A soldier looks through a hole in a building damaged after an airstrike in Yemen. Photo: Hani Mohammed / AP/Press Association Images. All rights reservedThe parliamentary row over arms sales to Saudi Arabia holds a mirror to two faces of British internationalism. One face is that of a leading proponent of international humanitarian law (IHL), human rights and good governance – a champion of the Arms Trade Treaty as it was being negotiated at the UN. The other face, meanwhile, presents a reliable partner, ally and arms supplier to Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia. The UK government has long claimed to look in the mirror and see a coherent image. The war in Yemen shows the cracks in the mirror.
UK arms export policy is scrutinised by the joint Committee on Arms Export Controls (CAEC), comprising members of the Business, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees. When the CAEC was re-convened after the last general election, its first act was to hold an inquiry into the use of UK-manufactured weapons in the war in Yemen. Divided over the draft report and unable to agree its conclusions, parliamentary and media mayhem ensued, featuring leaks to Newsnight, and threats of walk-outs. Eventually, two separate, rival reports were published: one published jointly by the Business and Development Committees, drafted by the CAEC Chair, Chris White MP, which called for a suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia; and one from Crispin Blunt’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which concluded the matter was best left to the High Court, which will be hearing a judicial review of UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia in January 2017.
They may be rivals, but this isn't a stand-off between one critical report and one whitewash. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs report is deeply critical of the government in many respects, and the two reports share the bulk of their analysis. Rather, the two reports illustrate two strands of British internationalism that are clashing in the war in Yemen. The Foreign Affairs report is symbolic of a British internationalism that proclaims adherence to the rule of law and good governance, but is caught in a bind when faced with evidence that its practices undermine these publicly professed values, and when its major non-liberal democratic allies fail to play by the same rules. Its watchwords are security and stability; it considers the tensions involved in supporting authoritarian regimes as trade-offs to be managed, rather than a fundamental contradiction between rhetoric and practice. Saudi Arabia is characterised in the Foreign Affairs report as a “crucial and indispensable partner”. The partnership is open to limited criticism but not substantial change. The report emphasises the “shared and vital strategic interests”, including “combating manifestations of violent extremism and radicalisation, countering terrorist financing” – a position that requires ignoring the Saudi role in supplying weapons to terrorist groups, and its history of terror financing.
