Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) welcomes the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC), released today, on its overview of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) human rights work in 2011. CAAT has consistently focused attention on UK arms sales to the repressive regimes in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Libya. While the report examines important questions and made recommendations on all three countries, we feel that their impact will be limited.
Contradictions between arms sales and human rights – The report calls for the government to acknowledge the contradictions in its business policy on arms sales and human rights and to explain its judgments on how far to balance the two in particular cases.
While CAAT would welcome greater transparency we do not believe that it would result in significant changes in government policy. CAAT believes that the two aims are irreconcilable and that the UK should immediately stop all weapons sales to abusive regimes.
Priority markets – In written evidence to the FAC, CAAT had outlined the position of Saudi Arabia as the major customer for UK arms sales in the region, despite its dreadful human rights record and its military intervention in Bahrain in March 2011, using British-made Tactica armoured vehicles. CAAT also expressed dismay that Libya was reinstated on the priority market list despite the upheavals of 2011 and the continuing instability in the country.
The report noted that both Saudi Arabia and Libya were classified as priority markets
for arms exports by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), despite being listed as countries of concern
in the FCO Human Rights Report. It stated that there should be greater information sharing between ministers in BIS and the FCO on the list of priority markets. CAAT believes that the real problem is government promotion of arms sales and is disappointed that the report did not address this question.
Bahrain – The report noted that Bahrain was not listed as a country of concern
despite its appalling human rights record and suppression of democratic protest. CAAT welcomes the report recommendation that Bahrain should be classified as a country of concern
.
In February 2011, in response to the Bahrain government’s brutal repression of protest, the UK government revoked 44 arms licences. However, by June arms sales had resumed. On 10 October 2012 the UK signed a new defence agreement with Bahrain. This will inevitably result in even closer military cooperation and further arms sales.
Kaye Stearman of CAAT says:
It is good to see the fact that the report has signaled major concerns about the UK’s political and military relationship with these three countries – Saudi Arabia, Libya and Bahrain – and the contradiction between the UK Government policy of supposedly supporting human rights in the region while promoting arms sales. We urge the FAC to continue to question the Government on arms sales to repressive regimes.
ENDS
For further information please contact CAAT’s Media Coordinator, Kaye Stearman on 020 7281 0297 or mobile 07990 673232 or email media(at)caat·org·uk.
Notes
- Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) in the UK works to end the international arms trade. The arms business has a devastating impact on human rights and society and damages economic development. Large-scale military procurement and arms exports only reinforce a militaristic approach to international problems. Around 75% of CAAT’s income is raised from individual supporters. In 2012, CAAT was awarded a Right Livelihood Award, the
alternative Nobel Prize
for its “innovative and effective campaigning against the arms trade. - The Foreign Affairs Committee report can be found here.
- The FAC report Recommendation and Conclusions 13 states: It is inevitable that the UK will have interests which have the potential to conflict with its human rights values: these interests might, for instance, be strategic, commercial or security-related. In pursuing these alongside its human rights work overseas, the UK runs the risk of operating double standards, and our view is that it would be in the Government’s interest for it to be more transparent in this respect and for Ministers to be bolder in acknowledging that there will be contradictions. Rather than trying to assert that the two can co-exist freely, part of the Government’s role should be publicly to set out and explain its judgments on how far to balance them in particular cases, having taken into account the need to adapt policy according to local circumstances and developments.
- The FAC report Report Paragraph 113 states: We were surprised however to discover that the FCO Minister responsible for human rights appeared not to have been consulted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the list of priority markets for forthcoming arms exports, and that the overlap between priority market countries and
countries of concern
was not brought to his attention. We believe that it should have been, and steps should be taken to prevent such lapses in the sharing of information on arms exports between Ministers.
