Tag: drones

Government deceit concerning arms exports


Research reveals arms sold to Israel for re-export never were

April 2026

Selling arms carries with it the risk that they will be used not for legitimate purposes of defence but for illegal or offensive actions and the killing of innocent people. They can contribute to the tens of millions of displaced people and refugees who flee persecution or civil wars. As a member of the Security Council and a major exporter of arms, the UK has a particular responsibility to ensure arms go to where they are intended and do not end up in the hands of countries or parties engaged in civil wars or insurrection.

The UK is seriously falling down in this duty and arguably, knows it to be the case. It seems more concerned with boosting exports and less interested in where or with whom the weapons end up. In a previous post we commented on the weak controls on arms sales to the UAE which evidence strongly suggest end up in the hands of Sudanese rebels, the RSF. in this post we discuss evidence of arms sales to Israel being used on the Golan Heights illegally occupied by Israel since 1967.

Both are aspects of the same problem: weapons supposedly going to a friendly power being sent on to one which isn’t or are being misused. The evidence seems to suggest a lack of control or curiosity by government and civil servants. In both cases the weapons have caused a huge number of deaths and injury.

Re-export loophole

The Campaign Against the Arms Trade and Declassified UK have unearthed some shady practice concerning weapons sales to Israel. A £120 million transaction involving components was concluded for arms to go to Israel for onward export to Romania. Only they didn’t. The licences were for Watchkeeper drone (pictured) components by Elbit Systems, the Israeli arms company with plants in the UK. Elbit then quietly, they suggest, repeatedly issued a force majeure clause thus preventing the component leaving Israel. [The Declassified report also discusses the issue of waste which is outside our human rights brief].

CAAT and Declassified wrote to the Business and Trade sub-Committee on Economic Security and Export Controls asking for an investigation. Their work has revealed that the UK has zero ‘end-use monitoring’ allowing arms companies to divert weapons with near impunity. The government still claims it has ‘robust monitoring’ in place which seems utterly absurd and at variance with the evidence.

Following these investigations, Romania has threatened to cancel a $400m contract with Elbit Systems whereupon Elbit says it will begin delivery. Can they be trusted?

It seems clear that UK controls on sales are lax or almost non-existent. The lack of end-user monitoring and issuing open licences means arms end up almost anywhere. The desire to sustain arms sales and the UK’s arms industry seems to trump issues of humanity and the death and destruction that these weapons cause. Claims of robust controls are absurd and dishonest.

1

Drone attacks to be scrutinised


It is reported today that the government’s use of drones to kill people overseas is to be reviewed by the Human Rights Committee.  This is welcome news.  Clearly, ISIS is an unpleasant organisation and is acting in a brutal and uncivilised way.

When it was revealed that a drone was used to kill two people in Raqqa in August, David Cameron said it was done as an act of ‘self defence’.  Quite how someone in Syria was a threat to the UK was not explained and seemed very unlikely.

Earlier this week is was reported that the government was removing adherence to international treaties from the ministerial code.  It is these treaties which prevent use of force without UN sanction or because there is a genuine need for purposes of self defence.

The Raqqa attack was the first case in the modern era that such an attack took place in a country with whom we were not at war.  Caroline Lucas – the Green party MP – was reported as saying the use of a drone in this case was done ‘with a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny or approval.’

We look forward to some serious questions being asked of ministers.

0

Government plans to modify the Ministerial Code


Government plans ‘seriously concerning’

Plans by the Conservative Government to modify the Ministerial Code are ‘seriously concerning’ according to Rights Watch.

The ministerial code issued in 2010 says;

Overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life

The plan is to omit from the new code including international law and treaty obligations.  Phillippe Sands QC, a professor of law at University College London described the changes as ‘shocking’.  The government claim that this is merely a matter of simplification.

Why it matters

It matters because of the promise by the Conservatives in their text blockmanifesto to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with the British Bill of Rights a draft of which has yet to see the light of day.  Removing the international law will reduce the respect for judgements by international courts such as the European Court in Strasbourg.

Another aspect is that going to war and the use of things like drones are covered by international treaty and the UN Charter and not by UK laws.  Removing the international element therefore leaves ministers free to use this kind of weaponry unfettered.

In 2014, the government – then in coalition – wanted to remove what was termed an ‘ambiguity’ in the rules.  This has now been changed to simplification.

An observer of these events was Paul Jenkins who was a Treasury solicitor and he witnessed the intense irritation felt by the Prime Minister over our need to comply with foreign legal obligations.  This was largely in connection with the arguments over prisoner voting but the prolonged tussle over Abu Qatada was also likely to have been an irritant as well.

In a letter to the Guardian, the former legal adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Frank Berman QC said ‘it was impossible not to feel a sense of disbelief at what must have been the deliberate suppression of the reference to international law.’

What is troubling about these changes is that they have to be seen in context.  We have restrictions on Freedom of Information; reductions in the ability of people to receive legal aid; court charges; and the threat to the Human Rights Act.  We will soon have the ‘snooper’s charter’ which will enable the security services to eavesdrop communications however they wish.

All these changes add up to an assault on the ability of individuals to hold the executive to account.  Ministers were quick to celebrate the anniversary of Magna Carta when it suited them but now seem keen to reduce freedoms wherever they can.

Sources: The Guardian; Rights Watch; the BBC; Financial Times; Daily Mail

UPDATE

Further responses and condemnation of this change in the code

British Institute of Human Rights warning

4

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