Who says that student activism is pointless? Setting up a tent, donning a keffiyeh, and camping out on your university’s front lawn might look like a waste of time, but at Cambridge it’s a strategy that pays off. King’s College – which has been repeatedly targeted by pro-Palestinian protestors – has agreed to cut ties with arms companies. The college announced that it will divest money from weapons manufacturers after its governing body voted to ‘adopt a new responsible investment policy’.
King’s College – which has been repeatedly targeted by pro-Palestinian protestors – has agreed to cut ties with arms companies
In an email sent to students on Tuesday, King’s College said it will now take a ‘principled approach to investments with the values of our community’. The College will also, ‘prompted by the occupation of Ukraine and Palestinian territories,’ be divesting from any company involved in ‘activities generally recognised as illegal or contravening global norms, such as occupation’.
The guiding light behind these ‘principles’ seems to be a wholesale surrender to the demands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, some of whom set up an encampment in front of the college last May, seemingly without major consequence.
But even though the protestors have ‘won’, they aren’t entirely happy. King’s College for Palestine (KC4P) said that ‘the decision comes far too late for the thousands of Palestinians who have been starved, tortured and killed at the hands of the Israeli state’. It urged ‘the University and other colleges to follow the example set by King’s’.
What is the end goal here? Are students simply unable to recognise that the only way for Britain to defend its allies and defeat its enemies requires military capacity?
BAE Systems, one of the firms that King’s has invested in, has provided significant support for Ukraine. Last year, the company was given a Ministry of Defence contract to maintain and repair the UK’s gifted L119 Light Guns – returning them to the frontline faster and helping to ensure the safety of civilians.
Russia would never waste their time on ‘divestment’ or sustainability policies. They will do whatever they can to fund arms production for their own side. So will our other enemies. We are one of the only countries in the world determined to hamstring our defence capabilities for no good reason.
In 1915, a shortage of artillery shells on the front lines of the first world war caused a crisis in Britain. The ‘shell scandal’ led to the fall of H. H. Asquith, and the rise of Lloyd George as his replacement. But while such oversight was condemned by the public a century ago, it now seems to be the goal. John Spellar, a former defence minister, recently warned MPs that ‘the British Army would run out of munitions within ten days’ if war broke out. While there has been some attempt to increase supply, constant calls for divestment are frustrating this.
In recent years, Barclays have sold all their shared in Elbit Systems, an Israel-based international military technology company, as have HSBC. This is a company that was engaged in supporting the defence of Israel from Hamas, and that continues to supply weapons to the UK. They have never been found in contravention of international law. Oxford is similarly in the process of ‘consulting’ on divestment from all ‘companies engaging in arms manufacturing’ across the whole University.
We live in uncertain and dangerous times. There is a war waging in Europe. Yet if conflict ever comes closer to home, it is entirely possible that the arms companies needed to protect civilians will find themselves without banks through which to operate, without the ability to access lines of credit, and without the supply of ammunitions needed to launch an offensive. This should terrify us. Instead, adults are capitulating to students in tents.
What would students at King’s College have us do in the event of war? Are they hoping our enemies might watch Britain refuse to fund its most crucial companies and then follow suit? And why are those in charge at universities listening to them? The position of protestors is not ‘principled’; it is naïve and reckless. If this ‘divestment’ trend is not halted soon, then the world will become a far less safe place.
Comments