A more circumspect response from Enda Kenny (Minister for Tourism and Trade) does hint at the real level of acceptance within government that the arms trade is here to stay: "It must be stated that, in layman's terms, Ireland is not a producer of arms...However, it is inevitable that in an economy such as ours with its high technology base, there will be goods manufactured and exported which have both military and civilian applications and even a small number that have purely military application."
Implicit in the above statement is the assumption that, for most of us mere 'laymen' we are happy enough to believe the myth and too ignorant to see beyond it. Also implicit is the fact that we are involved to an extent in the arms trade, but that the level and type of involvement is far too complex for 'laymen' to understand and therefore it doesn't really count.
If we examine the evidence ourselves we can make up our own minds as to the extent and nature of our links to the arms trade: In July last AFrI published the results of its year-long investigation into these matters. Its findings revealed a number of companies that are, to varying degrees, contributing to the trade in arms. What this means exactly is that 1. their products are ending up with a military end-user, and 2. they are intended for a military end-use.
In fact these are two of the criteria used by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), (generally regarded as the world authority on monitoring the trade in conventional weapons) to identify the trade in weapons technology.
What AfrI found was that Irish companies were exporting aerospace and microelectronics technology for military use. One company, Data Device Corporation (DDC) in Cork admitted that 65% of their microelectronic products found their way to military aircraft.
Another firm, Moog of Cork, supply electronic control equipment for the elevation and traverse of artillery guns, in other words, the aiming devices.
A firm in Clare supply about a quarter of their radar technology to military airforces. All the other firms named either service or supply the military sector abroad.
The report was greeted with derision in some quarters, such as the Independent newspaper, and was welcomed by others, yet still regarded as somewhat tenuous evidence of our increasing involvement with military industry. Joan Burton, Minister for Trade, called it "baseless and naive", indicating again the patronising attitude that politicians often display toward 'laymen'.
One of the principal counter arguments against the report's findings was that the exported products involved were 'dual-use', thereby being mainly innocuous and impossible to prevent going to the military.The term 'dual-use' is, however, a smokescreen used by governments and advocates of the military industry to conceal a hidden part of the arms trade: As 'dual-use' goods are governed by European regulations a supplier is obliged to know who the end-user is and what end-use their products will be put to, as these details are required by the licensing authorities for exports outside of the EU. Moreover, any products destined for a military end use have to conform to certain standards and are tested and manufactured to higher specifications than civil goods. This is why they usually cost a lot more. Put quite simply, a company is aware if its exports are intended for military related purposes and, therefore, can choose whether or not to supply 'dual-use' goods to a military end-user.
In the wake of the Links revelations more information was forthcoming which indicated that the authorities were playing a bigger role in all of this than we were aware of. It became apparent that not only were 'dual-use' goods being licensed for export to the military, but that 'military' goods were also being licensed for export. Distinct from 'dual-use' goods, military goods exports come under national controls and are subject to the discretion of national licensing authorities.
Based on the new information, we did a follow-up to Links which focussed more on the licensing and on two specific companies in particular. What we found was startling. The Department of Tourism, which is responsible for licensing of exports, had issued 34 licenses (one licence covers one consignment) for export of military goods up to October of last year. This was three times the estimate - a dozen - given by Joan Burton in a 'Questions and Answers' special hosted by AFrI in the Mansion House.
What was more disturbing was the destinations for which these military goods were receiving licenses: Turkey, Colombia and Brazil were the three most disturbing. Didn't the authorities know about the gross human rights violations in these countries? All this information is publicly available from groups such as Amnesty International and yet the Department of Tourism and Trade, with approval from Foreign Affairs, were allowing military goods to be sold to these places.
It would appear that the Government is operating a twin-track policy when it comes to human rights and the arms trade. The recent White Paper unequivocally links our foreign policy with human rights records. Furthermore, there is an agreement between EU countries on guidelines for military exports: Human rights, internal conflict and the preservation of regional peace and stability are cited as important factors to consider in military exports. By exporting military goods to the above-named countries, the Government is at least breaching the spirit, if not the exact letter of even the minimal efforts made to control the arms trade.
The goods in question were airforce equipment essential to the operations of military jets and gun turret technology for the aiming of large guns, such as tanks and naval cannons.
Moog of Cork helped to develop an improvised version of the Bofors L-70 air defence gun for Singapore. However, it seemed to miss the attention of our vigilant authorities that Singapore was a well known conduit for arms diversions to third countries and has been at the centre of a number of international scandals regarding arms shipments to embargoed countries. It transpires that the gun which Moog helped to develop will eventually be sold to the South East Asian market. The most likely recipient for the upgraded version, according to SIPRI, is Indonesia. And we all know of the role of the Indonesian military in perpetrating genocide in places such as East Timor and West Papua.
In the supplement to the Links report we attempted to suggest ways in which our involvement in the arms trade could be halted. We highlighted how there is a clause within the European 'dual-use' regulation that allows the authorities here to prohibit the export of certain goods that are clearly intended for a military end use, as 'to allow such exports to proceed is contrary to the fulfillment of our international obligations.' (Article 10 of the EU dual-use regulation)
Moreover, as military goods are subject only to national controls, there exists even more scope to abolish completely this trade.
To put it in 'Layman's' terms, modern weapons systems rely on the input of nuts and bolts, microchips, wiring etc...the micro-design may differ, but the macro design serves the same purpose - to maim, kill and destroy.
Write to Enda Kenny, Minister for Tourism and Trade, and Dick Spring, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and demand an end to Ireland's involvement in the arms trade.