Defense and arms industry lobbyists counter accusations that they prioritize sales over ethical foreign policy by arguing that arms exports are a vital tool of foreign policy, not just a commercial transaction.

They frame their activities as essential for promoting national security, strengthening alliances, and ensuring economic stability.

The "Strategic Partnership" Justification

Lobbyists justify arms sales to controversial regimes by positioning the defense industry as a strategic partner to the government, not just a contractor. They claim that arms exports are a crucial instrument for advancing a country's diplomatic and security interests.

• Strengthening Alliances: A key argument is that selling military equipment to a country helps to strengthen alliances and build military-to-military cooperation. This is particularly effective when arguing for sales to countries with poor human rights records, with the claim that it is a way to maintain influence and ensure that a partner remains aligned with Western interests rather than turning to rivals like Russia or China. The sale of weapons is framed as a strategic necessity to project power and maintain a balance of influence in a region.

• Preventing a "Vacuum": The defense industry argues that if a nation, such as the UK or a European country, refuses to sell weapons to a controversial state, another nation will simply fill the void. This argument is used to justify sales to authoritarian regimes, arguing that it's better to maintain some control over the arms supply chain and a relationship with the government, even if it is flawed. This framing shifts the ethical burden from the seller to a third-party competitor.

Economic and National Interest Justifications

Lobbyists heavily rely on economic arguments to justify their activities, linking arms sales to a country's internal health.

• Economic Growth and Jobs: The most common argument is that arms exports are vital for economic growth and job creation. Lobbyists argue that a robust export market is necessary to sustain a country's industrial base, support skilled jobs, and fund research and development (R&D). They claim that without these exports, the domestic defense industry would shrink, making the country reliant on foreign suppliers for its own military needs, which they argue would be a national security risk.

• Funding R&D: Defense firms justify their lobbying by stating that the massive profits from international sales are a primary source of funding for the next generation of military technology. They argue that this R&D is too risky and expensive for governments to fund alone, and that the private sector's investment, fueled by a healthy export market, is essential for maintaining a technological edge.

Challenging the "Conflict Zone" Accusation

When confronted with evidence of weapons being used to commit human rights abuses, defense companies and their lobbyists respond in a few key ways.

• Denial of Responsibility: They often argue that they are not responsible for how their products are used after a sale is completed. They assert that their responsibility ends once the weapon is in the hands of the buyer, and that any subsequent misuse is a matter for the buying country's government to address.

• Due Diligence and Legal Frameworks: The industry points to the fact that arms sales are legally regulated in both the UK and the EU. They claim they work within these frameworks and that the ultimate decision to approve or deny an export license rests with the government, not the company. They argue that they conduct their own "due diligence" to assess risks, but that they must defer to the government's official authorization.

• Framing Human Rights as a "Policy Choice": Defense lobbyists often frame human rights as just one of many factors in a complex risk assessment that also includes security, economic, and strategic considerations. They argue against a blanket ban on arms sales to any country with a questionable human rights record, claiming that this would be a simplistic approach that could have unintended negative consequences, such as forcing a country to align with a rival power.

In conclusion, the defense industry's response to accusations that lobbying prioritizes sales over ethical considerations is a complex and carefully constructed narrative. They don't deny that they seek to make sales, but they justify this by reframing their activities as a crucial component of national foreign policy and economic security. They place the final responsibility for export decisions on governments and argue that their continued influence is essential for a country to maintain a strong defense industrial base and project its power globally.