There is a clear conflict of interest when former generals or ministers advise defense contractors lobbying for new contracts.

This practice, often referred to as the "revolving door," creates an inherent ethical problem and compromises the integrity of the procurement process.

The former official's loyalty to the public good is replaced by a professional and financial obligation to a private company.

The Nature of the Conflict

A conflict of interest arises when a public official's private interests could improperly influence their public duties. In the case of the defense industry, the conflict is particularly acute for several key reasons:

• Insider Knowledge: A former general or minister has access to a wealth of non-public, confidential information. They understand the nuances of a country's defense strategy, its future budget priorities, and the specific technological weaknesses of its military. When they move to a defense contractor, this insider knowledge becomes a powerful tool for commercial gain, allowing the company to tailor its products and lobbying efforts to match a government's unannounced plans.

• Access to Decision-Makers: These individuals have spent decades building a network of contacts within the government and military. They can secure meetings with high-ranking officials and ministers that would be difficult for a standard lobbyist to obtain. This privileged access gives their new employer a direct line to the people who control defense spending, creating an unfair advantage in the procurement process.

• The "Appearance of Impropriety": Even if a former official does not actively use their insider knowledge to influence a decision, the mere appearance of a conflict of interest erodes public trust. When a government awards a multi-billion dollar contract to a company that employs its former defense chief, it fuels public cynicism and a perception that politicians and generals are using their public service to secure lucrative private-sector jobs.

The Lack of Effective Safeguards

Both the UK and the EU have regulations in place to manage the "revolving door" but they are largely insufficient and fail to prevent the conflict of interest.

• UK's "Toothless Watchdog": In the UK, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) is tasked with advising on post-public-service appointments. However, its recommendations for a "cooling-off period" or conditions for employment are not legally binding. A former official can simply choose to ignore ACOBA's advice with no penalty. A report by the Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) found that 86% of new jobs taken by senior defense officials had a significant overlap with their previous government responsibilities.

• EU's Weak Enforcement: The EU's ethics rules for former officials are also criticized for a lack of rigorous enforcement. While a "cooling-off period" exists, it can be circumvented, and there is a lack of independent oversight. A former official with a deep understanding of the European Defence Fund (EDF) could take a role with a defense company and use their knowledge to help that company secure funding, a clear conflict of interest. .

The defense industry and its allies defend this practice by arguing that it allows for the transfer of valuable expertise. While a former general's knowledge is indeed valuable, it does not justify the immense ethical risk. The potential for misuse of insider information and the compromise of public trust far outweigh any benefits of a private company gaining this expertise. The only way to effectively address this conflict is through stricter, legally enforceable regulations that prevent public officials from capitalizing on their government service.