Imperial War Museums’ Funding Cuts and Real Horrible Histories

large

A suspected ‘Mau Mau’ fighter is taken away by a private of the 1st Battalion, The King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry for interrogation. © IWM (MAU 864)


Imperial War Museums’ Funding Cuts and Real Horrible Histories:

The brainchild behind the Imperial War Museum, Sir Alfred Mond, said on its launch in June 1920: “The Museum was not conceived as a monument of military glory, but rather as a record of toil and sacrifice.” He included in this dedication, “the people of the Empire, as a record of their toil and sacrifice through these fateful years” of the First World War. And, yet, the new Museum’s Board of Trustees was filled with government appointees and a handful of representatives from colonial or dominion governments. The ‘people’, whether of the Empire or Britain, had no direct say in how their toil and sacrifice was depicted. Ninety-three years on, IWM now spans five branches and a remit of covering all conflict involving Britain and the Commonwealth since the First World War – but the challenge remains as to how the Museum accurately and openly records peoples’ experiences of conflict.

IWM’s ability to fulfil its role is coming under severe pressure from cuts to its annual public grant – its main source of income as a national museum. Whilst the government has done much to publicise its financial support for IWM London’s new First World War galleries, in preparation for next year’s WW1 national centenary events, what is barely mentioned, however, is the 21% cut to IWM’s real value total grant that is planned by 2014-15, compared to 2011-12.

Despite these cuts, David Cameron, wants IWM London to be, “a centrepiece of our commemorations for the Centenary of the First World War”, and to inspire new generations with the “incredible stories of courage, toil and sacrifice that have brought so many of us here over the past century.” Thus, IWM is clearly not only under increasing financial pressure but, also, real political pressure as to how to portray conflict.

The IWM has set its own independent agenda in its Annual Report 2011/12: “to be recognised as the world’s leading authority on conflict and its impact – focusing on Britain, its former Empire and the Commonwealth, from the First World War to the present… IWM should be a place where, regardless of knowledge or experience, our audiences can make sense of conflict, understand its causes, course and consequences and see how it affects human behaviour for good or for bad.”

To meet this vision IWM must have the editorial independence to examine the historical record critically. The Museum Associations’ , states that museums should “strive for editorial integrity and remain alert to the pressure that can be exerted by particular interest groups, including lenders and funders.” (Code 9.10). [Now, expressed more strongly in the updated Code of Ethics as: “Ensure editorial integrity in programming and interpretation. Resist attempts to influence interpretation or content by particular interest groups, including lenders, donors and funders.” (Code, 1.2)]

IWM insists it has this independence – decision-makers are ‘neutral’ and funders have no influence over how they exhibit their subject matter. Yet, whether the Museum has enough of an accountable democratic senior management structure to be able to preserve editorial integrity itself is highly doubtful. The IWM Board of Trustees is highly unrepresentative of British society, appointed by Cabinet ministers with wealthy figures from the military and corporate sectors. Of the 22 trustees, only two are women – former corporate director and current journalist, Bronwen Maddox, and the lawyer and academic, Dame Judith Mayhew. In terms of political, social and professional backgrounds, the Board of Trustees has more in common with IWM’s state and corporate sponsors than the visitor to the Museums.

IWM’s choices of subject matter casts doubt upon its editorial integrity and independence. There is a distinct lack of critical analysis of British military activity, demonstrated by the lack of inclusion of the perspectives of the victims and dissidents of militarism. IWM London will re-open this year (29th July) with a new photography and art programme called ‘IWM Contemporary‘. This will be kicked off by Omer Fast’s video piece, ‘5,000 Feet is the Best,’ based around the experiences of a former US drone operator. Following this will be an exhibition of reportage and photographs taken by US and UK soldiers in Iraq 1991 – 2012 (Mike Moore and Lee Craker) and an exhibition on the “personal and environmental legacy of military structures” by the British photographer and film maker, Donovan Wylie. IWM London’s new family exhibiton will be Horrible Histories: Spies.

There will continue to be few spaces for the voices of the victims and dissenters of British military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the new IWM London. IWM North has featured an exhibition of powerful photographs by the Guardian’s Sean Smith that does depict some of the devastation of Iraq – but this exhibition is certainly in the minority across IWM’s five national branches.

