Despite continuing student opposition, Cardiff University are still investing money in companies heavily associated with arms manufacture, and recent information has shown that the amount being invested has actually increased.
Currently the University holds investments with arms manufacturers BAE Systems, General Electric and Smith Group in the form of shares and bonds with a value of £225,000. BAE Systems claims to be ‘the largest European defence company’.
gair rhydd first reported on this issue in November 2006 (Issue 827) after information that the University was investing in such companies was revealed by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) group who obtained it through the Freedom of Information Act.
It was revealed that the University employed external managers to co-ordinate their finances, and therefore because the money was being invested indirectly, this did not conflict with the university’s ethical practices.
After the publication of this information, a mandate was put into motion in December 2006 by Student Counci urging the University to withdraw investments from the companies involved in arms manufacture. This included those invested by external managers employed by the University to manage their finances (Issue 830).
However, it has since been revealed that the University has disregarded this, and is still using external managers to invest money in arms manufacture. Added to this, there has been an increase in the money invested, from £170,000 to the current amount of £225,000.
This has come under criticism from students. Mia Hollsing, President of Socialist Students and a member of Student Council said, “It is disgusting that the University invests its money in arms manufacture at the same time as students generally oppose wars and many are, or have been, active in the anti-war movement.”
She also added, “It is no excuse for the University to say they have external fund managers. At the end of the day it is their money and they decide what to do with it.”
In response, a University Spokesperson has said, “The University holds no direct investments in any companies with defence interests. The University has ethical practices and places its main bank accounts with the Co-operative Bank which is well known for its ethical policies.”
The University said that their officers are willing to meet with Students’ Union representatives to discuss investment policies.
1. tweak
First, it’s not like the dean is an undercover mafia godfather regularly checking-up on his buddies in Congo. Secondly, the university ( as are many universities in the UK ) has a funding problem and the investments are important in keeping a good balance, meaning that if they fail there’s more pressure to either cut costs or raise tuition fees. This makes external fund managers important, as I rather have university staff focusing on students rather than despairing over how the cover a position. Moreover, the shares bought did not directly put any money in the defense companies’ pockets as they were bought on the secondary market. Lastly, would you have preferred the uni money to be invested in Lehman Brothers or maybe GM stock ?
2. Thomas Carroll
Kinda disgusting to think that, roughly speaking, Cardiff Uni is in a better position financially if more people are killed by war. We could just as easily/safely invest in a non-murder driven company.
And yes, tweak, I’d rather we invested in GM stock (which saves lives rather than taking them away).
3. tweak
Thomas -
The ” murder-driven company ” argument is flawed. Military conflicts with U.S. involvement is fairly constant by historical data, the main variable being the conflict time – which is mainly affected by public opinion which is directly correlated on the long-term with the number of people killed. Consequently, defense companies have an interest in keeping that number as low as possible – which is also supported by the fact that most sales and profits of defense companies come not from selling weapons where they don’t have any real competitive advantage but in high-tech equipment such as recon drones or missile defense systems while the vast majority of their R&D expenditure doesn’t go to weapons but to crowd-control technology or stealth technology.
You have a very good argument against US or UK involvement in conflicts but the argument against defense companies is flawed.
Moreover, GM’s insistence during the 90s and early 00s on high-fuel consumption vehicles or a profit-driven view of safety measures led to more deaths than Iraq and if you count their support for ethanol production and the subsequent rise in food prices which proved devastating in less developed countries, you end-up with conclusion that they did more harm than any defense company as counter-intuitive as that may seem.
A viable alternative, which I support, is channeling the funds into British alternative energy start-ups – the uni acting as an angel investor – and that could get more returns on the long-term while helping do good and giving the uni more control over the exact investments made without turning lecturers into stockbrokers.
4. Mark
If students don’t want to be associated with organisations that are complicit with war then they better not be taking out a loan or grant that comes from Her Majesty’s Government, that would be awfully hypocritical, wouldn’t it?