MPs to investigate use of British weapons by Saudi Arabia in Yemen 'humanitarian disaster'

The Committee on Arms Export Control has launched an inquiry into whether export controls have been broken

MPs have launched an investigation whether British-made arms are being used by Saudi Arabian forces in a widely-criticised military campaign in Yemen.

The Committee on Arms Export Control will probe whether export control rules have been broken – after the United Nations warned of a “humanitarian disaster” and widespread attacks on civilians in the assault.

The inquiry will “examine if weapons manufactured in the UK have been used by the Royal Saudi Armed Forces in Yemen, if any arms export licence criteria have been infringed and discuss what action should be taken in such cases,”
the committee says.

Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen's schools, Amnesty International claims

Minsters have confirmed they have signed off the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia but say the Saudi Arabians have assured them they are not committing war crimes using British equipment.

Aid group Médecins Sans Frontières have accused Saudi Arabia of bombing multiple hospitals, while others have warned of deadly strikes on weddings and schools.

In a three-month period late last year figures released by the business department showed the sales of bombs and munitions to Saudi Arabia by British firms had increased from £9 million to over £1 billion.

All arms exports from the UK are actively sanctioned by the Government, which issues licenses for deals after scrutinising them.

In December last year the Government was threatened with legal action by campaigners and lawyers for not blocking the flow of guns and bombs to the region.

Lawyers at law firm Leigh Day said it was likely the weapons were being used to “commit serious breaches of international humanitarian law”.


Prime Minister David Cameron speaking to BAE Systems employees in Preston

The European Parliament is the latest body to call for a full arms embargo on Saudi Arabia, following MPs on the House of Commons International Development Committee who also backed a suspension of sales.

The Campaign Against the Arms Trade welcomed the MPs’ inquiry and said the sale of weapons “should not have been allowed in the first place”.

“It is one of the most repressive regimes in the world and has unleashed a humanitarian catastrophe on Yemen, yet it has enjoyed uncritical political and military support from the UK,” Andrew Smith, of CAAT, said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-to-investigate-use-of-british-weapons-by-saudi-arabia-in-yemen-humanitarian-disaster-a6922836.html

Court condemns Blair for halting Saudi arms inquiry

Tony Blair's government broke the law when it abandoned a fraud investigation into a multibillion-pound arms deal between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia, the High Court ruled yesterday.

Two senior judges condemned the Government's "abject" surrender to a "blatant" threat when the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) halted its inquiry into allegations that BAE had made secret payments to Saudi officials in order to secure a series of massive contracts. BAE has always denied any wrongdoing.

Calling on Gordon Brown to hold a public inquiry into the affair, jubilant campaigners demanded the fraud investigation into the £50bn Al-Yamamah deal to sell Tornado and Hawk jets to the Saudis be restarted.

Mr Blair faced controversy in December 2006 when Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, announced the investigation had been dropped. Mr Blair warned at the time that threats had been received which indicated that continuing the inquiry would put British lives at risk.

But yesterday, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan said that the SFO director, Robert Wardle, had failed to stand up to threats from the Saudis.

They said: "The director was required to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been done to resist the threat. He has failed to do so."

The judgment added: "No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. It is the failure of government and the defendant to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court."

The judges added: "On 11 December 2006, the Prime Minister said this was the clearest case for intervention in the public interest he had seen. We agree."

Disagreeing with the Government's argument that the SFO was entitled to "surrender" to the threat, the judges said: "So bleak a picture of the impotence of the law invites at least dismay, if not outrage." They were scathing about the SFO's line that the decision to halt the inquiry was taken independently of the Government. "The more the defendant stresses that he reached a conclusion free from pressure imposed by the UK Government, the more he demonstrates the inconsistency in submitting to pressure applied by the government of a foreign state," the judges ruled.

The no-holds-barred judgment sparked joy last night among the arms trade campaigners who had taken the case to the High Court.
Demanding that the SFO restart its investigation, Symon Hill, of the Campaign Against the Arms Trade which brought the action with the pressure group Corner House, said: "We hope the SFO will reopen the inquiry and we call on Gordon Brown and his government not to stand in the way."

He added: "We are delighted. This judgment brings Britain a step closer to the day when BAE is no longer calling the shots. It has been clear from the start that the dropping of the investigation was about neither national security nor jobs. It was due to the influence of BAE and Saudi princes over the UK Government."

The judgment could require the SFO to reconsider its decision to call off the inquiry although the department is thought likely to appeal. An SFO spokeswoman said: "The SFO are carefully considering the implications of the judgment and the way forward. No further comment at this stage." Downing Street also declined to comment.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, demanded a full inquiry into the decision to abandon the SFO investigation and warned that the Government's decision had done "untold damage" to Britain's standing.
He said: "This investigation was blocked supposedly to protect our security, but it looks increasingly like it was done to protect BAE sales by appeasing the Saudi government.

"There is now a pressing need for a full inquiry into the SFO's decision to end the investigation and what pressure was brought to bear by the Government."