Coverage of past British military activity tends to be similarly edited. A revealing example comes from an online collection of personal stories about “conflict, belonging and identity” put together a few years ago by IWM called “Through My Eyes.” The collection included three stories from ‘Kenya in Conflict’ – Britain’s merciless repression of the rebelling Kikuyu tribe, known as the Mau Mau uprising. The British government only recently paid a limited amount of compensation to the surviving victims. None of the three stories told in the Kenyan part of IWM’s exhibition were from the Kikuyu. Thus, the primary Kenyan victims of incredible British imperial brutality, including tens of thousands killed and virtually the entire 1.5 million Kikuyu detained, were not given the chance to tell their story.

Corporate Vested Interests

The British government is IWM’s most powerful interest group as provider of public funds and selector of most of the positions on the Board of Trustees. This dual influence by one interest group hampers the possibility editorial integrity, making reform of the Board essential. However, the government is at least elected by voters and its decisions are open to influence by the general public. The same cannot be said for private corporations who are filling the void left by growing cuts to IWM’s public funding.

The Museums major source of income has been the annual ‘grant in aid’ from the government’s Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Last financial year, IWM received £21.96 million, down from £23.91 million in 2011. The cuts will continue; by 2014-15, the Museum expects its total grant to suffer a real reduction of 21.4%. The Museum will become predominantly privately funded, with 53% of its income planned to come from self-generated commercial activities.

These quiet cuts, behind the fanfare of the First World War Centenary, will ensure that IWM becomes ever more dependent on corporate sponsors, partners and donors, such as those from the arms trade, including BAE Systems and Boeing UK, who both feature in IWM’s 2011/12 Annual Report as donors of at least £10,000.

The arms industry, or ‘defence industry’, are, along with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), already deeply entwined with the Museum. The “Annual Defence Dinner”, a major networking event for arms manufacturers, MOD officials and foreign defence attachés has been held annually at IWM London for several years now. The most recent sponsor of the event, Chemring Group, is a supplier of explosive ingredients for US Hellfire drone rockets. And, the key speaker of their event is the government’s defence secretary – it was Philip Hammond MP in 2012 – demonstrating the interchangeable nature of the corporate defence industry and the Ministry of Defence. Recently, the MOD secured for IWM a Honda motorbike allegedly used by Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The motorbike will go on show in the Museum’s ‘War Story’ exhibition, which tells the modern service stories of British forces.

Editorial Integrity

If IWM had editorial independence and a critical scholarly approach it would use the WW1 centenary to examine the warring nations’ motives. It would also look at the evidence and arguments produced by those who say that it was a bloodbath occasioned by government and business leaders’ competing for wealth and power – a claim supported by the sharing of the colonial ‘spoils’ by the victors afterwards. It would certainly not engage in any ‘celebration’ of Britain’s role in what Harry Patch, the British WW1 veteran who outlived his peers, described as “legalised mass murder”, and instead would critically reflect on the war and its consequences.

A critical record of the ‘war to end war’ that cost millions of lives would recognise in it the germs of bloodshed to come – the real ‘horrible histories’ from Britain’s recent past. Not just WW2 but the more immediate repression against reviving independence movements that followed in Ireland, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China, giving rise to horrors such as the ‘Amritsar massacre’ of hundreds of defenceless Indian protestors in 1919; or the 1920 ‘Bloody Sunday’ random shooting into the crowd at a Croke Park football game in Ireland; or the ‘Egyptian Revolt’ of 1919 in which 1,000 Egyptians were killed, more than 1,500 imprisoned and 50 Britons killed as Britain fought fiercely to maintain ownership of Egyptian resources and prevent independence.

We should know of the atrocities suffered by the British and their commonwealth mercenaries, as much as the atrocities committed and authorised by Britain. In this knowledge, we should see how imperial exploitation is a repression that is unsustainable and makes inevitable bouts of bloodshed and inhumanity – with the subjugated people enduring the bulk. Knowledge of the dynamics of imperialism will enable us to understand more clearly the arguments made today that British support for the US in the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and drone attacks follow the pattern.

