|
“The corporation’s… legally defined mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, its own self-interest, regardless of the often harmful consequences it might cause to others.” – Joel Bakan[1] Corporations have attained an unprecedented power within our societies. Our health, the clothes we wear, work, time off, government policies and political influence, the food we eat and the culture and values we absorb, military policies, surveillance and security are all increasingly controlled and mediated by the needs of profit-driven corporations and the ideology of the primacy of the pursuit of profit. The expansion of corporate power requires an increased militarisation of society. From new wars over natural resources to imperial interventions to neuter popular uprisings, the corporate-driven militarisation of national and international politics continues apace. Corporations benefit from state military and colonial policies, profiting from the contracts created by military operations and by providing security technology and services for an increasingly militarised world. Military ventures prompt the development of new technologies of repression which can be marketed and sold for profit. Our fears and insecurities are utilised in corporate marketing rhetoric to sell new military, surveillance and security technologies. The militarisation of society is changing the face of modern warfare. Drone technology[2] has allowed the US and Israel to wage war in Gaza, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan without ever needing to set foot on enemy soil.[3] The same drone technology has been used to protect corporate assets, for example Chevron’s oil fields in Angola. Weaponry developed in the context of military occupation and on the battlegrounds of the war on terror is increasingly pervading everyday life in the Global North. Non-lethal weaponry developed by international companies and tested against social movements in Palestine in the context of military occupation[4] have been used against anti-corporate protesters in the US[5] and marketed for use against rioters in the UK.[6] Nuclear weapons are another comparatively new and constantly developing technology which has fundamentally changed the balance of global politics. These weapons have the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands of people indiscriminately and render natural environments uninhabitable. However their manufacture, deployment and development is done for private profit. The development of nuclear weapons technology has been internationally condemned. After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which caused the deaths of over 200,000 people, social movements in Japan began to call for a ban on nuclear weapons.[7] In the UK grassroots movements have been resisting the development of nuclear weapons technology since the first peace marches to Aldermaston almost 55 years ago.[8] In 1996 the United Nations asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its opinion on whether nuclear weapons were legal. The resultant ICJ judgement stated that nuclear weapons could never be used legally within international law and that to threaten the use of thermonuclear weapons was illegal within international humanitarian law.[9] Despite this nuclear weapons continue to be deployed. Nuclear weapons technology and the expansion of nuclear weapons facilities has proved a lucrative market for private corporations. In the UK further opportunities for corporate profit from nuclear weapons were created by the privatisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in 1993.[10] AWE is managed by the Ministry of Defence but is currently subcontracted to AWE Management Ltd (AWE ML), which, in turn, contracts to AWE PLC. AWE ML was awarded a 10-year contract to manage AWE in April 2000. This was extended in 2003 and is now set to run until March 2025.[11] The company manages three sites at Aldermaston, Burghfield and Blacknest.[12] AWE PLC is a consortium of private companies which manufactures and maintains the warheads for the UK’s nuclear weapons system, Trident. Since 2008, the consortium has been made up of SERCO, Jacobs Engineering and Lockheed Martin UK who hold an equal share.[13] The government of the UK holds a golden share in the company.[14] SERCO is a British company specialising in providing public services under government contract.[15] They have been a major beneficiary of successive British government’s drives to privatise public services and contract out functions previously carried out by the state. SERCO currently hold contracts in the military, healthcare, leisure, prisons, local government and education sectors.[16] With regard to the military SERCO doesn’t just manage the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Facility, the company also facilitates naval access to, and operates vessels at, Faslane, Devonport and Portsmouth Naval Bases, where nuclear weapons are deployed ready for use. It also provides services to several military bases across the UK including RAF Fylingdales, where it maintains the UK’s ‘Anti Ballistic Missile Warning System’ and the joint RAF/US Department of Defence operation at Menwith Hill.[17] In 2007 the government announced that Menwith Hill would become part of the US’ Missile Defence System.[18] Thus SERCO is, in effect, directly involved in maintaining the UK and US’s illegal threat of a nuclear strike and, consequently, in maintaining military hegemony through the threat of offensive action.[19] A map of SERCO’s business in the UK can be found at www.serco.com/markets/index.asp Lockheed Martin UK is a subsidiary of the US firm Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest arms company operating in 75 countries[20] with annual military sales of close to $40 billion.[21] Lockheed Martin specialises in military aircraft, missiles and munitions. The company operates nuclear weapons systems in the US and the UK.[22] Lockheed Martin’s slogan is “we never forget who we’re working for”, and its not hard to see who that might be as the company is the largest recipient of US defence contracts and does 60% of its work for the US Department of Defence.[23] The company manufactures the F-16[24] and is developing the new F-35[25] fighter planes, which are being supplied to human rights abusers like the Israeli[26] and Turkish[27] governments as well as the US[28] and UK.[29] In 2009 it received 7.1% of total Pentagon funding.[30] In 2011 anti-militarist campaigners refused to participate in the UK national census due to the decision to award the £150 million government contract to Lockheed Martin.[31] The company has also been involved in running census programmes in the US.[32] A map of some of Lockheed Martin’s UK locations can be found at www.caat.org.uk/resources/mapping/organisation?name_search=lockheed+martin and www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/uk/who-we-are/Locations.html For more info on Lockheed Martin see www.crocodyl.org/wiki/lockheed_martin Jacobs Engineering is a US company engaged in construction, engineering and provision of services to governments with annual revenues in excess of $10 billion.[33] Jacobs is the newcomer in the AWE Plc consortium, buying out British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) in 2008. The sale prompted concern that AWE is now majority controlled by US corporations.[34] All three members of AWE Plc are profiting from producing and maintaining nuclear warheads which are used to maintain a constant threat that they could be used with the aim of ensuring military dominance by those states which possess nuclear technology over those which do not. The operations of these three companies can be resisted. For instance SERCO runs public services across the UK and campaigners could attack its capacity to continue obtaining profitable local government contracts while it remains a partner in AWE Plc. References
[1] Joel Bakan (2004), The Corporation, pp. 1-2.
[2] Drones are unmanned aircraft. Many drones are armed with guns, missiles or bombs.
[3] See, for instance www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/
[4] http://corporateoccupation.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/1080/
[5] www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3443
[6] www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/12/water-cannon?page=all
[7] Jim Falk (1982), Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, p. 98.
[8] www.cnduk.org/information/info-sheets/item/437-the-history-of-cnd
[9] John Mayer (2002), Nuclear Peace: The Story of the Trident Three, pp. 1-2.
[10] www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/awe/awe00-03.htm
[11] www.awe.co.uk/aboutus/the_company_eb1b2.html
[12] www.awe.co.uk/aboutus/our_sites_92e5c.html
[13] www.awe.co.uk/aboutus/the_company_eb1b2.html
[14] A golden share is a nominal share which is able to outvote all other shares in certain specified circumstances.
[15] www.serco.com/about/index.asp
[16] www.serco.com/markets/index.asp
[17] www.serco.com/markets/defence/
[18] www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/rafmenwithhill.cfm and www.cnduk.org/campaigns/no-to-us-missile-defence/menwith-hill
[19] www.serco.com/markets/defence/index.asp
[20] www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/global.html
[21] www.caat.org.uk/resources/companies/lockheed-martin/ and www.crocodyl.org/wiki/lockheed_martin
[22] www.lockheedmartin.com/us/who-we-are/organization.html
[23] www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/18/lockheed-martin-targeted-census-protesters
[24] www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/products/f16.html
[25] www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/products/f35.html
[26] See www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=279106 and www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article7.html
[27] www.turkishweekly.net/news/141212/turkey-to-buy-two-planes-in-second-f-35-shipment.html and www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16-fms.htm
[28] www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f16/
[29] www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm
[30] www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/lockheed-martin-shadowing-you
[31] See www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/18/lockheed-martin-targeted-census-protesters and www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/488424.html
[32] www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/lockheed-martin-shadowing-you
[33] www.jacobs.com/
[34] www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/20/british-nuclear-fuels-sells-awe-management-stake
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=4642
Don't Bank on the Bomb | Serco
Nuke weapons industry & financial backers: Global profit, death and sin
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/11-03-2012/120731-nuke_weapons_industry-0/
The Nuclear Weapons Industry's Money Bombs
How millions in campaign cash and revolving-door lobbying have kept America's atomic arsenal off the chopping block.
Employees of private companies that produce the main pieces of the US nuclear arsenal have invested more than $18 million in the election campaigns of lawmakers that oversee related federal spending, and the companies also employ more than 95 former members of Congress or Capitol Hill staff to lobby for government funding, according to a new report.
The Center for International Policy, a nonprofit group that supports the "demilitarization" of US foreign policy, released the report on Wednesday to highlight what it described as the heavy influence of campaign donations and pork-barrel politics on a part of the defense budget not usually associated with large profits or contractor power: nuclear arms.
As Congress deliberated this spring on nuclear weapons-related projects, including funding for the development of more modern submarines and bombers, the top 14 contractors gave nearly $3 million to the 2012 reelection campaigns of lawmakers whose support they needed for these and other projects, the report disclosed.
Half of that sum went to members of the four key committees or subcommittees that must approve all spending for nuclear arms—the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the Energy and Water or Defense appropriations subcommittees, according to data the Center compiled from the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. The rest went to lawmakers who are active on nuclear weapons issues because they have related factories or laboratories in their states or districts.
Members of the House Armed Services Committee this year have sought to erect legislative roadblocks to further reductions in nuclear arms, and also demanded more spending for related facilities than the Obama administration sought, including $100 million in unrequested funds for a new plant that will make plutonium cores for nuclear warheads, and $374 million for a new ballistic missile-firing submarine. The House has approved those requests, but the Senate has not held a similar vote on the 2013 defense bill.
Although lawmakers say their votes are not influenced by the campaign donations they receive, and donors routinely say their contributions are meant to ensure access—not buy votes, the Center's report said that the $18 million given by the contractors to key lawmakers over the course of their political careers makes it hard for the recipients to ignore what the companies want.
"Any effort to downsize the nation's nuclear force is likely to be met with fierce opposition from the individuals and institutions that benefit from the nuclear status quo, including corporations involved in designing and building nuclear delivery vehicles; companies that operate nuclear warhead-related facilities; and members of Congress with nuclear weapons-related facilities or deployments," said the report by William Hartung, who directs the Center for International Policy's Arms and Security Project.
Other groups have documented that there is a substantial financial stake in nuclear weapons policymaking: At present, the US government spends roughly $31 billion a year on its arsenal, according to a tally released on Tuesday by the Stimson Center, a nonprofit group in Washington. It has also proposed to spend at least $120 billion on new warhead-carrying submarines, bombers, and missiles over the next several decades.
Ensuring steady access to such funding is vital for some of the companies whose employees made large campaign donations cited in the study—such as Lockheed or Northrup Grumman—because they draw at least 80 percent of their revenue from federal contracts. Of the 137 lobbyists hired by the top contractors, 57 are former members of Congress, 39 are former congressional staff, 16 are former defense officials and 8 are former Energy Department officials, the study said.
Although many firms work on multiple weapons and so have various reasons to curry congressional favor, some of the best-financed lawmakers are prominent advocates of sustaining and modernizing the nuclear arsenal, according to the study. They have promoted that cause through formal legislative caucuses that promote shipbuilding, submarines, and long-range strategic bombers, as well as through an informal alliance of members from states where nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles are based, the report states.
These include the Shipbuilding Caucus, the Submarine Caucus, and the Long-Range Strike Caucus. The contractor-supported counterparts of these groups include the Submarine Industrial Base Council, which claims a membership of 5,000 companies; the 60,000-member Navy League; and the 100,000-member Air Force Association.
Of the top 20 Senate recipients of nuclear weapons contractor donations, 7 are presently members of the members of the Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces. They have collected a total of $272,816 for their 2012 campaigns, and a total of $2.4 million since their first election. On the House side, 6 of the top 20 recipients are members of the Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee. They have collected $558,532 for their 2012 campaigns, and $2.2 million overall.
The top single Senate recipient is Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Intelligence Committee and the appropriations subcommittee that handles the Energy Department's nuclear weapons budget; she has collected $74,500 in this election cycle and $421,747 over her 20-year career, according to the report. Those figures represent only one percent of her total campaign receipts, for the current cycle and over her career.
Feinstein's spokesman Brian Weiss did not respond to a request for comment. The report noted that she has questioned the high cost of several new facilities that the Energy Department sought to build for warhead production or processing.
House Armed Services Committee chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), whose district includes facilities operated by Boeing, Northrup Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, is the top House recipient of funding from nuclear weapons contractors, collecting $257,750 so far in this election cycle and $809,150 over his 19-year congressional career.
The funds represent nearly a fifth of all the campaign donations he has collected in this cycle, and the lifetime tally is nine percent of his lifetime campaign funding, according to data on the Center for Responsive Politics website.
McKeon's spokesman Alissa McCurley told the Center for Public Integrity in April that "funding from special interests does not always mean something unethical is afoot. Chairman McKeon receives input from senior military leaders as part of routine Congressional oversight. Those views, along with those of Committee professional staff members, are what sets his annual priorities" on arms control and nuclear arms.
Capitol Hill records make clear that McKeon's support for industry positions nonetheless increased as he became a more senior committee member and its donations to him spiked. Defense firms of various categories donated between 7 and 32 times more to McKeon after he became chairman than they did beforehand, according to a November 2011 study of key House committee chairman by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Washington nonprofit group.
The CREW study further found that from 2007-2008, McKeon's votes were aligned with defense firms about a quarter of the time, but "since January 2011, Rep. McKeon has voted on average 100 percent in agreement with the industries regulated by the Armed Services Committee." That alignment was higher than the average for House Republicans. McCurley did not respond to an email and phone call requesting comment.
Defense industry funding of the committee's senior Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) similarly rose substantially when he moved to that position in 2010. But Smith's voting support for industry-backed policies has fluctuated, going from 75 percent in 2007-2008 to 33 percent from 2009-2010 and then returning to 75 percent since Jan. 2011, according to the CREW study.
Some of the top campaign recipients have parochial reasons for supporting nuclear weapons contractors: Smith's district includes a substantial Boeing presence while McKeon's district includes Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and Lockheed factories, as well as a major Air Force base. Feinstein has a substantial portion of the aerospace industry in her state as well as one of the three laboratories where nuclear weapons are designed.
But CREW said the sudden influx of contributions given to key members once they became chairman or second-in-rank raised overall questions "about how beholden [they] are to the industries they oversee, and whether they are independent enough to put public interest ahead of special interest."
Center for Public Integrity data editor David Donald contributed to this article.
Influential Ex-General: Cut US Nukes Now
$6 Billion for a Nuke-Building Shed?
Why "Doomsday" Budget Cuts Could Be Good for US Nukes
We're Spending More on Nukes Than We Did During the Cold War?!
Bombs Away
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nuclear-bombs-congress-elections-campaign-donations