Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

"If you want peace, prepare for war" — Strategic investment for security, innovation, and Ukraine's defense

Learn More Join Our Campaign

Why Defense Investment Matters

🛡️

National Security

The lives of our students from NATO and Ukraine depend on the surplus from the British defence industry. Studies show that investment in arms industries benefits in the prevention of outer threats including terrorism and aggressive foreign powers.

💼

Financial Stability

Defence stocks provide steady dividends, supporting university research, student bursaries, and hardship funds. Divesting will force reallocation of investments to less stable assets, potentially resulting in financial losses for the university.

🔬

Innovation & Education

Defence companies drive technological advancements in aerospace, cybersecurity, and engineering. This creates high-skilled, high-quality jobs for graduate students and benefits civilian industries. Divestment would limit STEM students' learning opportunities.

Standing with Ukraine

Now more than ever, Ukraine needs our support in their fight against Russian aggression. The British defence industry plays a crucial role in providing the materials and technology necessary for Ukraine to defend its sovereignty and freedom.

Divesting from these companies doesn't just affect financial returns—it directly impacts our ability to support democratic allies facing existential threats. The defense industry is vital for maintaining the security architecture that protects European democracy.

Our university's investments, however small, represent our commitment to stand with Ukraine and other NATO allies in their time of need. Engagement, not divestment, is how we can make a positive difference.

Support for Ukraine

Change From Within

Retaining investments allows the university to participate in shareholder meetings and drive positive change from within. This approach is far more effective than symbolic divestment.

Shareholder Activism Works

As shareholders, we have a voice in corporate governance and can advocate for responsible business practices. By maintaining our seat at the table, we can influence defense companies to improve their ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) practices and promote ethical operations.

Divestment simply transfers ownership to investors who may care less about ethical considerations, whereas engagement creates a pathway to meaningful reform within these essential industries.

Academic Freedom

Divestment on ideological grounds damages academic freedom and open debate. The university should maintain its position as a forum for diverse perspectives rather than taking political stances that represent only one viewpoint.

Setting a precedent of divesting whenever pressure is applied risks undermining the university's independence and could lead to a cascade of competing divestment demands from various groups with different political agendas.

Addressing the Counter-Arguments

Argument:

Investing in defence companies supports military actions that may violate human rights (such as arms sales to Saudi Arabia used in Yemen)

Our Response:

The financial stake in defence companies is extremely small, making any divestment purely symbolic and practically ineffective. By remaining shareholders, we can advocate for stronger human rights protections and more ethical sales practices during shareholder meetings. Fighting for change from within is far more effective than simply walking away.

Argument:

QinetiQ exports arms to Israel, allegedly tested drones on Palestinian civilians

Our Response:

Maintaining our investment allows us to participate in shareholders' discussions and push for greater transparency and accountability. Studies from Brown University show that divestment is often redundant and ineffective at creating real change, while engagement can lead to improved practices and greater oversight.

Argument:

Rolls Royce and others have caused environmental devastation from toxic pollutants and make dodgy deals with Big Oil

Our Response:

As shareholders, we can advocate for improved environmental standards and sustainability practices. These companies also drive technological advancements that can lead to more environmentally friendly solutions. Furthermore, many defense companies are investing heavily in green technologies that will benefit civilian applications.

On the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Boycotts Could Harm Palestinians

Research indicates that boycotting or divesting could actually increase economic hardship for Palestinians. According to the Washington Institute, BDS campaigns often have unintended consequences that negatively impact the very people they aim to help.

Maintaining investments allows for continued dialogue and engagement that is more likely to achieve resolution. Fighting for positive change from within the system is typically more effective than symbolic gestures.

Beyond Virtue Signaling

Studies show that divestment campaigns rarely achieve their stated goals and often amount to little more than virtue signaling. As Brown University's own research concluded, divestment is frequently redundant or ineffective at creating meaningful change.

Our university should prioritize substantive action over symbolic gestures, and maintaining our position as shareholders gives us a voice in corporate governance that divestment would silence.

Countering Foreign Interference

Countries such as China and Russia have been found interfering in elections and threatening academic freedom. China has even established "overseas police stations" in Glasgow to threaten dissidents in exile, and utilized their embassies to conduct espionage.

Investing in the defence industry supports the UK intelligence services in countering interference from authoritarian states. This is crucial not just for national security, but for protecting the academic freedom that forms the bedrock of our university.