BAE said: "The case was between two campaign groups and the director of the SFO. It concerned the legality of a decision made by the director of the SFO. BAE Systems played no part in that decision."

Timeline


1985 – Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher agrees first phase of Al-Yamamah arms deal with the Saudi government.
1987 - British Aerospace (later BAE Systems) delivers first aircraft to the Saudis.
1988 – The governments sign the second stage of the deal.
1992 - National Audit Office investigates contract, but its report is never published.
2003 - Allegations surface that BAE paid bribes to senior Saudis through a secret slush fund. The company denies the claims.
2004 – BAE confirms the Serious Fraud Office is investigating its dealings with the Saudis.
2005 - Provisional agreement to supply Saudi Arabia with Eurofighter Typhoon jets is announced by BAE.
1 December 2006 – BAE Systems warns that talks with the Saudis are dragging over the Eurofighter. Its French competitor, Dassault, discloses it is talking to the Saudis over the sale of a rival jet, the Rafale.
8 December 2006 – Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, provokes outrage when he announces the SFO probe is being dropped. Tony Blair is said to be behind the move after persuading the SFO the investigation is threatening national security and "British lives on British streets".

September 2007 - Saudi Arabia and the UK agree a deal for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets.
Yesterday – SFO's decision to halt its investigation ruled unlawful in the High Court.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/court-condemns-blair-for-halting-saudi-arms-inquiry-807793.html

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well didge...that may be your opinion...but you are wrong , morally AND legally,,,

we CAN investigate and SHOULD investigate....

Morally, based on what parameters and evidence?

Some lefties who have no military experience and see some dead people, and claim its a war crime?
Not then knowing if a target was hit by mistake, as happened in Afghanistan with also a hospital, recently prior to this by the Americans off bad intelligence.
That means the intention was not deliberate but a mistake
That is not a war crime
So legally and more so on the Rules of engagement you are again presuming guilt based off no evidence  just dead civilians

nope...I presuming potential guilt....

The point is not on whether we should investigate but how can we investigate

thats for the diplomats and higher ups to decide....its kinda what we pay em for...
The other point is on if they have committed war crimes, how they can you make a case on legality in hindsight to the sale of arms, which is absurd

never mind the historic sales...they are done and gone...UNLESS it can be shown that the govt "knew or reasonably could have forseen" (i think is the term) that they would be so misused......

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:

Morally, based on what parameters and evidence?

Some lefties who have no military experience and see some dead people, and claim its a war crime?
Not then knowing if a target was hit by mistake, as happened in Afghanistan with also a hospital, recently prior to this by the Americans off bad intelligence.
That means the intention was not deliberate but a mistake
That is not a war crime
So legally and more so on the Rules of engagement you are again presuming guilt based off no evidence  just dead civilians

nope...I presuming potential guilt....

The point is not on whether we should investigate but how can we investigate

thats for the diplomats and higher ups to decide....its kinda what we pay em for...
The other point is on if they have committed war crimes, how they can you make a case on legality in hindsight to the sale of arms, which is absurd

never mind the historic sales...they are done and gone...UNLESS it can be shown that the govt "knew or reasonably could have forseen" (i think is the term) that they would be so misused......

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


errrmmm never claimed any racism

Making a racial argument does not mean you are being racist

Or are you claiming it does?

uhm......

Did I say racist argument or racial argument

Take your time

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:

Did I say racist argument or racial argument

Take your time

read the bit in blue

then the two quotes I extracted....

Lord Foul wrote:same difference didge...no politicians wriggle here matey....

 

Didge wrote:Oh I see your point on an error in typing lol

Is that it ha ha

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:same difference didge...no politicians wriggle here matey....

You know this should have read

Never did I say you are making a racist argument


Scraping the barrel Victor and very desperate to do so when you know that is how it should have read


If you want to claim some hollow victory on that, be my guest, I will just laugh mate


 

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


You know this should have read

Never did I say you are making a racist argument


Scraping the barrel Victor and very desperate to do so when you know that is how it should have read


If you want to claim some hollow victory on that, be my guest, I will just laugh mate


 

I'm not a mind reader

Lord Foul wrote:Well I would expect that the people complaining would be asked for their perspective as well...thats kinda normal in any investigation and the evidence they present judged......

as will be the frequency of any such claimed attacks etc....

I'm not suggesting barging in and giving the saudi head of armed forces the third degree.....

investigations can be subtle you know......

and yes...we know accidents happen.....that should not blind us to the fact that some regimes are less than enthusiastic about human rights or international law...Or that all regimes have their own agenda in the pot also....

mistakes are one thing...wilful blindness entirely another...

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Well I would expect that the people complaining would be asked for their perspective as well...thats kinda normal in any investigation and the evidence they present judged......

as will be the frequency of any such claimed attacks etc....

I'm not suggesting barging in and giving the saudi head of armed forces the third degree.....

investigations can be subtle you know......

and yes...we know accidents happen.....that should not blind us to the fact that some regimes are less than enthusiastic about human rights or international law...Or that all regimes have their own agenda in the pot also....

mistakes are one thing...wilful blindness entirely another...

