Air strike in Sana'a, Yemen. Ibrahem Qasim/Flickr
This article was first published in November 2016.
On Saturday 8th October, more than 140 people
were killed
and over 500 injured when warplanes bombed a funeral in the Yemeni capital,
Sana’a. In the words of one rescuer, “The place has been turned into a lake of
blood.” The airstrike, which was quickly attributed to Saudi Arabia’s military,
prompted brief sparks of international outrage as civilians were once again
targets in a war which has killed more than 10,000 people. The Saudi authorities
later confirmed that the strike was a “deliberate
error”. Those who pay greater heed to the Geneva Conventions, the so-called
“Laws of War” that govern the conduct of armed conflict, might more accurately
describe it as a war crime.
So how is it that less than one month later, MPs in
Westminster voted against a Labour motion calling on the UK
government to withdraw its support for the Saudi-led coalition? What arguments
could possibly justify the decision made by 283 MPs to continue to back a
government which stands accused,
not just once but on repeated occasions over the last 18 months, of
deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure?
Bombed higher educational facility in Sa'ada. Philippe Kropf/OCHA.
It would be wrong to suggest that the MPs who participated
in the debate made light of the issues at stake. On the contrary – many
spoke with passion, conviction and in some cases, deep knowledge, about the
need to end the suffering of the people of Yemen. No-one disagreed with the
necessity of securing a ceasefire and pursuing a political solution to the
conflict. But several MPs argued that despite serious allegations
of war crimes by the Saudi coalition, it remains right and proper to
continue to provide support to the Saudi government, in the form of arms
exports and specialist military advice.
The legal position
The legal question-marks hanging over UK arms exports to
Saudi Arabia could not be clearer. In December 2015, barristers from Matrix
Chambers published the opinion
that:
“any authorisation by the UK of the transfer of
weapons and related items to Saudi Arabia… in circumstances where such weapons
are capable of being used in the conflict in Yemen, including to support its
blockade of Yemeni territory, and in circumstances where their end-use is not
restricted, would constitute a breach by the UK of its obligations under domestic,
European and international law.”
Two parliamentary select committees have subsequently argued
that the government should suspend licenses to the Kingdom, pending independent
investigations of alleged atrocities. And the High Court has given permission
for a judicial review of the government’s position, in a case brought by
Campaign Against Arms Trade.
Despite these grave concerns, some MPs argued that any action to suspend such deals would be premature. They
suggested that Saudi Arabia should be given more time to undertake its own
internal investigations of alleged violations, despite the lengthy delays
and unsatisfactory outcomes so far. Boris Johnson seemed less perturbed
still, justifying the continued approval of arms exports on the basis that
other countries would “happily supply arms” without subjecting their exports to
the “fairness and rigour” that characterise UK processes.
It is hard to see how this position can be squared with the
government’s pride in the “leading role” it recently played in the negotiation
of the legally-binding international Arms Trade Treaty. And this position is also
at odds with its assertion in the 2015
UK National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review
that the rule of law is a “core British value” – part of a “golden thread of
conditions that lead to security and prosperity”. The strategy goes on to note
that the UK continues “to lead by example, including supporting the
International Committee of the Red Cross to strengthen compliance with the
Geneva Conventions…. We will work with our allies and partners to strengthen,
adapt and extend the rules-based international order and its institutions.”
The arguments put forward in defence of the status quo last week suggest otherwise. They imply that the principles and obligations that are
supposed to define the UK’s role in the world are discretionary; they can be
trumped, when required, by a series of pragmatic assumptions, priorities and
interests. It is therefore worth examining and exposing these arguments, as
they play a crucial role in shaping the UK establishment’s response not only to
the current crisis in Yemen, but to national security policy more generally.
The ‘benign
influence’ argument
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Crispin Blunt MP
claimed in the debate that current UK policy has a benign influence on the Yemen
conflict, arguing that the expertise provided to the Saudi military helps to
reduce the risk of civilian casualties. In a similar vein, Boris Johnson argued
that if the UK suspended its support, it would immediately forfeit its
diplomatic influence over Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen and over Riyadh’s
eventual support for a negotiated solution. Yet the evidence supporting either
of these arguments is in short supply. The Report of the UN Panel of Experts
attributed 60% of civilian casualties in the conflict to the Saudi-led
coalition, despite all the targeting assistance provided up to now. And it is
even more of a stretch to argue that arms exports are likely to increase the
prospect of a negotiated settlement of the conflict. The International
Committee of the Red Cross has long since suggested
the opposite, noting that “Large-scale arms transfers can be a source of
tension in peacetime and generate high levels of casualties once hostilities
begin.” Indeed, it is probably more credible to argue, as the journalist Peter
Oborne has
done, that the parliamentary vote on Wednesday “sent
the green light to Saudi Arabia and its allies to carry on bombing, maiming and
killing”. Far from being benign, the UK’s approach is
likely to fan the flames of this desperate conflict, as it has done in too many
other parts of the Middle East.
The jobs argument
While the ‘benign influence’ argument is framed in terms of
the best interests of the people of Yemen, more immediate domestic priorities
were of greater concern to other MPs. Gerald Howarth began his intervention by
reminding fellow parliamentarians that as MP for Aldershot, he “represents the headquarters of the
fourth largest defence company in the world, BAE Systems”. He went on to say
that the Saudis “should be commended for what they are doing, not criticized.”
He noted that defence exports had made a significance contribution to the UK’s
defence-industrial capability, generating prosperity across the UK.
Mark Menzies MP made the same case
on a more human scale, arguing that 16,000 people in his constituency would be
out of work without exports to Saudi Arabia. He reminded parliament that “every single one of those people is a
human being, not a number; they have mortgages to pay, they have skills and
they have jobs.”
The livelihoods of people living in
the UK are clearly a legitimate concern in any public policy decision – and
particularly amid the current economic and political uncertainties. However,
this argument fails to acknowledge the massive amount of public subsidy for
jobs related to arms exports – most recently calculated to be in the
region of £700 million per annum by the respected Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI). In the words of the Financial Times
International Economy Editor, “You can have as many arms export jobs as you are prepared to waste public
money subsidising.”
And what about the ultimate human impact of the political decisions
to subsidise the jobs that make contracts like the Salam deal viable? Could it
be the case that some of our MPs believe that the lives of the people of Yemen
are a price worth paying for UK jobs?
The ‘regional
security ally’ argument
A further strong line of argument was that, despite concerns
about civilian casualties, the UK should stand by Saudi Arabia as a vital
security ally, critical to regional stability and the fight against terrorism and
radicalisation. In the words of Seema Kennedy MP, “Stability
in Saudi Arabia is in the British national interest.”
Yet concerns about Saudi Arabia’s contribution to regional
and global insecurity are well-documented.
Moreover, evidence that arms exports play a positive role in building the UK’s
security is hard to find. A 2015 study
by Kings College London into the security, economic and strategic value of
Britain’s defence industry was forced to conclude that it could not “quantify
the net security gains” from export-driven relationships such as the UK’s relationship
with Saudi Arabia.
However, even if these doubts did not exist, the argument
that a UK ally should receive unwavering support in the face of accusations of
war crimes deserves further scrutiny. As with the jobs argument, the
implication of this position is that the lives of those thousands of civilians
who have been killed by the Saudi-led coalition are somehow less important than
the lives of people in the UK, who must be protected from the threat of
terrorism at any cost.
It is likely that the MPs who spoke in defence of Saudi
Arabia’s importance as an ally would want to distance themselves from that
position. But the shameful reality is that parliament’s refusal to suspend its
support for Riyadh gives exactly that message. And in doing so it shines an
uncomfortable light on an assumption that lies at the heart of the UK’s current
approach to security – that the security of people in this country is a supreme
imperative, to which the needs of others can be legitimately subordinated.
In May 2016, the Ammerdown Group published a discussion paper, Rethinking Security, which offered a critique of the UK’s current approach to security. It
pointed out that the problem with UK security lies in the dominant narrative
about what security means, whom it should benefit, and how it should be
achieved. It argued that this narrative privileges UK national security over
the security of people elsewhere, rather than recognising security as a common
right; that it aims to advance ‘national interests’ defined by the
political establishment, including corporate business interests and UK ‘world
power’ status, and so dissociates the practice of security from the needs of
people in their communities, and that it assumes a short-term outlook.
The
parliamentary debate last week is a stark illustration of the pervasive
nature of this narrative, and its impact on the critical political decisions of
the day. Shamefully, it is the people of Yemen who will pay the price for this
approach, unless and until we challenge these assumptions and make a compelling
case for a new approach to security, that can better meet the needs of all
people, whether they live in the Middle East or the UK.