Last
updated: February 2007
Arms
and the Academy
Forty-five
UK universities and university colleges currently hold significant investments
in arms companies.
Research recently published by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) revealed
that universities such as Oxford, Cambridge and UCL invest millions
of pounds in companies that sell arms to repressive regimes, such as
BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and Cobham.
This is all the more concerning when one considers the amount of research
these universities carry out in partnership with the same military companies.
The relationship between arms companies and higher education has deepened
in recent years but largely gone unnoticed. This is primarily a failure
of university democracy and transparency.
It is particularly instructive to consider why so many universities
with investments in the arms trade are members of the Russell Group
- a collection of elite institutions which accounts for 65% of UK universities’
research grant and contract income. Perhaps they want to stay on good
terms with the companies that supply their universities with much needed
investment. In May last year, Malcolm Ace, Director of Finance at Southampton
University, told students that it would be ‘hypocritical’
to sell his university’s shares in BAE Systems when it receives
hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of research funding from them
year on year.
BAE Systems has been in the news recently, as the company was under
investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) over allegations of
multi-million pound bribery during sales to Saudi Arabia since 1986.
That was until Tony Blair pressurised the SFO to halt the inquiry in
December last year for reasons of national security. The Saudis had
threatened to withdraw co-operation on security and cancel a supply
contract for Eurofighter Typhoons. Following the Prime Minister’s
intervention however, the deal with the oppressive Saudi regime is back
on track.
Saudi Arabia has no political parties or trade unions, nor is there
freedom of association, nor an independent media. Women are denied the
vote and face severe restrictions on movement. Flogging remains routine
and Amnesty reports that torture and extra-judicial killings by Saudi
security forces are escalating under the cloak of the ‘war on
terror’. Malcolm Ace has informed Southampton students at the
council meeting that their university had been investors in BAE Systems
‘since approximately 1987.’
We may hesitate to believe that anyone purposefully invests in an arms
company because it may secure a lucrative contract to export weapons
- thus raising its stock price. Nonetheless, incidences of public institutions,
such as universities, profiting from such deals are an inevitable consequence
of investing in the arms trade.
Over the past twelve months however, there have been encouraging signs
of resistance to the influence of militarism on campus. Thousands of
students and staff around the country have mobilised to take action
resulting in policy changes at student union and university level. Protests,
petitions and student journalism caused SOAS, Bangor, St Andrews and
Goldsmiths to take real steps towards divestment. Students at Manchester
held ‘die-ins’ and other high-profile events, culminating
in 300 students passing a union motion for ethical investment. This
has led to the university engaging directly with students concerning
the future of university finances.
These changes have occurred only because activists have used persuasive
moral and financial arguments to explain why investing in the arms trade
is unnecessary and wrong. They have shown that it is not only possible
for universities to fulfil their financial duty whilst investing ethically,
but that this is also beneficial. Ethical investment funds that preclude
arms company shares are amongst the most profitable. In the past decade
the Church of England’s £43 billion ethically-managed fund
was the second best performer of more than 1,000 funds. Furthermore,
the fact that the majority of university arms investors hold less than
2% of their overall investments in arms companies means that divestment
will not have a significant impact upon their portfolios.
Unfortunately, several universities persist in denying the public access
to data concerning their finances - following requests made through
the Freedom of Information Act - either citing commercial confidentiality
or simply ignoring requests for information.
It is only through universities becoming transparent and accountable
that students and staff can fully understand how their institutions
are managed. If students are to be more than indebted consumers of knowledge,
they must be given access to all relevant information - thus enabling
them to participate meaningfully in university life.
It seems that the justification for such investments often boils down
simply to financial habit. Without anyone questioning the status quo,
institutions renowned for their commitment to internationalism and human
progress will continue to support companies whose profits rest upon
proliferating weapons and sustaining international tension.
By uncovering the scale of university investment in the arms trade,
and by providing university members with information and support, CAAT’s
University Clean Investment campaign will empower students and staff
to lead the way in getting arms out of education.
Divestment from companies who market killing will be a major step forward.
by
Tim Street
(Universities
Network Co-ordinator),
Campaign Against Arms Trade
