The UK’s arms trade is an example of strategic policy choices that repeatedly choose American and Israeli interests above all. At least, that’s according to recent analysis from the New Economics Foundation podcast featuring Khem Rogaly and David Wearing discussing Britain’s role as an arms dealer. The podcast shows how UK arms exports fuel conflicts globally while providing minimal economic benefit to the UK economy.

This analysis comes as a report from the International Federation of Human Rights found the UK to be part of a worrying trend. As the Canary’s Joe Glenton reported, the report’s authors found that:

Ultimately, the crackdown on solidarity with Palestinians reveals a profound crisis: not only of human rights in the occupied territories, but of freedom itself , in societies that claim to be democratic.

The legitimacy of the international human rights framework is at stake. Whether these states choose to uphold their principles or betray them in favor of political expediency will have far-reaching consequences, not only for Palestinians, but for the future of rights and freedoms worldwide.

And, analysis from Rogaly and Wearing deftly breaks down the UK’s approach to spending. They note that even think-tanks that are funded by the US Pentagon, like the Rand, have found that prioritising defence spending over infrastructure investment might undermine economic growth

UK arms trade

The real reason for the spending, Rogaly says, is geopolitics:

It’s about kind of showing and posturing that Britain is this global military power, that it’s fundamental to a US-led world order and that it can keep itself in partnership with the US.

He pointed out that the government’s claim that military spending boosts growth is false. He stated that military contracts produce:

less in terms of jobs and growth than health, education, green industries like solar or wind.

Instead, that money is used to “reward their shareholders.”

In his recent report, Rogaly documented military industry workers who were open to transition, building on the historic Lucas Plan. He argues that the military industry, which produces huge social & ecological damage, contains technological capacity that can be repurposed for green manufacturing.

Rogaly highlighted that the new government data shows the Ministry of Defence spent £40 billion on procurement in the last year, with 16% of that amount going to a single private company, BAE Systems.

Greenwashing

On climate, Rogaly warns that a major military build-up directly undermines climate security. He cites an Allianz report which found that if European NATO members meet the new spending target, it would increase the continent’s total emissions by 12%.

This annual increase is equivalent to the total yearly emissions of a medium-sized European country like Belgium or the Czech Republic. Cumulatively, this military expansion would consume 15-20% of the EU’s remaining carbon budget under the Paris Agreement by 2050.

Rogaly states there is no way to “green” militaries that rely on fossil-fuel-powered jets and warships. He concludes that while defensive spending is necessary, the kind of geopolitical power projection this spending funds ultimately makes the UK less safe.

From colonialism to neocolonialism

Beyond economic and climate concerns, David Wearing, author of the book AngloArabia: Why Gulf Wealth Matters to Britain, described the UK’s arms industry as the “muscle of capitalism” and the “enforcement mechanism of imperialism,” linking it to the country’s imperial history.

Wearing noted that violence was absolutely “central” to British power during the days of empire, giving examples including the West Indian plantations, the concentration camps in Kenya, and the crushing of the Indian mutiny.

He also addressed Keir Starmer’s past pledge on Saudi arms sales, saying the promise was only to “review them,” not to stop them. “We know what happened next,” Wearing said. “He carried on arming Saudi Arabia and armed Israel in the middle of a genocide.”

Wearing also stated that British arms were “practically sustaining” the bombing campaign in Yemen, with a fleet of UK-made jets “pulverising Yemen.”

According to UN estimates, the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign in Yemen, which began in March 2015, had killed 377,000 people by the end of 2021. UK-made weapons were central to this campaign, as shown by analysis from Campaign Against Arms Trade.

British complicity

David Wearing added crucial context about UK-Israel military relations, noting that British complicity in Gaza follows the same pattern established in Yemen – supplying weapons while offering rhetorical concern. He specifically highlights that UK weapons facilities owned by Israeli company Elbit Systems have been frequent targets of Palestine Action protests before the group’s proscription.

Wearing emphasises this isn’t about Israeli influence over Britain, but about Britain’s strategic subordination to US interests. He explains:

Britain is not at the mercy of a state of a tenth of its population – all of this complicity is fundamentally about Britain’s relationship with the Americans and staying close to them.

Rogaly added that the F-35 program exemplifies this dynamic. The fighter jets are made by a global consortium led by the US defence giant Lockheed Martin.

He explained that Britain contributes over 15% of every F-35 jet and that modern militaries rely on “just-in-time supply chains” for critical spares and maintenance. “Parts made in this country are keeping those jets in the air,” he said, making the UK’s role in the programme essential for Israel’s bombing campaign.

He notes that when the UK government considered an arms embargo, there was “close coordination” with Washington, and the US made it clear it “would not tolerate us stopping F-35 parts going to Israel.”

Britain last

In September 2024, a senior UK government source told The Times that the US had privately warned Britain against suspending arms sales to Israel, just as the UK moved to suspend 30 of its 350 arms export licences. The source claimed the US feared such a move could damage ceasefire efforts, though the UK Foreign Office disputed this characterisation of the talks.

Together, the speakers’ analysis shows that Britain’s arms trade primarily serves to maintain its strategic partnership with the United States, even when this conflicts with other national priorities.

Featured image via Unsplash/Lawrence Hookham

By Nandita Lal

From Canary via this RSS feed