Jeremy Hunt thinks it would be 'moral bankruptcy' NOT to arm Saudi Arabia. Sorry, what?
Next month the case against British arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen goes to the Court of Appeal. Meanwhile the Foreign Secretary continues the long British tradition of putting arms company profits before human lives.
It’s worth reading that again. According to our Foreign Secretary, it’s not continuing to arm the Saudi regime as it rains bombs on Yemen that’s morally bankrupt – but stopping arming them.
The stunningly misguided article finished with Hunt’s conclusion that “This is the fourth anniversary of the latest stage of a terrible conflict. Britain will do everything possible to ensure that Yemen’s people do not have to suffer a fifth.”
The reality is that the arms sales that Hunt is defending have played a central role in creating the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
The Covid-19 public inquiry is a historic chance to find out what really happened.
On the same day that Hunt pledged to do all he could to end the war, Saudi forces bombed a hospital, killing seven people. It’s unknown what the origins of the bomb were, but the question of if it was made in the UK or the US feels totally irrelevant when considering the terrible human cost.
There is no doubt that UK-made bombs have been used in attacks on people and vital civilian infrastructure. Some of these attacks have been meticulously analysed in the latest report by Mwatana for Human Rights, a Yemeni-based human rights organisation. The report “Day of Judgment”: The Role of the US and Europe in Civilian Death, Destruction, and Trauma in Yemen” is one of the forensic studies of the terrible humanitarian cost of the four year war.
The Saudi military has always argued that it takes all precautions to avoid harming civilians, but its words are hollow. Over 60,000 people have been killed as a direct result of the war and many more as a result of the catastrophe that has been inflicted. As Mwatana’s Chair, Radhya Al-Mutawakel, has argued “It is clear that Saudi and Emirati promises to minimize harm to civilians were empty.”
Despite the terrible human cost of the war, the UK Government has worked overtime to keep arming and supporting the Saudi-led bombers. It has licensed £5 billion worth of weapons since the war began, including many of the fighter jets flying over Yemen and the bombs and missiles they are firing.
The extent of Hunt’s desire to please the dictatorship and the arms companies was made clear last month, when he wrote to the German Government urging it to reconsider its recent embargo on arms transfers to Saudi forces. Germany is one of many European countries that has ceased the sale of weapons for use in Yemen.
The legality of UK sales will be considered by the Court of Appeal in London next month, when it hears a claim by Campaign Against Arms Trade. We believe that these sales are not just immoral, they are also illegal.
UK arms export law is very clear in stating that if there is a “clear risk” that weapons “might” be used to commit “serious violations of international humanitarian law” (IHL) then a sale should not go ahead. The Saudi Air Force has been accused of many extremely serious breaches of IHL, not just by CAAT, but also by a UN expert panel, the European Parliament and some of the most reputable human rights organisations in the world.
There is a lot riding on the result. If the case is successful then it would set a vital international precedent and could play a major role in changing UK arms export policy. Equally, if it is unsuccessful then it will be regarded by Hunt and other Ministers as a green-light to continue pouring weapons into the war.
Despite his role as the front-man of UK foreign policy, the problem is not Jeremy Hunt. He is just the latest in a long line of Foreign Secretaries that have prioritised arms company profits over human rights and lives.
If Hunt resigned tomorrow he would almost certainly be replaced by someone else that would do the exact same thing. We, and many others across the world, are campaigning to end the vision, policies and mindset that has allowed such morally bankrupt policies in the first place.
Andrew Smith is a spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT). You can follow CAAT at@CAATuk.
From coronation budgets to secretive government units, journalists have used the Freedom of Information Act to expose corruption and incompetence in high places. Tony Blair regrets ever giving us this right. Today's UK government is giving fewer and fewer transparency responses, and doing it more slowly. But would better transparency give us better government? And how can we get it?
Join our experts for a free live discussion at 5pm UK time on 15 June.
Claire Miller Data journalism and FOI expert Martin Rosenbaum Author of ‘Freedom of Information: A Practical Guidebook’; former BBC political journalist Jenna Corderoy Investigative reporter at openDemocracy and visiting lecturer at City University, London Chair: Ramzy Alwakeel Head of news at openDemocracy
CommentsWe encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.