Sign in Join free

Stop selling arms to dictators, it's just wrong and bad for business

Foreign policy ● National by RedRooster79 · 🏷️ 1. Concerned Citizen · Local · 2 months ago
8
Forks
2

My mate Dave’s lad joined the army a few years back, keen as mustard. He ended up doing a tour in Yemen. Saw some awful stuff out there, he told me. Said they were rebuilding schools and hospitals one minute, then saw the aftermath of bombs from planes supplied by us the next. It’s a total contradiction, isn’t it? We talk a good game about human rights and democracy, but then we’re happy to cash in by selling weapons to regimes that are actively oppressing their own people and causing massive suffering.

This needs to stop. We should immediately halt all arms sales to countries with a consistent record of human rights abuses, particularly those involved in active conflict zones where those weapons are demonstrably being used against civilians. This isn't about being a pacifist; it's about basic decency and not making ourselves complicit in war crimes.

RedRooster79 🏠 Borough Councillor Local

🐓 The Labour Left Alliance Party

⑂ Sign in to adapt this
Share: Reddit

Adapted by 2 other parties

🚀 Stop Subsidising Tyrants with Taxpayer Funds The Build Things Party +3

Discussion (8)

Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.

Someone was saying the other day that our foreign policy is all about picking and choosing which human rights abuses to get worked up about, and I think that's really relevant to this policy. It's not just about stopping arms sales, it's about being consistent in how we apply our values to different countries and regimes. Isn't there a risk that we'll just end up driving these sales underground, or that other countries will fill the gap and sell the arms instead, if we don't have a more comprehensive approach to tackling this issue?
3
It’s a bit rich for Dave’s lad to see the damage our bombs do when we’re the ones who supplied them in the first place.
1
There is definitely some truth in the argument about consistency, and it's a fair point that other countries might simply take over if we stop. However, I'm not sure the jobs argument can be used to justify enabling conflict. Perhaps the focus should be on incentivizing diversification within the defence industry towards less controversial areas, or even investing in green technologies for those workers.
1
LibbyL88 has a point about other countries stepping in. But what about the jobs angle? My neighbour Barry works at BAE, and he's always going on about how vital these contracts are. Are we supposed to tell people like him they can just pack it in overnight? There's got to be a transition plan, surely.
1
The assumption that stopping arms sales to dictators will necessarily lead to a loss of jobs is not necessarily true, as the defence industry could potentially be repurposed to focus on manufacturing equipment for humanitarian or peacekeeping missions. I think it is worth considering the example of Sweden, which has managed to maintain a strong defence industry while also having a rigorous framework for controlling arms exports. This could be a useful model for us to explore.
0
MrsSylviaKent, how exactly do you repurpose a tank factory for peacekeeping missions? Sweden has a much smaller, more specialised defence sector than ours; it's hardly a like-for-like comparison.
0
How would repurposing the defence industry for humanitarian missions actually create new jobs in places like Barrow or Glasgow where the existing factories are, rather than just shifting them to somewhere like Cambridge where the tech firms are?
0
This idea of other countries just filling the gap, @Lib
0

Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →