SU NO TO 'ARMS TRADE INVESTMENT'

By Elena Cresci - News Reporter

THE STUDENT Union has voted to commit itself to campaigning against the University holding shares in companies linked to Arms Trading.

The ‘Ethical Investment’ motion, proposed by Education Officer Luke James and seconded by Environment and Ethics Officer Stephen Marshall targeted the University’s significant investments in firms known for the manufacture and provision of military equipment worldwide.

The motion was not passed without heated debate, with two opposing speeches being made at SGM (Thursday 24th November) voicing concerns that the motion was poorly worded and would directly affect students negatively.

 Currently, the University holds £34,650 worth of shares in Cobham, who make 60% of their total sales in military sales and £20,460 worth of shares in BAE Systems, who are ranked as the third largest arms trading company in the world. The companies produce military equipment such as the M88A2 Hercules tank and Eurofighter Typhoon.

This is not the first time the University has come under fire for its shares in arms trading companies. The Waterfront has previously reported on this matter in November 2008 and on two occasions in 2005, when the issue first arose.

The critique of the University’s shareholdings has been brought to light by Education Officer Luke James in wake of the threat of University fees rising. James argued at SGM that the rise in fees makes ‘consumers’ out of students, and as a consequence they should have a right to decide where their money is invested.

He stated that the University “can expect us to scrutinise exactly where our money is going and say something about it if we feel it is being spent incorrectly or in this case unethically.”

Environment and Ethics officer Stephen Marshall felt that the passing of this motion shows that “students care where their fee money goes, especially where companies are known to provide arms to militia groups and the like which commit crimes against humanity. Funding must come from more ethical sources while moving away from having shares in the arms trade.”

Abigail Haque, head of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) Universities’ Network echoes this belief, saying that CAAT was ‘delighted’ to hear of the Ethical Investment Motion. “It is critical that students take ownership for how their university operates”

“The vote at Swansea University clearly represented the student voice saying that arms companies are not acceptable businesses to invest in and they will not stand for their public authority continuing to enrich BAE or Cobham’s share prices.”

Students also voiced several concerns with the motion including the fact that BAE and Cobham also invested money into areas unrelated to arms trading, such as civilian aviation passenger planes like the Airbus a380.

Postgraduate law student David Turner made an opposing speech against the motion, stating that it was ‘poorly worded’ and gave little thought to its implications.

“Swansea University is world renowned as an Engineering University and produces some of the world’s finest graduates who are readily employed by major engineering companies. It is seriously dangerous to undermine the relationship the university has with such companies, as they may well pull the funding or worse no longer recognise Swansea graduates as being pre-eminent in the field.”

This concern was also raised by several Engineering students. Jack Adams, a third year studying Aerospace Engineering and Social Secretary of the Engineering Society, felt that while the motion raised some “valid points”, he still felt that the motion itself was problematic due to ‘these companies, BAE in particular, [representing] large potential employment opportunities for Engineering students.”

Director of Finance at Swansea University, Phil Gough, said: “Like most HE institutions, Swansea University’s investment strategy aims to maximise the returns for the endowment fund and the pension scheme; ensuring financial security for the institution and a guaranteed pension for every member of staff upon retirement.”

What is your opinion on this story? Whatever your opinion, we want to hear it! Are the SU putting engineering investment and jobs at risk or right to question where the University invests? Email –