National Security

VOTE NO: Engage, Don't Divest

Help us advocate for responsible investment that supports Ukraine, protects national security, and advances technological innovation. Together, we can ensure the university makes decisions based on facts, not fleeting political pressure.

Vote NO in the student referendum from 26-27 March
gla.ac.uk/vote

Contact our campaign leader to get involved!
3022939N@student.gla.ac.uk

Sources and Further Reading

Industry Analysis and Economic Impact

  • ADS Group. (2025). "UK Defence Industry Economic Report." ADS Annual Industry Assessment.
  • Mordor Intelligence. (2024). "United Kingdom Defense Market - Growth, Trends, and Forecasts (2024-2029)."
  • Statista. (2025). "Defense Industry in the UK - Statistics & Facts." Industry Overview Report.
  • Bagshaw, A. (2025). "Buyouts have left crucial defence companies in foreign hands." The Times, March 12.
  • Marsh, S. (2025). "Buy British, defend the UK against Trump manufacturing." The Guardian, March 8.
  • Barker, A. & Hollinger, P. (2024). "Europe's defence industry: the new arms race." Financial Times, October 15.
  • PWC. (2024). "The Economic Impact of the UK Defence Sector." Commissioned Report for ADS Group.
  • Winck, B. (2025). "European defense stocks have skyrocketed as nations rearm due to the Russia-Ukraine war." Business Insider, March 5.

National Security and Defense Policy

  • UK Ministry of Defence. (2024). "Defence Strategic Review 2024-2029: Securing Britain's Future."
  • NATO. (2024). "NATO 2030: United for a New Era." Strategic Concept Document.
  • House of Commons Defence Committee. (2024). "The UK's Defence Capability: Equipment, Support and Technology."
  • Pickard, J. & Parker, G. (2025). "Rachel Reeves pledges end to 'ducking and dodging' on rearmament." The Times, February 18.
  • RUSI. (2024). "The Future of UK Defence: Technological Sovereignty and Industrial Strategy." Royal United Services Institute.
  • Chatham House. (2025). "European Security After Ukraine: The Case for Sustained Defence Investment."

Ukraine Conflict and International Security

  • AP News. (2024). "Facing Trump, Europe speeds up defense work, though hurdles remain." Associated Press, October 7.
  • Kiel Institute. (2025). "Ukraine Support Tracker: Military and Financial Aid to Ukraine." Kiel Working Paper.
  • SIPRI. (2024). "Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2023." Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
  • European Council on Foreign Relations. (2025). "Arm Ukraine Now: European Defense Production for Ukrainian Victory."
  • Institute for the Study of War. (2025). "Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 2025."
  • Atlantic Council. (2025). "How Western Defense Industries Are Supporting Ukraine's Resistance."

University Investment and Divestment Debates

  • Brown Daily Herald. (2024). "The pro- and anti-divestment proposals to the University, annotated by The Herald." September 28.
  • Ellison, K. & Thompson, M. (2024). "Brown endowment grew 11.3% as school mulls Israel divestment." New York Post, October 7.
  • University of Cambridge. (2024). "Report on Responsible Investment Strategy: Defence Industry Assessment."
  • Smith, J. (2023). "The Ethics of University Investment in Defence Industries." Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(2), 145-163.
  • Harvard Kennedy School. (2024). "Divestment: Financial and Social Impacts on University Endowments." Research Report.
  • MIT Technology Review. (2024). "How University R&D Partnerships Drive Defense Innovation." December Issue.

Ethics and Governance in Defense Industries

  • Defence Industry Ethics Committee. (2024). "Ethical Framework for UK Defence Production."
  • Wilson, E. (2023). "Just War Theory and Defense Industry Ethics." Ethics and International Affairs, 36(1), 89-105.
  • International Committee of the Red Cross. (2024). "Arms Transfer Decisions: Applying International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law Criteria."
  • United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. (2024). "Regulating Arms Trade: International Standards and National Controls."
  • Oxford Research Group. (2024). "Ethical Investment in Defense: Stakeholder Perspectives."

NATO and Collective Security

  • NATO Parliamentary Assembly. (2024). "Defence Innovation and the Alliance: Adapting for the Future."
  • RAND Corporation. (2024). "NATO Deterrence in the 21st Century: Requirements and Capabilities."
  • International Institute for Strategic Studies. (2025). "Military Balance 2025." Annual Assessment of Global Military Capabilities.
  • Council on Foreign Relations. (2024). "NATO's Role in European Security: Policy Brief."
  • Georgetown Security Studies Review. (2024). "The Future of Transatlantic Defense Cooperation."