This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/britain-india-arms-trade
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Britain, India and the arms trade | Britain, India and the arms trade |
| (10 days later) | |
| The PM's recent drive to drum up trade for the UK arms industry in India takes place at a critical time for British arms firms (Is Britain's arms trade making a killing?, G2, 19 February). In fact, the global arms trade has never before been under closer scrutiny. The arms trade treaty (ATT), an agreement that will bring much-needed global regulation to the sale of weapons and ammunition, is currently being negotiated at the UN with a view to protecting human rights, clamping down on corruption and curbing illicit brokering. A conference to finalise this long-overdue treaty will be held in New York next month. | The PM's recent drive to drum up trade for the UK arms industry in India takes place at a critical time for British arms firms (Is Britain's arms trade making a killing?, G2, 19 February). In fact, the global arms trade has never before been under closer scrutiny. The arms trade treaty (ATT), an agreement that will bring much-needed global regulation to the sale of weapons and ammunition, is currently being negotiated at the UN with a view to protecting human rights, clamping down on corruption and curbing illicit brokering. A conference to finalise this long-overdue treaty will be held in New York next month. |
| The poorly regulated global arms trade fuels armed violence and poverty. Every minute, a life is lost through armed violence. Arms deals – whether brokered by the British PM, or anyone else – should meet the highest standards and weapons and ammunition must not be allowed to fuel human rights violations or exacerbate poverty. All countries will benefit from common regulations, increased transparency and a level playing field in the arms trade. The UK has worked for an ATT since 2006. To date, India has been deeply sceptical of a treaty. It is vital the UK does all it can to work with India, and others, to deliver a strong treaty – without major loopholes – that will protect people from human rights abuses and armed conflict. Anna Macdonald Head of arms control, Oxfam | The poorly regulated global arms trade fuels armed violence and poverty. Every minute, a life is lost through armed violence. Arms deals – whether brokered by the British PM, or anyone else – should meet the highest standards and weapons and ammunition must not be allowed to fuel human rights violations or exacerbate poverty. All countries will benefit from common regulations, increased transparency and a level playing field in the arms trade. The UK has worked for an ATT since 2006. To date, India has been deeply sceptical of a treaty. It is vital the UK does all it can to work with India, and others, to deliver a strong treaty – without major loopholes – that will protect people from human rights abuses and armed conflict. Anna Macdonald Head of arms control, Oxfam |
| • The idea that hundreds of millions of pounds from Britain's aid budget could be "diverted to peacekeeping defence operations" is deeply concerning (Report, 21 February). In 2010 the government pledged to ringfence aid spending and its commitment to it has made Britain a lead in tackling poverty and inequality around the world. To now endanger that by mixing aid and defence budgets is both unethical and ineffectual. It goes against the principles of aid and endangers the UK's impressive record in helping some of the world's poorest families. | • The idea that hundreds of millions of pounds from Britain's aid budget could be "diverted to peacekeeping defence operations" is deeply concerning (Report, 21 February). In 2010 the government pledged to ringfence aid spending and its commitment to it has made Britain a lead in tackling poverty and inequality around the world. To now endanger that by mixing aid and defence budgets is both unethical and ineffectual. It goes against the principles of aid and endangers the UK's impressive record in helping some of the world's poorest families. |
| By 2015, British taxpayers' money through the Department for International Development will secure schooling for 11 million children worldwide – more than we educate in the UK but at 2.5% of the cost. Why put that at risk? Furthermore, siphoning off a relatively tiny amount of the aid budget is never going to plug cuts in £37bn of defence spending, while putting the principles of aid in jeopardy. Tanya Barron Chief executive, Plan UK | By 2015, British taxpayers' money through the Department for International Development will secure schooling for 11 million children worldwide – more than we educate in the UK but at 2.5% of the cost. Why put that at risk? Furthermore, siphoning off a relatively tiny amount of the aid budget is never going to plug cuts in £37bn of defence spending, while putting the principles of aid in jeopardy. Tanya Barron Chief executive, Plan UK |
| • After more than 200 years of shared history, all David Cameron can offer India is military hardware to increase tension in the area, and fast-track visas for businessmen. No wonder Napoleon called the British a "nation of shopkeepers", and Gandhi remarked that "western civilisation would be a good thing". Not only does this reveal the paucity of Cameron's ideas, it is a waste of opportunity. The burgeoning wealth of the Indian middle classes means they can afford to travel abroad as tourists or to visit relatives. However, they face draconian restrictions for even a tourist visa, and are treated with disdain and mistrust at Heathrow. This is what Cameron should regard as deeply shaming, rather than an admittedly dreadful incident from 1919. Jane Ghosh Bristol | • After more than 200 years of shared history, all David Cameron can offer India is military hardware to increase tension in the area, and fast-track visas for businessmen. No wonder Napoleon called the British a "nation of shopkeepers", and Gandhi remarked that "western civilisation would be a good thing". Not only does this reveal the paucity of Cameron's ideas, it is a waste of opportunity. The burgeoning wealth of the Indian middle classes means they can afford to travel abroad as tourists or to visit relatives. However, they face draconian restrictions for even a tourist visa, and are treated with disdain and mistrust at Heathrow. This is what Cameron should regard as deeply shaming, rather than an admittedly dreadful incident from 1919. Jane Ghosh Bristol |
| • This blurring of the line between aid workers and soldiers creates further risks for NGO employees. Taliban beliefs will become even more entrenched and their justification for murdering aid workers greater. Not to mention that this is just another way that the morally bankrupt regime that currently runs our country diverts taxpayers' money into the pockets of their cronies. Phill Davies Aberaeron, Ceredigion | • This blurring of the line between aid workers and soldiers creates further risks for NGO employees. Taliban beliefs will become even more entrenched and their justification for murdering aid workers greater. Not to mention that this is just another way that the morally bankrupt regime that currently runs our country diverts taxpayers' money into the pockets of their cronies. Phill Davies Aberaeron, Ceredigion |
| • The purpose of UK aid is to reduce poverty and this is enshrined in law. Of course, when UK forces are in action they should always co-ordinate closely with international development experts to make sure that the needs of local people are met. But raiding the aid budget to pay for military activities would deprive some of the world's poorest people of life-saving support and undermine UK efforts to promote poverty reduction globally. Military objectives and defence needs must have no bearing on how aid is spent, as has already been shown by US army-led activities in Afghanistan where the use of the military in development projects has put lives at risk. At a time of global want, the government should be proud to say that it will spend 0.7% of our national income on aid alone and, in so doing, uphold a 40-year-old promise to the world's poor. Melanie Ward Head of advocacy, ActionAid UK | • The purpose of UK aid is to reduce poverty and this is enshrined in law. Of course, when UK forces are in action they should always co-ordinate closely with international development experts to make sure that the needs of local people are met. But raiding the aid budget to pay for military activities would deprive some of the world's poorest people of life-saving support and undermine UK efforts to promote poverty reduction globally. Military objectives and defence needs must have no bearing on how aid is spent, as has already been shown by US army-led activities in Afghanistan where the use of the military in development projects has put lives at risk. At a time of global want, the government should be proud to say that it will spend 0.7% of our national income on aid alone and, in so doing, uphold a 40-year-old promise to the world's poor. Melanie Ward Head of advocacy, ActionAid UK |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |