Blair shouldn't sell arms to Tanzania

Why is Tony Blair apparently determined to allow British Aerospace to sell a £28 million air-defence system to Tanzania, which shows such a clear contradiction with his commitment to humanitarian aid to Africa? The answer can only be found, I believe, in the continuing hold of the arms lobby over the Labour government.

The deal in itself is clearly suspect as an economic proposition. The World Bank has reported that it is "too expensive and not adequate for civil aviation". Gordon Brown and Clare Short have made clear that they oppose it and the matter has been kicked into touch for the moment. Tanzania, which has only eight military planes, has no serious need for the costly military system which British Aerospace is offering, as opposed to a much cheaper civil-aviation system.

And for the Government to approve it - regardless of whether some of the equipment has already been assembled and provisional approval given - would be in flagrant contradiction of Tony Blair's much-publicised new policies for Africa. In his speech to the Labour Party Conference in October, he eloquently described the state of Africa as a "scar on the face of the conscience of the world" and committed himself to a crusade against poverty in Africa.

Only two days ago, introducing a lecture on Africa in Downing Street, he committed himself to a new partnership for Africa and said: "Africa has not shared in the benefits of globalisation over the past decades. It is time to change that." What kind of new benefit is provided by this extravagant arms sale to one of the world's poorest countries?

Why should a Prime Minister so cynically jeopardise his moral standing, in the midst of his crusade against the sinister forces of terrorism, for the sake of a relatively small deal, and a handful of jobs on the Isle of Wight?

For anyone who has watched the workings of arms salesmen, there is a depressing familiarity in the question, and the answer. It is yet another case of a developing country being sold a system which it does not need, for a price it cannot afford, with the approval of a Western government. It is a process which has left Africa and the Middle East full of outdated weaponry and depleted funds.

British Aerospace represents one of the most relentless lobbies in Britain, with a reputation for bringing insistent pressure both on potential buyers in the developing world and on the British Government to allow the sales.

Some of the past deals by British Aerospace have aroused suspicions about the methods involved. When it secured the multi-billion dollar "Al-Yamamah" arms deal in Saudi Arabia in the Eighties, there were widespread stories of record commissions being paid to the Saudi agents to secure it.

After several European defence companies, including British Aerospace, secured big contracts with Mandela's government in South Africa, there were continuing allegations of bribery which are still being investigated; and many local politicians insist that the systems were overpriced and inappropriate. But all negotiations by British Aerospace remain shrouded in secrecy.

British Aerospace has always been held in awe by British governments, both for its salesmanship abroad, and for its ability to present itself as the providers of precious jobs at home, which impresses both ministers and Members of Parliament in their constituencies.

Over the decades, arms companies have always been adept in persuading politicians that they must be allowed to export weapons in order to safeguard jobs; and Labour MPs have been specially vulnerable to this argument, because many have represented areas of high unemployment like the North-West and North-East with large arms factories and shipyards, where thousands of workers, they argue, would not be able to find other jobs.

For that reason governments have felt obliged not only to permit questionable deals to undesirable customers - like Saddam Hussein before he invaded Kuwait, or General Galtieri in Argentina before the Falklands War - but also to send money to pay for the deals, through the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD) - whose loans are often never repaid by the dubious clients. The supposedly profitable contracts often end up with heavy losses, subsidised by governments.

This argument about jobs has now been thoroughly discredited by economists - most notably by Sir Samuel Brittan, the distinguished commentator who has unusual influence over the Treasury, who has shown that arms jobs are no different from others.

Sir Samuel has blown up the notion that Britain should subsidise foreign arms exports because of the special benefits for arms companies at home.

Yet now once again a Labour Government is apparently sanctioning an undesirable arms contract to maintain employment: this time for 250 jobs in British Aerospace in the Isle of Wight.

How can this temporary benefit be justified in the light of Blair's promise to Africa in October: to "provide more aid, untied to trade; write off debt; help with good governance and infrastructure"? What kind of help is this deal giving to good governance and debtreduction?

The contradiction is more flagrant at a time when the Government has written off African debts to allow countries to begin again. "On the one hand, we are forgiving debt," said the former Labour minister Tony Worthington, "while on the other we are adding to Tanzania's debt with this order."

Only two days ago Gordon Brown, speaking in Washington, proposed a $50 billion fund to help developing countries in programmes for health, education and combating poverty. How does this defence system fit into any such programme?

The proposed Tanzanian deal should be the opportunity to finally expose the humbug and contradictions that have underlaid governments' approvals of arms sales, and to insist that they are properly scrutinised beforehand. The Export Control Bill, as MPs originally intended, should insist that all deals with the Third World should be based on sustainable development - which this obviously is not.

At a time when Britain's moral credibility in the world is more important than ever, the Prime Minister cannot be seen to be pushing through an unwanted and opportunist contract while he preaches about a great new initiative against poverty in Africa.