|
|
 |
| |
Investment profits amount to shockingly dirty money
• ROBIN Yu’s letter informed us that Islington Council’s pension fund has an investment of nearly £2 million in BAE Systems (Why is our council tax supporting arms firms? May 9). I was shocked, as I hope many others will be.
Hopefully, many council tax payers will object to their money being invested in the world’s fourth-largest armaments firm, however profitable it may be.
For several years BAE has been under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and Department of Justice over allegations of corruption. These were triggered by its alleged huge bribe in 2005 to a Saudi prince, the Minister of Defence, to assure a BAE contract.
BAE hoped to conclude the £20 billion Al Yamamah arms deal to supply the Royal Saudi Air Force with 72 Typhoon aircraft and a number of additional related contracts, as a key element in the modernisation of the Saudi armed forces. This was in spite of Saudi Arabia’s notoriety as one of the world’s most repressive regimes and its denial of human rights. The British government halted the SFO’s investigation on the grounds that offending the Saudis would endanger Britain’s national interests.
On April 10, however, the High Court ruled that the government had acted unlawfully when it curtailed this corruption investigation. The SFO’s inquiries therefore remain on hold.
At BAE’s annual meeting on May 7, the company was obliged to admit that it did not know “the future course of these investigations”. So doubts about the company’s probity remain unresolved.
Whether the allegations of BAE’s corruption are true or false, I for one object to the council investing our money in an armaments firm.
While we learn of the appalling loss of human life in Burma caused by Nargis cyclone, a natural disaster, it is a tragic irony that our money is being used to support the production and sale of weapons designed to cause death and suffering deliberately.
The death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to rise, among our own troops and the Americans, and above all many thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Far too many innocent people are caught up and their lives ruined by wars likely to last (according to some generals) for many years to come.
To support the provision of weaponry to nations implicated in these wars, for the sake of profits on exports, seems a crime in itself. Profits from such investment are shockingly dirty money.
Recent growing public concern about ethics has led various businesses, such as supermarkets, to lay claim to ethical policies. They vaunt their keenness to sell organic, environmentally beneficial and fair trade products, presumably estimating that this will encourage purchasers to buy more, and so add to their profits.
Ethics have become fashionable! Incredibly, BAE’s latest reports too stress its ethical concerns, though I note that these often refer to health and safety policies for its employees, rather than to the disastrous effects of its products.
I believe the council uses the Co-operative Bank, which prides itself on its ethical policy launched in 1992. The bank ascribes much of its growing popularity to this policy, after declaring: “[We] will not invest in businesses that operate in areas of concern to our customers”, citing examples such as “the fur trade, and arms dealers who supply oppressive regimes”.
I hope that the council’s choice of the Co-op Bank is based – at least partly – on its approval of these policies, not only because the Co-op Bank is good with money and has a branch at the Angel!
It would seem reasonable that the council should treat its council tax-payers’ “areas of concern” in the same way as the Co-operative Bank treats its customers – by allowing them to have a say in how it uses their money.
Islington seems a socially aware borough with progressive tendencies. It is noteworthy that it is the home of many ethical and peace-promoting organisations, among others the CND headquarters in Holloway Road, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade near Finsbury Park, Greenpeace UK in Canonbury and Friends of the Earth in N1.
Their employees and numerous volunteers, plus probably many other residents, would no doubt object strongly to the council’s investment in BAE.
I hope this letter will inspire the council to clean up its investment options, and transfer its investment funds from BAE to socially constructive organisations. Council tax payers: demand that you be informed about how your money is used, and insist that this should be in ethical ways you approve.
ANGELA SINCLAIR
Highbury Hill, N5
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
