Sounding out ethical arms dealers
Earlier this week arms manufacturer BAE Systems tried to draw a line under its poor reputation by publishing report by Lord Woolf into its current ethical standing. Some Sunday papers had been tipped Woolf would be kind and his lordship was not allowed to search for past misdemeanours… so the result is an exploration of what BAE ‘ought’ to do, complain some.
As a public relations exercise the initiative has failed. BAE’s enemies have used it as an excuse for protest, while the media coverage has focussed on the dirty laundry Woolf wasn’t allowed to wash.
All of which has prompted Matthew Finnegan of Sound Communication, which bravely trades as an ethical agency, to declare that arms manufacture can never be ethical: ‘BAE will only ever be truly ethical when it finds another, more productive purpose, for its hugely skilled workforce.’
Yet this cannot be true – unless to be ethical is to be pacifist – as a people’s right to defend itself means nothing if it must face an aggressor empty handed. It is not the manufacture of arms that is unethical, but irresponsible sale of arms to oppressive regimes and those who launder the guns that somehow find their way onto our streets.
Comments (2 comments)
Hi,
You make good points about a tricky subject.
I don’t think any member of Sound Communication would question anyone’s right to defend themselves. Indeed, we would be the first to support those defending themselves from tyrannical or oppressive regimes.
However, our position on BAe is no different from the Co Op Bank and their stated ethical policy - they will not invest in companies that support oppressive regimes.
BAe traded arms to Saudi Arabia in, to say the least, decidedly dodgy circumstances. It continues to trade with Saudi Arabia. In our view that is unethical.
We would not consider BAe to be an ethical business until it stopped selling arms to anyone with money enough to buy them.
And we would have a lot more confidence in their proud commitment to Corporate Social Reponsibility, if BAe supported and funded social, economic and educational programmes in the countries where their arms have done most damage.
The world would be a better place if arms traders such as BAe showed a genuine willingness to diversify into such more socially useful areas.
Matthew Finnegan / May 13th, 2008, 10:54 am / #
I agree with all but your very last point. We will need arms manufacturers for as long as we require defence.
So rather than call on BAE, and others, to move into other areas we need to find a mechanism for placing the business on a sound footing. I don’t think the Woolf report will achieve that as it fails to examine past sins.
Stephen Newton / May 13th, 2008, 9:40 pm / #
Post a comment