Archbishop Desmond Tutu described the arms trade as “the modern slave trade” last year. His analysis must have caused some consternation at St John’s College, as preparations were made for last weekend’s commemoration of the bicentenary of the abolition of the British slave trade. Adopting the theme ‘Campaigning Then and Now’, the event aimed to commemorate, and at a pinch, revive the spirit of the two great Johnian abolitionists, Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce.

The magnificent John’s choir were joined by the similarly splendid London Adventist Chorale to sing a musical setting of the famous abolitionist slogan “Am I not a Man and a Brother?” by Wilberforce’s direct descendant Richard, a current Member of College. It would be nice to see this cross generational attachment to the famous family as an indication of the College’s continued commitment to the principles William espoused. Unfortuntely, one cannot.

The College is far more ready to bask in the bicentennial glow of the moral courage and humanitarian ideals emanating from the stone visages of its most celebrated alumni at the back of the chapel, than it is to actually listen to what they had to say. Whilst Clarkson and Wilberforce campaigned tirelessly for the abolition of an industry based on violence and exploitation which subjugated the poor to the financial profit of the rich, the College which schooled them continues to support its post colonial successor two hundred years later.
The Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) obtained figures which show that despite the College’s adherence to an ethical investments policy against which investments are “regularly reviewed”, St John’s is still a major investor in the arms trade. At the end of 2006 the College held shares worth £326,000 in GKN, £479,160 in General Electric: both companies identified by CAAT as arms companies. It is time the college “reviewed” these particular investments a bit more vigorously.

Five rich countries manufacture the great majority of the weapons in the world. In 2005, Russia, the United States, France, Germany and the UK made 82 per cent of them. Conversely and somewhat conveniently, more than two thirds of the value of all arms are sold to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. Kofi Annan says “the excessive accumulation and illicit trade of small arms is threatening international peace and security, dashing hopes for social and economic development, and jeopardising prospects for democracy and human rights.”

An industry which profits the rich, drains resources from the developing world and results in all kinds of human rights abuses. Sound familiar, Mr Clarkson?

Some argue that the arms trade is acceptable because those that create and export the weapons are not the ones who put them in the hands of the world’s 300,000 child soldiers, nor are they the actual trigger-pullers in the Sudan genocide. Such a defence brings to mind the Malawian poet and scholar Jack Mapanje, now a fellow at Newcastle University. As a prisoner of conscience under Kamuzu Banda’s despotic regime, many in the UK lobbied for his release. His well-made shackles were not so different from those used to transport slaves. They read “Made in Sheffield”.

The conflict in Sudan provides an interesting historical counterpoint to the abolition of the slave trade. Johnian Hamish Falconer has created the national campaign ‘Sudan Divestment’ which aims to end the genocide through financial pressure. World Bank figures indicate that in the past few years 60 per cent of Sudan’s oil revenue has been blown on military expenditure. The conflict has already killed between 200,000 and 400,000 people and created two million refugees. That Falconer’s College continues to invest in the industry which arms the Janjaweed is demonstrative of John’s persistent and persisting failure to learn from its best alumni.

Johnian support for the arms trade is especially perplexing because its abolitionist history means it really should know better. But it is by no means the worst Cambridge offender. If the commemoration of the abolition of one odious trade is to have significance beyond idle historical interest and saccharine self congratulation, then the University, and its constituent colleges must divest itself fully and immediately from its deplorable descendant.

Elliot Ross