Under Didge's process for establishing war crimes, Gadaffi, Saadam and Mugabi would have to have been involved in investigations before any war crimes could be proved against them or their country. That is exactly what he is saying. until that should happen they are innocent lol

Could a pass you an aspirin Vic, bashing your head against the brick wall of NPD must have given you a headache.

sassy wrote:Ah, but it's so much fun, and the truth!

sassy wrote:The UK can stop exports to any country any time they like and they don't need the banned country to cooperate in any investigation to do so

Diversified industrials e-briefing: UK withdraws five Egyptian export licences

http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Industrial_engineering/UK_withdraws_five_Egyptian_export_licences_130723


EU stops weapons exports to Egypt
The EU's foreign ministers have reacted to the ongoing bloodshed in Egypt with a joint resolution: no more weapons exports to the North African country. And they repeated the demand for talks.

http://m.dw.com/en/eu-stops-weapons-exports-to-egypt/a-17038063



Now obviously they must do the same to Saudi.



Plus we never asked Gadaffi for his side of the story before bombing them so we must be guilty of conspiracy to murder him. Don't recall a trial, or even an investigation, do you Vic?

Lord Foul wrote:

sassy wrote:The UK can stop exports to any country any time they like and they don't need the banned country to cooperate in any investigation to do so

Diversified industrials e-briefing: UK withdraws five Egyptian export licences

http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Industrial_engineering/UK_withdraws_five_Egyptian_export_licences_130723


EU stops weapons exports to Egypt
The EU's foreign ministers have reacted to the ongoing bloodshed in Egypt with a joint resolution: no more weapons exports to the North African country. And they repeated the demand for talks.

http://m.dw.com/en/eu-stops-weapons-exports-to-egypt/a-17038063



Now obviously they must do the same to Saudi.



Plus we never asked Gadaffi for his side of the story before bombing them so we must be guilty of conspiracy to murder him. Don't recall a trial, or even an investigation, do you Vic?

I think THAT is rather the point...the CHOICE is down to us.....

yea or nay we have the ability to decide.......we are not bounden to provide these toys....

sassy wrote:Vic dear, I will refrain for a week and see what happens with him, because nobody has punished him in any way for what he said.  Just for you.

The arms control committee’s chairman, Chris White, the Conservative MP for Warwick and Leamington, said: “The defence and security industry is one of the UK’s most important exporters. However, it is vital that its financial success does not come at a cost to the nation’s strategic interests.

“We have launched this inquiry to understand what role UK-made arms are playing in the ongoing conflict in Yemen. Have the criteria set by the government for granting arms export licences in the region been respected, and what should be the consequences if they have not?”


He said the committee was also likely to look at the role of the Department for International Development in sanctioning arms sales. It has emerged that DfID was not consulted on the arms sales to Saudi Arabia, even though it has a major aid programme in Yemen. DfID is only consulted on arms licences if it has an aid programme in the affected country.

The high court case brought by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) calls for the government to suspend all current export licences and refuse all new licences to Saudi Arabia where it is possible the weapons could be used in Yemen, while the business secretary, Sajid Javid, reviews whether the sales are legal.

Under UK arms sales rules, export licences should not be granted if there is a “clear risk” that such equipment could be used to break international humanitarian law. Licensing is overseen by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

CAAT’s legal case against the British government says that bodies including the UN panel of experts, the European parliament and humanitarian NGOs have all found that the Saudi-led coalition has failed to comply with international humanitarian law by taking “all precautions” to prevent civilian harm.

Andrew Smith of CAAT said the UK had “stood shoulder to shoulder” with the Saudi government throughout its campaign in Yemen. “Despite overwhelming evidence that Saudi Arabia has breached international humanitarian law, the government has continued to license arms exports to the regime, making a mockery of its own legislation,” he said.
“The licences should never have been awarded in the first place, and if arms export controls are worth the paper they are printed on, then the government must finally stop arming Saudi Arabia.”

Rosa Curling of the law firm Leigh Day, which is representing CAAT, said: “If there is a clear risk that arms exported from the UK might be used to violate international humanitarian law, the UK has a legal obligation not to grant licences for the export of military equipment and arms … The UK government must not allow itself to be caught up in the appalling actions that are taking place by the Saudi coalition forces in Yemen.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/10/uk-arms-sales-saudi-arabia-inquiry-yemen-bombing-human-rights

Lord Foul wrote:Well I would expect that the people complaining would be asked for their perspective as well...thats kinda normal in any investigation and the evidence they present judged......

as will be the frequency of any such claimed attacks etc....

I'm not suggesting barging in and giving the saudi head of armed forces the third degree.....

investigations can be subtle you know......

and yes...we know accidents happen.....that should not blind us to the fact that some regimes are less than enthusiastic about human rights or international law...Or that all regimes have their own agenda in the pot also....

mistakes are one thing...wilful blindness entirely another...

nicko wrote:The difference is they will get them what ever our Government does.