The absent voices

The most important voices for our understanding of British imperial history are those that are kept quietest – the voices and stories of the victims and the dissidents. IWM London will re-open this year with exhibitions that largely exclude these voices. Highly suggestive from this is that the Museum is not, as it claims, editorially independent from its funders and trustees, nor a true authority on the course and effects of conflict. If cuts to its public funding are permitted to be enforced, this situation will only get worse.The onus is on us, the public, to support the Museum to assert its independence. We can do this by challenging the government’s damaging cuts to its public funding, upon which any hope of editorial integrity rests. At the same time, we must demand that the Museum justify its public funding by opening up to the voices of victims and dissidents of British military action.

IWM’s Drone Test

RAF’s earthbound Pilots (telegraph.co.uk)

Update 1 below

IWM insists that it has complete editorial independence from its funders. Therefore, the £10,000 or more annual donations and event hire contracts accepted by IWM from arms manufacturers BAE Systems and Boeing UK will not influence their work. Nor, by the same logic, will the £20 million or so annual grant from the British government sway IWM to favour British military actions.

A test of this policy will be IWM’s approach to covering drone warfare. The arms industry is increasingly involved in the manufacture of sureveillance and armed drones. In 2009, 1 in 20 missiles fired by Coalition forces in Afghanistan came frome a drone. In January 2013, it was 1 in 5. Chemring Group, a company involved in producing munitions and pyrotechnics, supplies chemical explosives for Hellfire missiles fired from US drones. Chemring is the most recent sponsor of the “Annual Defence Dinner” staged at the Imperial War Museum’s main branch in London.

If IWM is truly unbiased it will frankly examine the “huge implications” of killing “remotely from a leafy suburb in your own country…” as Lord West of Spithead, former security minister and current IWM Trustee put it, in a call for international regulations on drone warfare.

Britain is stepping up its use of armed drones, otherwise known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Afghanistan; At the end of April, the MOD announced that for the first time, missile-carrying Reaper drones have been operated from the UK, using the newly built RAF Waddington base in Lincolnshire.

The British military has had armed drone capability for five years and has been operating them from the Creech airforce base in Nevada, US. The Stop the War coaltion reports that 350 British drone weapons have been fired in Afghanistan, including Hellfire missiles. Now these Reaper drones, along with a further five purchased by the RAF, can be operated directly from the UK.

Britain has also been partnering with US drone strikes actions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan by “embedding” pilots with the US to fly US armed drones. ‘This muddies the waters completely, risks turning the people of Afghanistan against us, and creates a joint liability for both the UK and US governments,’ Rehman Chisti, Conservative MP for Gillingham and Rainham said.

Drone warfare is often presented as a no-brainer option for the military, saving soldiers’ and civilian lives through clinical strikes against known terrorists. The evidence contradicts this. Drones have been used to assassinate mere suspects, rather than known terrorists. Sometimes, the suspicion is based on suspicious behaviour, rather than identity, in what are known as “signature strikes” carried out by the US (and, possibly, embedded British pilots).

The US has conducted follow-up strikes which have struck at rescuers and mourners of the initial victims. The inevitable outcome is mass civilian casualties and injuries. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates civilian deaths in Pakistan, where CIA drone strikes in the last decade have been most intense, may range between 411-884, with over 1000 injured.

Naturally, drone attacks and their “collateral damage” are radicalising populations. “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one,” according to General Stanley McChrystal, former ISAF commander in Afghanistan, in charge of US drone warfare.

British officials insist that their drones are used predominantly for surveillance in Afghanistan; and where they are fired, it is in support of British troops fighting the Taliban. Such claims come free of concern, let alone evidence of the effects, psychological and physical, for the lives of civilians who cower whenever their hear a drone flying overhead. Moreover, British claims rarely discuss the currently unclarified role they play in the US’ targetted assassination campaign in a number of countries, including Afghanistan.

Lord West claims that repatriation of British drone operations to Lincolnshire will enable better control over them. However, he said: “The same issues of legality, authorization and appropriate levels of decision-making remain.”

If the Imperial War Museum is to fulfil its public duty of recording and informing on the course and consequences of war, unedited by funders, then it would seriously examine the drone war issue.

Update 1

Since writing this piece, I have learnt that when IWM London partially re-opens, on 29th July 2013, it will be showing a video art piece from the perspective of a former US drone operator entitled “5,000 Feet is the Best“. The film, created by artist Omer Fast, is the first showing in IWM’s new ‘IWM Contemporary’ arts programme. Embedded below is a 10 minute excerpt from the 30 minute film.

