Cambridge
Campaign Against the Arms Trade
Why it is important that Cambridge University takes responsibility for its investment decisions
When I first started campaigning for ethical investment I was told by my bursar that if I have a problem with a particular company then I should ‘buy a tent and camp outside the front gates’! I was a little shocked that my bursar was so adamant in his defence of the arms industry but I hope his vitriol only betrayed his ignorance and not a hidden political agenda. World military arms expenditure is currently at $1 trillion a year and rising (see Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). America and Britain are the largest arms producers in the world and they sell their weapons to all but the most horrific regimes (contrary to their much trumpeted commitment to democracy and human rights). The policy of both countries is to aggressively develop and market weapons throughout the world; the Anglo-American arms industry enjoys massive amounts of government subsidies and corruption is accepted as the norm. It seems unlikely that these policies are in the interests of the poor, the oppressed or the marginalised. It also seems unlikely that these policies will change as they protect the interests of the rich and powerful. It is important, therefore, that we take responsibility for our involvement in the arms industry and that we do not inadvertently endorse a status quo, which promotes war, oppression and injustice.
The bursar of Gonville and Caius, Barry Headley, recently argued: “We should leave it to government and democratic politics to determine what companies should and shouldn't do.” (Times Higher Education Supplement). But a brief look at “democratic politics” shows that this position is untenable. In the May 2005 general election, not one of the three main political parties made mention of the fact that the British taxpayer spends £900 million a year on arms industry subsidies (in comparison to the £850 million which will be raised in student top-up fees). Nor did our political representatives mention the revolving door, which sees numerous senior civil servants swap jobs with top executives from the large arms companies. Perhaps most disturbingly, when the government invited seven of the most vicious regimes in the world to the DSEi arms fair in London Docklands last September there was only a murmur of disapproval from our parliamentary representatives.
Levels of government support for the arms industry are quite astounding and this support is guaranteed for years to come by cross party consensus. It is unclear how this cross party consensus will be challenged, let alone changed, when the shady world of arms deals and the policy decisions which promote the industry are shrouded to a large extent in media silence, leaving the British voting public largely ignorant of the atrocities perpetuated in their name. Electoral politics are clearly inadequate as a means to challenge the politics (let alone the ethics) of the international arms trade and consequently we must use everything at our disposal to challenge the military-industrial complex that guides destructive policy decisions whilst claiming a democratic mandate.
Disinvestment from the arms industry involves no financial loss and the notion that shares in arms companies are ‘must have’ investments is largely due to ignorance and political bias rather than sound economics. On this basis, the only people who could really object to disinvestments are gun-toting weirdos, fat cat arms dealers and brutal dictators.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
The colleges (and universities) are legally defined as ‘exempt charities’ and are constrained by the demands of charity law. Each college has a board of trustees who are legally responsible for investment decisions. Details about investments can be found on the charity commission’s webpage. In short there are 2 scenarios when it is OK to involve ethical considerations in investment decisions:
When a company is in conflict with the charities aims (e.g. the RSPCA investing in Huntingdon Life Sciences)
If it can be shown to involve no ‘risk of significant financial detriment’
We could probably argue the former and definitely argue the latter.