Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Armaments, limitations on conventional
Section C. International relations

There are many obvious arguments against nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, but we are much more accustomed to a ready acceptance of the acceptability and desirability of large stocks of conventional weapons. This debate focuses on the possibilities of reducing those stocks of weapons, either by a refusal to trade in them, or gradual reductions of stockpiles and non-renewal of weapons programmes. Such a debate does not require a country to leave itself with no defence systems whatsoever, but allows it to retain measures to defend itself; it mainly limits its capacity to launch offensive wars.

Pros

[1] Horrific though the effects of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are, the vast majority of deaths and injuries are caused by conventional arms. Action must be taken to engineer peace where possible and stop the proliferation of weapons. The existence of large stocks of arms ultimately makes it much more likely that nations will end up using them; large stockpiles of arms encourage aggressive foreign policies, which put states in the situation where they might need to be deployed. A unilateral end to arms sales is thus a logical first step to the achievement of long-term peace.

[2] Even if a unilateral end to arms sales would not stop others selling them, we should end our complicity in wars and violence. By selling arms, we facilitate great atrocities, and it would be an act of moral leadership to refuse to do so. Even if individual states are unable to engineer a significant reduction in global content, they can put pressure on others to do so by their example, and so start the ball rolling on a process of disarmament.

[3] Arms may be supplied to oppressive, non-democratic regimes which use them for internal repression (e.g. Saudi Arabia). It is hypocritical to argue for the respect for human rights while supplying the means to suppress them. This was made particularly clear when, in 2008, Britain’s Serious Fraud Office halted an investigation into bribery over arms sales to Saudi Arabia on foreign policy grounds; it was made abundantly clear that national interest will always trump ethical considerations in British foreign policy.

[4] The threat to defence industry jobs cannot justify our involvement in bloodshed, and the government could support the redeployment of industries and workers. The need to defend one’s country would continue to support most of the arms industry.

Cons

[1] ’Perpetual peace’ is not a realistic goal. States’ interests and ideologies will always collide with each other, and so there will always be situations in which they may wish to go to war. In consequence, there will also always be a demand for arms, and a willingness to supply them. Given that war is inevitable, there will always be a large international economy based on weaponry in which we may justifiably be involved.

[2] The global arms market is highly diffuse, and there is simply no way that individual states can be expected to have any impact on what others do. In particular, because Russia and China can produce large quantities of highly developed weaponry, and have shown no signs that they will stop, this move is pointless.

[3] Foreign policy is about promoting our national interests, a process which is not always compatible with ’whiter-than- white’ ethical considerations. At least if we are on friendly terms with such regimes, they are more likely to listen to our human rights message; if we ignore them, they will side with other countries with no such considerations. For example, Saudi Arabia is a vital British ally in the region, on whom Britain is highly dependent for oil and regional military bases; it would be naive to alienate the Saudis.

[4] The arms industry is a large and successful one providing many jobs and economic benefits. It would be wrong to throw this away for a gesture of pointless symbolism.

Possible motions

This House would end the arms trade.

This House would not sell arms for export.

Related topics

Pacifism

Nuclear weapons, right to possess

United Nations standing army

Military drones, prohibition of

Private military corporations, banning of