Having watched the excerpt and read two online reviews (by Lucia Simek and Alex Chatelaine) it seems quite clear that, whilst it is to be welcomed that drone warfare is on IWM’s radar, this artistic piece does not tell the full and necessary story of US and British drone warfare.

The first thing to note that is that it is an artistic piece, not a factual documentary. Using an interview thread, it splices together fiction with reality. It is from the point of view of an apparently real former US drone operator who refuses to talk about ‘live fire’ missions, instead, focusing on technical aspects – and a fictional operator who, filling the gaps, does discuss more, but in the form of parables.

Crucially, the film does not give a voice to the real major victims of drone attacks – civilians who have been murdered and maimed. The focus of the film, the reviews would suggest, is the pain inflicted on the drone operator. As one of the reviews says: “The stress suffered by these pilots is often frowned upon seeing as they are in no actual danger. The fact of the matter is, even though they are no danger, they live, feel and participate in the same war as the other soldiers. They see death and bring it to the enemies and sometimes to harmless civilians (unintentionally). These pilots are put through the same things as any other foot soldier who travel to these war zones. The risk of death is lower which may decrease the intensity of their PTSD, but nonetheless, they are put through and deal with a great amount of stress and fear.”

And, Lucia Simek’s review: “He (the former drone operator) speaks at length about the details he could see on his targets, even at a height of 5000 feet—the kind of shoes a person was wearing, if they were smoking a cigarette, their posture. Indeed, despite the distance between him and his targets, the pilot struggles to convey his own war wounds in light of witnessing the personalities of the people he killed.”

Even when the film does depict murdered civilians (in a fantasy world where the strike occurs in the US) the actual drone strike is shown to have been aimed at genuine terrorists – in a far away place where definite terrorists with guns are planting, it is suggested, an IED. The civilians were, sadly, just in the wrong place at the wrong time as the drone operator struck at the bad guys.

The reality is that drone strikes strike homes and target people who are far from proven terrorists. As mentioned above, US “signature strikes” attack suspects on the basis of mere suspicious activity – their names need not be known. All drone assassinations violate any number of legal principles, not least, when they hit the intended target, the right for individuals to receive a fair trial. One of the most notorious drone assassinations carried out by the US was the murder of 16 year-old US citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen, in 2011. He was the son of a radical Islamic preacher, Anwar al-Awlaki, also killed by US drone in Yemen. The assassination of the father was controversial but the killing of the son went further, for no evidence has ever been presented that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki held any extremist views whatsoever. The US continues to refuse to explain the killing.

Again, it is a small step forward that IWM is considering the heinous effects of US and British drone warfare. But it is obliged to go beyond Omer Fast’s piece and critically consider Britain’s role and the impact on the victim populations of Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are the major victims, not drone operators.

The Poisonous Legacy of Arms Manufacturers: Iraqi Birth Defects and Cancers

Yalda Hakim in Iraq (BBC)

Yalda Hakim in Iraq (BBC)

Bombs and bullets do not just kill and maim directly. They contain toxic metals such as lead, mercury and uranium which can contaminate the environment long after the guns have fallen silent. With sufficient contamination the miserable lives of the civilian population are cursed for generations to come with high levels of serious birth defects and cancer cases. This is what is happening in Iraq. Figures suggest that the rate of birth defects in the Iraqi city of Fallujah surpasses those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after nuclear bombardment.

IWM’s commercial partner for the Annual Defence Dinner event, Chemring Group, is a producer of the detonating agent, lead azide – though it has only been an approved supplier to the US military since the end of 2012. According to their website, “Chemring Energetic Devices is now the only US based producer of this important primary explosive, which is used in a wide variety of US and NATO fuze and detonator assemblies.” The Joint Center of Excellence for Armaments and Munitions in the US says that lead azide is the most widely used high-explosive ingredient in US military munitions.

A lead azide safety data sheet produced by manufacturer DuPont warns,

“DuPont considers lead compounds to be potential developmental toxins and states that a woman of childbearing potential should be warned of the risks to an unborn child in operations involving exposure to lead and lead compounds.”

An unborn child may be at risk of permanent injury from a pregnant woman’s exposure to lead and lead compounds under conditions of exposure that would not be expected to cause adverse effects in the adult woman.”

