brown to grant an export licence for BAE’s sale of a military air-traffic control system to one of the world’s poorest countries, Tanzania. The World Bank had pointed out that the contract was ridiculously expensive – Tanzania could have bought a better system elsewhere for a quarter of the price. In January the Guardian revealed that BAE Systems allegedly paid a $12m (£6.2m) “commission” to an agent who brokered the deal.[18]


Following the sale of a package of UK arms to Qatar in 1996, BAE reportedly paid a £7m “commission” into three Jersey trust funds under the control of Qatar’s Foreign Minister. A criminal investigation began in Jersey in 2000 but, with Qatari pressure, a jittery UK arms industry and Qatar’s support seen as vital in prosecuting the “war on terror”, the investigation ended in 2002 on “public interest” grounds. The Qatari Foreign Minister denied any wrongdoing but agreed to pay Jersey £6m for “perceived damage”. The investigation was uncovered by the Jersey Evening Post and is still under investigation by the SFO.17


In June 2006, with the arrest of a BAE agent, it emerged that the 2003 sale of two ex-Royal Navy frigates to Romania by BAE was under investigation by the SFO and Ministry of Defence Police. Payments of £7 million in “secret commissions” were allegedly made to clinch the £116 million ship refurbishment deal.17

Czech Republic

In November 2006 the sale of Gripen fighter aircraft to the Czech Republic became linked with an SFO investigation. An initial deal to buy 24 of the aircraft was cancelled because the Czech Government had to deal instead with the devastating floods in 2002. However, two years later, a lease deal for 14 Gripen aircraft was signed. In 2003 The Guardian said that the US had accused BAE of “corrupt practice” following reports from the CIA and rival arms companies and that the Czech police had confirmed bribery attempts by BAE. In February 2007 Swedish broadcaster SVT showed hidden-camera coverage of a former Czech foreign minister admitting that “money changed hands” with politicians over the Gripen deal. That month a senior Swedish prosecutor started an investigation into the contract due to the involvement of Saab, the part-BAE-owned manufacturers of Gripen aircraft. Czech police re-opened their inquiries.17


[1] World Rank is from the 2006 top 100 taken from Defense News Top 100 July 2007

[2] CAAT Publications – Arms Fairs, DSEI (2003), http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/armsfairs/dsei-2003-report/baes.php, Accessed 5/11/07

[3] As used on the famous Nelson Mandela, Thomas, 2006, Ebury Press pp212-222

[4] The Guardian, 7/6/2007, David Leigh & Rob Evans, “BAE Systems Profile”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/07/bae.baesystemsbusiness

[5] CorporateWatch – BAE systems, A corporate Profile 2003, http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=182

[6] CAAT, 6/2005, Harald Molgaard, “Arms exports and collaborations: the UK and Israel”

[7] Danger room, 4/10/07, Sharon Weinberger, “How Israel spoofed syria’s air defense system”, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/how-israel-spoo.html

[8] The Guardian 6/5/2008, David Leigh & Sadie Gray, “BAE paid too little heed to ethics, says report” http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/06/baesystemsbusiness.armstrade

[9] The Guardian 27/2/2007, David Leigh & Rob Evans, “BAE to reveal source of leak on legal advice” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/bae.armstrade

[10] The Times 28/9/2003, “How the woman at No 27 ran spy network for arms firm” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1163959.ece

[11] The Guardian 11/9/2003, David Leigh & Rob Evans, “BAE accused of arms deal slush fund” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/11/bae.freedomofinformation

[13] Guardian 31/7/2008 “’He was confronted by an ugly and unwelcome threat’”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/31/bae.armstrade2

[14] Guardian 17/10/2008, Andrew Sparrow, “Government condemned for failure to tackle bribery”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/17/5

[15] Mail and Guardian 12/1/2009, Sam Sole and Nic Dawes, “BAE’s web of influence in South Africa” http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-01-12-baes-web-of-influence-in-south-africa

[16] The Guardian, 6/12/2008, David Leigh and Rob Evans, “BAE accused of £100 m secret payments in South Africa arms deal” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/06/bae-arms-trade

[17] A seriously funny attempt to get the Serious Fraud Office in the dock! September 2007, Campaign Against the Arms Trade

[18] The Guardian, 13/2/07, George Monbiot, “The Parallel universe of BAE: covert, dangerous and beyond the rule of law, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/13/bae.foreignpolicy