Set aside for arms exporters

From a letter to the Institute from Vincent Nolan, author of 'The Innovator's Handbook' (Sphere Books). This letter featured recently in the Institute's 'Vision Thing' column in the Guardian.

To reduce agricultural surpluses, the Common Market makes 'set-aside' payments to farmers who take their land out of production.

The same principle could be applied to any area where the normal commercial objective of increasing sales was inappropriate for reasons of public policy. It could be applied, for example, to cigarette manufacturing (no need then to ban advertising, because the manufacturer would no longer have an incentive to advertise - the incentive goes in the opposite direction).

Similarly, energy production: some US electricity producers are already promoting energy conservation among their customers, to avoid the capital investment they would have to incur to meet growing demand.

So, why not arms exports? Suppose the EC, or better still, the United Nations, were to pay subsidies to arms manufacturers in proportion to the extent that they reduced their arms exports. Immediately, the interests of the arms manufacturers would be aligned with those of the world community trying to create world peace. Maybe the subsidies could include help with diversification, to overcome the problems of unemployment resulting from reduced arms production.

At the moment this is a very embryonic idea. It would be easy to find 1,001 reasons why it would not work. Easy, but pointless. Let's put the same energy into finding ways to make it work. Unless we can find ways of satisfying the legitimate economic and commercial interests of those who currently make their living from the arms trade, efforts at arms control are likely to be resisted and subverted.

Vincent Nolan, Xenia, 13 Marsh Lane, Stoke Mandeville, Bucks HP22 5UZ (tel and fax 0296 613949).