“Epidemiology studies reported in the literature suggest an association of high blood lead levels with increased blood pressure, EKG abnormalities, increases in colon-rectal cancer and increased chronic renal disease. Although lead styphnate was not specifically indicated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), this organization has classified lead and lead compounds as “Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans” on the basis of animal evidence.”

“No acceptable information is available to confidently predict the effects of excessive human exposure to Lead Azide. However, most azide compounds are moderately to highly toxic by interfering with cellular oxidative metabolism and by producing severe hypotension.”

Research in the Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Basrah, lead Dr Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, revealed “increasing numbers of congenital birth defects, especially neural tube defects and congenital heart defects. It also revealed public contamination with two major neurotoxic metals, lead and mercury. The Iraq birth defects epidemic is, however, surfacing in the context of many more public health problems in bombarded cities. Childhood leukemia, and other types of cancers are increasing in Iraq. Childhood leukemia rates in Basra more than doubled between 1993 and 2007. In 1993, the annual rate of childhood leukemia was 2.6 per 100,000 individuals and by 2006 it had reached 12.2 per 100,000.”

Al Jazeera reporter, Dahr Jamail, recently discussed the range of birth defects that doctors in Fallujah are facing: “It’s common now in Fallujah for newborns to come out with massive multiple systemic defects, immune problems, massive central nervous system problems, massive heart problems, skeletal disorders, babies being born with two heads, babies being born with half of their internal organs outside of their bodies, cyclops babies literally with one eye — really, really, really horrific nightmarish types of birth defects.” The images that accompany Jamail’s report on Democracy Now speak for themselves.

Iraqi child with congenital birth defect

The British Ministry of Defence responded to a BBC investigation into the Iraqi birth defect and cancer crisis by saying that it would be “premature to suggest a link to any cause without reliable evidence.” The BBC investigation claimed, however, that an Iraqi governmental report does seem to establish a correlation between war and the epidemic but is currently being withheld from publication.

The BBC report by Yalda Hakim reveals that certain suspected toxic sites are blacklisted by the Iraqi government from outside investigation. We know that, as well as lead and mercury explosives, the US and UK used depleted uranium in their attacks. 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium, which is slightly radioactive, may have been fired in total in Iraq since 2003. The US also used the chemical weapon known as “white phosphorus” in their attack on Fallujah.

The evidence suggests a correlation between the deployment of toxic metal explosives by the invading forces, mainly US and British, and the tragedy of the rise in child cancers and birth defects in Iraq. Though, until fuller investigation is required. It is likely that toxic compounds such as lead azide were utilised and are contributing to the high levels of lead found in Iraqi children.

Chemring Group’s lead azide production was approved by the US Energetic Materials Qualification Board for US Department of Defense use in August 2012. This particular product of Chemring is unlikely, therefore, to have played, to date, a major role in the toxic poisoning of parts of Iraq and its people. However, according to this site, “Chemring Ordnance has been the sole source of US Government hand grenade fuzing for the last 35 years.” That is, the ignition mechanism that initiates the explosion. Moreover, the site explains, “Chemring Ordnance leads the way in the development of new 40mm ammunition and ordnance.”

To what extent munitions produced by BAE Systems or Boeing, two more of IWM’s partners, were used in the brutal onslaught of Iraq, we do not know.

To partner with arms manufacturers that supply invading forces, as well as authoritarian regimes, is to associate oneself with more than just war – but long-term devastation of environments and their people. Chemring’s lead azide will be put to use in future onslaughts; it will poison more mothers and devastate the health of children. The Imperial War Museum, like the rest of British society, should decide if it wants to be complicit in this.

Clip from Yalda Hakim’s BBC report:

Chemring Group and IWM

chpic

Chemring Group was the sponsor of the Annual Defence Dinner 2012, a major annual networking event for the arms trade held at the Imperial War Museum, Lambeth Road, on Wednesday 23rd May 2012. Chemring has sponsored this annual event at IWM in previous years – at least since 2010.

In the literature promoting the Annual Defence Dinner 2012, Chemring, depicts itself as a provider of products “predominantly (to) protect military people and platforms, providing insurance against a constantly changing threat.”

However, over half of Chemring’s revenues derive from munitions and pyrotechnics. Explosive material and technology, ammunition, grenades, tear gas and small arms are easily put to offensive use, both in aggressive application and threat, when sold and used without basic humane judgement or controls.

