In the midst of Middle East conflict, liberal democracies have been quick to condemn violence and human rights violations perpetrated against increasingly horrific numbers of civilians. In Yemen, the humanitarian crisis continues to escalate as Saudi Arabia insists its air strikes are legal and consistent with international law. On this premise, the UK has continued to provide the dictatorship with military arms, accompanied by U.S. endorsement of Saudi action in Yemen. However, on January 17th, a Yemeni hospital whose coordinates were provided to the Saudi Arabian government was directly hit during airstrikes, calling into question the legality of international policy towards Yemen amid cries of international war crimes.
The UK has maintained close relations with Saudi Arabia for decades, and since the 1960s the dictatorship has been a major buyer of UK arms. Saudi Arabia, which has been conducting military operations in Yemen since March 2015, is widely criticized for oppression of women and has held mass beheadings in recent months. Its main focus in Yemen is the reinstatement of President Abdu Rabu Mansour Hadi, in the face of rebel forces. Yet this goal neglects to tackle the deeper political and humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and the human rights and international law violations conducted by Saudi Arabia appear numerous. While maintaining its position as the biggest buyer of UK arms, Saudi Arabia began bombing Yemen with tactics that have been accused of purposely, and illegally, targeting horrifically high numbers of civilians. The UN reported that an estimated 21.2 million people in Yemen, 82% of the population, now require some form of humanitarian protection or assistance. Yet regardless of the moral and political arguments against countries supporting Saudi Arabia, the legal restrictions surrounding UK arms deals have been disobeyed on all domestic, European, and International levels.
Domestically, the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has proposed legal action against the UK government with regards to arms sales worth £5.6 billion to Saudi Arabia since David Cameron became Prime Minister. Amnesty International argued the UK ‘fueled this … conflict through reckless arms sales which break its own laws.’ The UK has insisted the legality of its actions, yet its own Committee on Arms Export Controls has not met since before Saudi Arabia began airstrikes last March. The UK has also heavily emphasized that it is aware of no certain evidence of criminality, ignoring the provisions within its laws for the potential of arms sold being used in war crimes, a potential clear within Saudi Arabia. As far back as August 2015 for example, there are reports of the direct bombings of schools that were still in use. The fact that some were directly hit on more than one occasion implies their status as a target.
Wider European legal standards also suggest illegality in the UK’s actions. Within Article Two of the EU Common Council’s position on arms sales, the criteria for arms export licenses require ‘respect for human rights in the country of final destination as well as respect by that country of international humanitarian law’, a requirement undoubtedly violated by Saudi Arabia given the domestic situation and consequences for the vast majority of Yemeni citizens. In response to the humanitarian needs in Yemen, the European Union reported recommendations in 2015 for the region including investing in civil institutions and the legal structures in order to re-establish peace and law of order, action far from the supply of missiles being pursued by the UK. The British Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, has insisted there is no evidence of humanitarian law violations within Yemen, while the EU gave €37 million in humanitarian aid to the country in 2015.
Internationally, many have accused Saudi Arabia of committing numerous war crimes, and therefore the US of supporting a regime carrying out such crimes, and the UK of supplying them with the resources to do so. Amnesty International claim to have knowledge of at least four incidents where air strikes in Yemen have been targeted at domestic households that had no evidence or suggestion of being used for military purposes, a clear crime against innocent civilians and against International Humanitarian Laws. The United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has personally called for a cease-fire in the region due to humanitarian catastrophe. Furthermore, the UN has attempted on numerous occasions to help negotiate the end of fighting, but have been hindered by the failure of involved parties to maintain such a ceasefire, while the US Secretary of State John Kerry has declared US support for Saudi Arabia in 2016. The Arms Trade Treaty 2014, signed by the UK and US, states arms should not be sold by a state if they have knowledge that they will be used for crimes against humanity, attacks on civilians or any other form of war crime. The UN states ‘Indiscriminate attacks constitute war crimes, as are attacks on civilians or civilian objects, such as airports...similar considerations apply to air strikes and any other means of combat.’ The targeting of innocent civilians is therefore also a grave breach of the Geneva Convention 1949, and the supply of arms to those who do so is a direct violation of the International Arms Trade Treaty.
Beyond selling arms to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Foreign Minister and Ministry of Defense have confirmed British military advisors are in control rooms advising and assisting in the bombing raids across Yemen. From a domestic UK perspective, the presence of direct UK assistance in Yemen without internal debate is in itself abhorrent. Moreover, from an international standpoint, any further increase in British military cooperation could directly incriminate the UK in not only resourcing the arms used, but instigating and authorizing tactics that break humanitarian law. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has gone further than accusations around Saudi Arabia, reporting that the UK government has sold arms to 24 of the 27 countries where its own estimates have implied the presence of wider humanitarian concerns. The CAAT suggest just North Korea, Cuba and Iran from the list have not been involved in UK arms trade, three countries with a large media rhetoric and debate with regards to their perceived threat to other’s national security. A threat posed by Saudi Arabia however has not been suggested, and hence the selling of arms to them much less reported, discussed or objected to.
In 2013, UK Prime Minister David Cameron strongly advocated for the Arms Trade Treaty, arguing it would save lives and ease human suffering globally. But, he cannot choose to excuse suffering solely because it provides economic gain. At a time when threats to innocent civilians derive from a variety of sources, and the question of national security and citizen safety is high on the agenda, Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen, and the UK and US’s support of those actions, cannot go unquestioned. Western democracies have been quick to condemn others aiding and creating civilian deaths and humanitarian crises globally, while benefitting illegally from aiding Saudi Arabia to do just that. Western foreign policy, particularly towards regions in humanitarian crisis is legally unacceptable, and has reached unprecedented levels of hypocrisy.