Chemring’s weapons continue to be marketed and sold to clients who carry out human rights abuses. Chemring attended the LAVEX 2009 arms fair in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya. The corporations website identifies the Middle East as a destination for a number of its munition and weapon products. The Saudi Arabian regime is a significant market and Chemring is officially associated with Saudi Eraad Defense Systems, a Saudi Arabian company that provides “professional and discreet services as in-country support/marketing company.”

As reported by the Independent newspaper in December 2011, Chemring’s tear gas cannisters were put to use against Tahrir Square protesters by the Egyptian security forces in 2011. The effects on protesters, exacerbated, it has been suggested, by toxicity brought on by the age of the gas (some cannisters dated from 1995), inflicted convulsions, burning and asphyxiation on protesters.

Chemring, as well as the British government which licences such sales, cannot not be aware of the misery and abuse that their actions are enabling. For example, Saudi Arabia’s repression of its population is very well documented. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s own human rights report cites Saudi Arabia as a country “of concern” due to its human rights and civil liberties abuses. The FCO says that the number of executions are “alarming”. Women cannot vote or play sport. All public demonstrations are banned; those who have defied this with peaceful protest have found themselves charged, imprisoned and sometimes tortured.

The repression endured by the Saudi population is exemplified by the case of Mohammed Salama. Human Rights Watch report that he has been detained without charge or trial since April 2012 having been arrested for posting personal Twitter comments critical of certain interpretations of Islamic text. He remains in indefinite detention with other peaceful protesters and activists.

For Chemring to provide such regimes with weapons and technology is to implicate itself in the heinous daily crimes, ensuring that people live in a constant nightmare. The Imperial War Museum, as a public museum dedicated to recording the true effects of warfare, must take a humane stance and not itself become complicit by taking money or associating with such activity.

Yet, Chemring’s dealings with the Middle East are not its only stain. The company provides technology and explosives for United States UAVS or drones. Their Norwegian subsidiary, Chemring Nobel, provides explosive substances for Hellfire rockets fired from US drones.

The US’ covert drone attack campaign in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia has claimed the lives of many innocent civilians. Whilst defenders assert drone attacks as being precise, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism report hundreds of civilian deaths, including scores of children. The UN has condemned the lack of monitoring by the US and launched an investigation into this “collateral damage”.

Moreover, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that drone attacks have targeted rescuers and funeral goers. The claim of precise attack is undermined by such follow-up attacks when people gather to deal with the aftermath of an initial attack. Additionally, the US carry out what are known as “signature strikes”; whereby victims are identified for assassination not by specific intelligence about their identity but merely on the basis of their behaviour and activities.

The US administration has refused to release the precise legal justification for their actions. Until recently, they refused to confirm or deny the existence of the campaign. Now, they defend more generally on the basis that they are involved in a worldwide conflict against terrorists – there is not time for judicial involvement in this precise strategy. However, many independent legal experts refute this. The US is not at war with Yemen or Pakistan, it does not face imminent threat and therefore is violating international law by carrying out extra-judicial assassinations.

Beyond the legal arguments, the devastation on innocent people is far-reaching. The threat of drones hangs over these people on a constant basis, interfering with their daily lives; making them afraid to meet or travel. A joint study by the law schools of Stanford University and New York University, named, Living Under Drones, found high levels of trauma, including insomnia, nervous breakdown and severe anxiety amongst populations living under the threat. The study found that people avoid attending the funerals of victims or even providing assistance in the aftermath of an attack in fear of a follow-up strike.

Conclusion

There is a legitimate argument for a regulated and controlled arms trade. However, the status quo is a far cry from this. British weapons and technology are actively sold to some of the most brutal regimes and enable devastating human rights abuses, including by our own government and allies.

The global arms trade and its profiteers are, at least, amoral and wilfully blind about the misery being enabled. The Imperial War Museum must not be so callous. The Museum should not associate with arms manufacturers or traders and should cease to accept event hire contracts, such as the Annual Defence Dinner, sponsored and attended by such corporations as Chemring Group.

The Museum also receives donations from corporations whose human rights records are even worse than that of Chemring Group, such as BAE Systems. I urge the Trustees to be humane and cease to accept such blood money.

If basic morality is not sufficient reason to disassociate, the conflict of interests created by taking money from war profiteers must be. IWM cannot be intellectually free in its duty of recording the human consequences of war if it is financially reliant on war profiteers.